East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson famously once said, “We are the most transparent.” His point, of course, was that Town Hall during his tenure, in his view, has been going above and beyond the open-government mandate. Perhaps in one sense, if not the one intended, what he said was perfectly true: However loud the clamor and din in local politics, it has always been easy to discern the ideology-before-constituents philosophy behind much of what Mr. Wilkinson does. His motives and beliefs have never been obscured.

    But we certainly hope the next town board, when they are sworn in come January, will try rather harder to make East Hampton Town leadership (across party lines) more upfront about what they are actually doing, and that they will honestly dedicate themselves to compliance with the state Freedom of Information Law.

    For the past several weeks, we have been writing about some of the yardsticks by which the respective East Hampton nominating committees might evaluate prospective candidates. As the tops of the tickets appear to be solidifying, voters will want to keep tabs on where the hopefuls stand on the big-ticket items: sea-level rise, the rule of law, civility, and the principle of allowing town employees to do their jobs free of political interference. Then, as suggested above, comes the issue of open government: Will a candidate ensure that policy-making is done in the public view, and that the wishes of taxpayers and residents are taken into better consideration?

    Consider these areas of concern, from the past few years, relating to open government: Freedom of Information requests unanswered; a code enforcement department that refuses to share details about its day-to-day performance; last-minute circulation of board agendas; hasty and ill-thought-out mass-gathering approvals, and precipitous, highly charged “walk-on” resolutions at town meetings.

    As for listening-to-the-public problems, consider: the elimination of leaf pickup, the putative sale of Fort Pond House in Montauk, the lunatic notion of down-zoning the seasonally out-of-control bar crowd at Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague, and the airport decision, which affects thousands of residents across four townships.

    Government in the United States, particularly at the town and village level, is a cooperative and collaborative undertaking between elected leaders and those they lead. Have you attended an East Hampton Town Board meeting (or watched one on LTV) in recent years? They are, in our opinion, a prime example of how not to cooperate and collaborate. November’s office-seekers need to do more than simply mouth the phrases “open government,” “commitment to transparency,” and “respect for constituents.”

   Last week we wrote that a prerequisite for office-seekers in the November election must be a demonstrated ability to be civil. This week we would like to bring attention to climate change and sea-level rise.

    At this point all but a narrowing fringe agree that climate change is a pressing danger, especially in coastal communities like ours. Erosion, already a fact of life along these shores, is predicted to accelerate over time. The number and intensity of storms are expected to rise as well, putting Long Island at increased risk of catastrophe.

    One can argue about the causes and number of degrees the global temperature is likely to rise, but the fact remains that the vast preponderance of climate scientists agree that the threat is real — and coming fast.

    To some degree, state and federal governments have begun to act and have come up with recommendations. However, at the local level, at which most land-use decisions are made, the response has been unsatisfactory. Elected and appointed officials in both East Hampton and Southampton Towns have generally clung to outdated line-in-the-sand approaches, hoping they can hold back the sea. Even now policies are being made in the absence of expert advice and boards are simply going along with those who have vested interest in a particular outcome. Answering the challenges ahead will require much more.

    As local nominating committees consider candidates for the November elections, they should agree to put forward those with a demonstrable grasp of the science underlying global warming. Leaders must ignore the clouded thinking of the conspiracists who deny it. Also important will be the candidates’ willingness to work with the best available people to prepare the region for the long haul. Political hopefuls who do not articulate sound vision for meeting this massive challenge will not be worthy of voter support.

   Just over 10 years ago this week, we wrote on this page that the Bush administration’s push toward an invasion of Iraq might do more to harm the cause of world peace than advance it. History has borne out the fears of many (if far too few in national positions of authority or in control of major media) that the war was unjustified, unwise, and a waste of untold lives. And now, as the Obama White House continues its infatuation with unmanned drones, killing not just terrorists but United States citizens and unarmed noncombatants, it is worth remembering that violence begets more violence.

