This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable
subscribers.
Good evening and welcome to the East Hampton City Council meeting for August
12th, 2026. The meeting tonight is being recorded and broadcast by E Media on
Charter channel 193 and live streaming on their web page eastampton media.org.
Councilors and participants in this meeting are gathering hybrid on the
order extended until June 30th, 2027, allowing us to do so. I remind both the
members of city council and the public participating remotely to remain muted
until recognized by the city council vice president. Also for the members of
the public, please remove your camera for the duration of the meeting unless
you are participating in public speak time or the public hearing. Thank you.
This meeting is now called to order. Maryanne
» JP Quisinski >> here.
» Connie Denim. >> Tamara Smith
» here. >> Felicia Jazzik
» here. >> Tom Peak
» here. >> Jonathan Schmidt
» here. >> Amanda Newton
» here. >> Kaam Jamrock McQuade
» here. >> Nathan Marque
» here. >> All right. Um, I'm going to take a
motion to go ahead and open the public hearing.
» Second. >> All right. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those or actually we have to do a roll call vote. Marian.
» Yeah. Felicia Jazzic. >> Hi.
» JP Guinski. >> Hi.
» Tom Peak. >> Hi.
» Tamara Smith. >> I.
» Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi.
» Amanda Newton. >> Hi.
» Nathan Marquee. >> Hi.
» Cam Jamrock McUade. >> Hi.
» Connie Denham. Say that.
» All right. Motion passes. So, this public hearing is for an interdep
departmental transfer for an annual stipen for the licensing clerk. Um, and
as such, I'm going to turn it over to Chair Peak to introduce this.
» Thank you, Madam Vice President. Um, yes. So, this is an item to transfer
$1,200 from the reserve fund to the licensing board stipen. It's part of a
broader uh conversation that we've been having about that topic for a while, but
I'm kind of do my best to just stick with the matter at hand. Um so we met uh
and uh briefly discussed this uh at 5:15 uh that by we I mean the finance
committee or those of us who were who were present. So we voted two to zero uh
to recommend this to the full council. Um I think uh you know our our general
view is that whatever one's general feelings are about the
sort of the the broader discussion around stipens and uh salaries and when
what you know one is appropriate or the other that right now we're at a
situation where uh we need a licensing clerk and this is the fastest way to get
somebody into that position. And if we don't act, we're going to lose
a lot more money than what we're talking about here as a city. So, I felt I think
that I don't want to speak for my colleague, but my feeling that it was
it's a good idea for us to move forward on this tonight. Um, that's all that I
have to say on the subject. I do uh Mayor Derby is could not be present, but
did ask uh that somebody uh read a statement that he sent to us into the
record. Uh, and given that I'm chairing, I volunteered to do it. So, these are
uh, Mayor Derby's words. Um, members of the city council, I am submitting this
testimony in writing. I am unable to attend in person. I respectfully ask
that this be entered into the record. The licensing work is real. It has grown
and it deserves fair compensation. The licensing board's workload has increased
substantially with the growth in liquor licenses and the city anticipates eight
new alcohol licenses in the near future. The clerk prepares uh and processes
applications, coordinates with the ABCC, conducts site visits uh and manages
renewal season for dozens of licenses. Uh this is substantial ongoing work and
I agree with those who have said that it should be fairly compensated. Please see
the attached job description prepared uh by the former clerk, which I'm not going
to read the job description or the memo. I'm just going to read the cover page,
but you all got this. And if anyone wants to see it, I guess email us. Um
the stipend is the fiscally conservative structure of this function for this
function particularly in this budget year. A stipend of $2,400
compensates a discrete set of responsibilities that allows the board
to function at a cost far below a new salaried position or a permanent base
pay adjustment uh in a year when the city is asking departments to find
reductions. This is the responsible interim tool. uh it matches the cost uh
to the discrete scope of the work and preserves flexibility should the
workload change. Uh it is consistent with how the city compensates other
distinct functions and/or responsibilities that fall outside of a
position's base responsibilities. A stipend also preserves flexibility and
avoids unnecessary costs going forward. Structured as a stipen, this function
can be assigned to any qualified employee through a simple side letter.
By contrast, writing these duties into the base job description of an ASME
covered position would make the change a mandatory subject of collective
bargaining requiring formal negotiation and associated legal costs. The stipend
accomplishes the goal uh fairly compensating this discrete work and
keeping the function assignable uh by the more efficient and more fiscally
responsible route. Uh for the committee's convenience, I have attached
a short memo reviewing how the city's 2019 compensation and classification
study performed by the Collins Center addresses stipens for distinct board
functions of this kind. I respectfully request that the committee and full
council approve this appropriation so that the licensing board's uh function
continues without interruption and the work is fairly compensated. I am glad to
provide any further uh information the committee requires and to work with the
council on the longer term question of how this function is best structured
going forward. Respectfully submitted Salem Derby mayor city of East Hampton.