    In the Feb. 13, 2003, issue of this newspaper we wrote: “If the objective is to assert power in the oil-rich region and remake the Arab world in our image, then invasion may be necessary. Given that the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda presented by [Colin] Powell was speculative, terrorism cannot be a justification for putting our troops at risk, increasing the threat to other Mideast countries, and killing Iraqi civilians . . . it now seems nearly impossible that war, with its attendant carnage and regional destabilization, will be avoided.”

    We, and those who shared this view, were right in the end. The Iraq war has been decried as the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history. One thing we were wrong about, however, was a hope that the war might be over quickly. Our last major troop deployments in Iraq ended in late 2011, but the havoc caused continues on. Whether we as a nation learned anything at all remains impossible to gauge.

   With a strongly worded letter from the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee, the East Hampton Town Board cannot now assume that a plan to make a host of legal problems disappear at Cyril’s Fish House on Napeague — and allow the seasonally overcrowded business to grow — has much, if any, public support. Nonetheless, the board is set to go ahead with a public hearing tonight on an ill-advised scheme to downzone the parcel on which the bar and restaurant sits and an undeveloped lot next door from a residential to business classification. Its only evident backer is Tina Piette, a prominent Amagansett lawyer formerly active with the town Republican Party.

    The town code is unequivocal: Nonconforming businesses like Cyril’s, which predate the adoption of zoning, are allowed to continue as long as they are not expanded. Strict review is supposed to be triggered when anything requiring a building permit is proposed for such properties, though in practice, the town has failed on many occasions to hold owners to that. In the case of Cyril’s, town records show more than a dozen structures added to the site without approval. By one count, as many as 26 zoning variances would be needed only to bring what already has been done there into legal compliance.

    The big problem with Cyril’s is not simply that it has expanded illegally, or that its owners want it to grow even more, it is that the town code does not have adequate provisions to control how it functions in the real world. Of a sunny summer Saturday afternoon, hundreds of patrons mill around its gravel parking lot and within the state highway right-of-way as they try to elbow their way to the bar. Forget about the seats and the seafood menu; this is all about hanging out with friends over a Bailey’s or a cream daiquiri or two.

    By late afternoon, as people leave the beach, vehicles can stretch far down both sides of Montauk Highway. Passing drivers slow and stare in amazement as mostly young patrons work their way along the shoulders. Double and triple-parked taxis make conditions even more dangerous. By early morning, Cyril’s plastic drink cups remain as unsightly reminders of the last evening’s revelry.

    Instead of considering how to reward Cyril’s owners for mocking town laws, the town board should look for ways to curb the numbers of outdoor patrons such establishments can host at any one time. The last time this question came up, however, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley proposed a wildly generous outdoor occupancy calculation that would have made things worse by allowing one guest for every seven square feet of usable space. As many as 1,400 bodies would have been permitted on a quarter-acre lawn, for example.

    The Cyril’s Fish House proposition now before the town is without merit. Why the board even agreed to consider it is, frankly, a mystery.

   “Just hang in there, kiddo” was the parting shot from Supervisor Bill Wilkinson to wrap up a sharp-toned exchange with Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc at last Thursday’s East Hampton Town Board meeting. Unfortunately, this kind of puerile jab is all too frequent among the town’s elected leaders.

    Much of the blame must be placed with the acerbic Mr. Wilkinson, who sets the tone as the board’s titular head. But he is far from alone in pointless, time-wasting ire. His ally on the board, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, is no stranger to pointed barbs and facile dismissals, and the pair find eager sparring partners in Councilwoman Sylvia Overby and Councilman Van Scoyoc. To his credit, Councilman Dominick Stanzione appears to have supped from a different cup, rarely joining the fray — even in the face of direct affronts from Mr. Wilkinson or members of the public.

    True to form, on Tuesday, the bickering got out of hand. “I feel as if I’m in high school,” Councilwoman Overby said, to which Councilwoman Quigley responded, “I feel as if I’m in grammar school because that’s your level of intellect.”

    This may be good theater for town board watchers, but all the agita has real-world consequences. Absent basic courtesy among elected officials of the sort we were all supposedly taught as children, the town as a whole has suffered. Prospects for progress on even the most mundane issues is minimized. It is fair to say that if the board cannot resolve routine matters in a peaceable and effective way, there is little hope for resolution on truly difficult problems like East Hampton Airport, erosion, climate change, and water quality.

    As the local political committees narrow down their choices for the important town posts in play in the November election, they must put civility at the top of their list of qualifications. Much, if not all, of the rest will flow from the next town board’s willingness to work together.

   At East Hampton Town Hall these days, when you think you have seen it all, someone down there on Pantigo Road goes and does something really unexpected. This time it involves a dead whale, heavy equipment, and who pays the bill.

    When a 58-foot-long dead finback washed up on the Napeague beach on Jan. 13, it was a minor sensation. Crowds came for a look; the Riverhead Foundation red-jackets swooped in to give the leviathan a final exam. Then, Town Hall decided to have the fetid mass of bone and blubber cut up and carted away. Problem is, the $7,500 bill ended up being handed to the East Hampton Town Trustees, even though the trustees, a separate elected body, had apparently not been consulted about disposing the whale. The trustees were predictably surprised and upset.

    This comes at a moment when the trustees have brought suit against the town zoning board, seeking to reverse approval of a Lazy Point sea wall, which was backed by one of East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson’s closest political cronies. Could sending the bill to the trustees be payback? Ya think?

   As most anyone who has walked on the bay or ocean beaches here in the last week or so will attest, the past few decades’ development of our shoreline has finally, inevitably, run smack up against the almighty, eternal power of Mother Nature. That the challenges presented by the dual threats of intense coastal storms and rising sea level are daunting is an understatement. Dealing with the policy implications and the delicate balance between the public’s right to access the shore, the rights of private-property interests, and the interests of taxpayers will be incredibly difficult.

    As of this writing, details are few regarding a plan being prepared by an ad-hoc, volunteer committee for downtown Montauk. What has been said in public is that the Montauk oceanfront-hotel owners — very understandably desperate, and fighting for survival — want millions from the federal government’s Hurricane Sandy relief bill to build a sea wall, which would then supposedly be kept covered with sand paid for either through a special taxing district or in some form of public-private partnership.

    Making the notion of a Montauk wall appear tempting, however, is an estimated $750 million in post-Sandy money now set aside for the Army Corps of Engineers’ Fire Island to Montauk project. Though the corps has said that widening the beach and increasing the height of dunes may be the way to go, the funding from the relief bill will be spread over an 83-mile stretch — and will not last forever. At any rate, “hard” solutions, such as a wall or dune with a rock core, as may be in the so-far withheld committee plan, are not likely to gain regulatory approval anyway after the required environmental analysis is completed, so the sooner that idea is scrapped the better.

    Now, this wall-and-sand concept might work. But, then again, it might not. It will take better minds than ours — or those of any amateur — to determine if it would be the best choice. Which is why we believe the East Hampton Town Board, which chose the unpaid committee members, should immediately consult the very best academic and independent experts on coastal processes (and studiously avoid any of the snake-oil peddlers who now make a fine living from one scheme of “beach restoration” or another).

    Beyond Montauk, town agencies have, meanwhile, been handing out so-called emergency permits for work on private revetments and bulkheads at a rate that makes thorough environmental review of their impacts impossible.

    And then there are the town trustees, who are said to be looking into whether their authority has been usurped in some cases. It’s a mess, and no one appears to truly be in charge.

     Would condemning the shore-most row of Montauk structures and replacing them with a resilient dune line prove a more effective and beneficial plan for the future of that hamlet than building a wall? Until the experts are heard from, we just don’t know.

   After several weeks of deliberation, East Hampton Village officials are poised to further limit dogs on the ocean beaches between Georgica and Two Mile Hollow. At a recent meeting, the village board scheduled an April 19 hearing on a code amendment that would require people who bring dogs to the beach to keep them on leashes until they are at least 500 feet from the road-ends and parking lots during the hours when pets are allowed on the sand. The East Hampton Town Trustees, who technically govern the beaches between Wainscott and the western boundary of Montauk, were to have discussed the village’s proposal on Tuesday.

    At one point this winter, the village seemed likely to enact stricter measures, including further limiting the hours when dogs were permitted. Under the code as it stands, dogs and other animals cannot be on the beach between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. from mid-May through September. Village Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. was said to have briefly favored keeping dogs away until 8 p.m. in the summer months to protect evening picnickers from their nosy intrusions. However, the new leash law would accomplish the same objective.

    Keeping dogs under control and close to their owners is also likely to cut down on the feces left behind, either willfully by those who walk them or because dogs were out of sight when nature called. Also important is that the new restriction will reduce the chances that loose dogs could bound over to say hello to someone deathly afraid of them or even leap up on someone, an older person perhaps, without sound footing.

    For the time being, the leash rule would appear to satisfy both dog owners’ wishes to be able to take their charges to the beach and the desire of others not to have their sunbathing or lunchtime reveries interrupted. The measure deserves support, with the caveat that enforcement will be the key.

   Whether it is a petition in Montauk, pleading with the school board to increase the tax levy to keep class sizes small, or a parent uprising in East Hampton over the ouster of the elementary school principal, democracy in the districts is in good evidence this season, at least in the sense that the aggrieved have exercised their right to speak their minds. Not so among some school board members, who apparently think the position gives them the right, if not the obligation, to conduct important business in secret.

    In the matter of Gina Kraus, the well-liked principal of the John M. Marshall Elementary School, the East Hampton School Board president, George Aman, has repeatedly said  he cannot discuss the reasons behind a pending decision not to grant her tenure. His board, which is not alone in appearing to routinely stretch the state’s open government rules, may be stifled by a misperception that it is forbidden to say anything at all about Ms. Kraus or why she is apparently being returned to a teaching role. “It’s not that we are ignoring or not listening. It’s that we’re publicly forbidden to deal with these issues,” Mr. Aman said. But this, in short, is simply not true.

    According the New York State Committee on Open Government, records that are relevant to the performance of a public officer or employee (which Ms. Kraus certainly is) should be available. By this logic, factual details about Ms. Kraus pertaining to why she should not get tenure or remain on as principal must be disclosed. Put another way, records that shed light on her official duties are a matter of public interest and would not be an invasion of her privacy if shared. Under state law, a discussion of Ms. Kraus’s qualifications and performance can take place in an executive session portion of an otherwise open meeting, but the records and the facts on which the conversation may be based themselves are public.

    At a recent school board meeting, the East Hampton High School library was filled to overflowing with Ms. Kraus’s supporters. But, before they had a chance to speak, Mr. Aman and Richard Burns, the district superintendent, laid the ground rules: The audience could speak, but school officials would have nothing to say in response. Unfortunately, this left an untoward vacuum of the board’s and Mr. Burns’s making.

    There may be perfectly valid reasons for Ms. Kraus’s apparent demotion, but until the school board and the superintendent offer some clue about their thinking, suspicion and bitterness will linger.

   A milestone on the Congressional scene came to our attention recently: Loosely speaking, you can say the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives is majority minority. Of the 200 House Democrats, 147 were either African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, women, or gay. A Latino man, Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, heads the House Democratic Caucus.

    The 113th Congress is also the most diverse ever over all, with 81 black or Latino members, of which 74 are Democrats. There are 98 women in Congress, again, mostly Democrats, and 7 openly gay members, all Democrats. On the Republican side, much has been made of a few stars, notably Florida Senator Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants. But, counting numbers, Republicans are far whiter and more male than the Democrats, and they have work to do if they want to more closely reflect the composition of the country. But then again, so does Congress.

    Though the population of the United States is now more than a third minority, only 15 percent of the men and women in the two chambers identify themselves as other than non-Hispanic whites. Despite gains, women remain underrepresented, with only about 18 percent of the total in both Houses, even though they constituted about 51 percent of the national population in the 2010 Census.

    Locally, as Councilwoman Theresa Quigley pointed out in a February meeting of the East Hampton Town Board, there are few Latinos on any of the town’s appointed or elected boards. She put forward a Latino man and an African-American woman for positions on the licensing review board, but politics interfered and the nominations foundered. Whether these particular candidates were right for the posts we cannot say, but the general idea of getting more minority representation in Town Hall is an important one.

    As a whole, though, Americans can be proud of the progress in the House of Representatives and the example it sets for the rest of the nation.