» Great. Thank you. Uh, Chair Peak, and I just want to make a quick note for
council here tonight. Um, just to be clear about what we are discussing
tonight, the mayor's memo does reference a higher stipen amount, but just noting
for the record and for us that the item before council tonight is the posted
$1,200 transfer, and that is what any of our vote will be limited to. Um, if the
administration wishes to pursue a larger amount, then that will need to come back
to us as a separate properly noticed appropriation at a later date. So, we
can approve this $1,200 amount tonight. We can reject it, we can approve less,
but we cannot vote on a higher number tonight. So, I want to be really clear
about that. And so, while the memo does advocate for more and for um additional
uh discussion as chair peak mentioned, the higher figure is not before us
tonight. Um councilors, are there any clarifying questions before we hear from
public? So, I see a number of hands up. I did see um I did see Thank you, uh
councelor Marque's hand first and I'll come back to this slide over after that.
» Two questions. Um, I don't really care who answers it. Um, but when it mentions
former clerk, are we is that um Evan Leau?
» No. >> Um, so in the memo that was emailed to
us earlier today, it appears to be a slightly different memo than the one
Cher Peak read into the record. Okay. >> That language was not in the memo that
was emailed to council. So I do not know the answer to that, but I know that Evan
is here tonight. if you would like to um speak to that if he's able to
» um >> and please just state your name and
title. >> Yeah. Evan Leau, assistant to the mayor,
in licensing clerk. Um as far as the discrepancies between the two, my
apologies if this may be an earlier version from what um was sent to you,
but this is the version that I had uh that I wanted to make sure printed
copies were provided of. Um so of that that would be the former clerk
prior to myself. >> Yeah.
» Thank you. Um I saw hands over here. So I'll go to Sorry. Did you have another
question? >> I I did have another question. Okay. So
when it says former clerk, it it is you when in this memo
» when it is uh talking about the job responsibilities that was compiled by
the former clerk that was not me. >> Okay.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» Apologies. I know there has been a little confusion on that.
» Um I have one more question. I know that the matter before us is the 1200 inter
departmental transfer. I know there's been a lengthy discussion around the
clerk. I know that Mayor Derby mentioned in this thing of $2,400. I
know that we cannot go above that. My question is
before we had the budget vote was the clerk stipen set at 1,500.
» Yes, that is I believe that's correct. But chair P if you'd like to answer
that. >> Okay. Uh yes. So, prior to the budget
vote, there was no clerk statement. >> Gotcha.
» Prior to the budget vote, there was no statement. And before that, um the the
previous mayor's assistant had the licensing jobs as part of her job
description and part of her total compensation. So there was no when when
Mayor Derby won the election like the the way that that came into be is that
at the time there was a question about how best to do that and and basically
that Evan when he assumed that role was assuming that role in essentially a
volunteer capacity for the first five months until we uh the the $1,500
proposed stipend was included in the budget.
Um, and also I think when we're talking about 2400 versus 1,200, I think that
the distinction there is that there is currently a budgeted amount in the
budget authorized to be spent of 1,200. This 1,200 would increase that to 2400
total. >> Understood. Thank you.
» Thank you for that clarification. Um, councelor,
» this is a clarification that I wanted to make too, just that it this would equal
the 2400. >> Uh, councelor Schmid,
» same thing. All right. Um, any other questions from counselors?
» All right. >> I'll just say councelor
» I would like to have further comments, but I'll do that after.
» Yeah, let's save the deliberation until after we go to the public, but thank you
for that. Um, all right. So, if there are no other questions at the moment, I
see none online. Um, I would like to open the floor to public comment on this
matter. If there's any members of the public in the room or online who would
like to um to speak, please go ahead and raise your hand if you are online or
approach the podium if you are in the room.
All right, I am seeing no public comment. So, going once, going twice.
I'm going to go ahead and close public comment on this item. So, back to us
counselors. Um any further discussion or deliberation? Uh, councelor Schmidt,
would you like to go ahead at this point?
» Uh, sure. Thank you, Madam Vice President. Um, as uh the uh individual
who had reason uh originally brought forward this motion in finance, I
thought it would make sense for me to to speak a little bit um especially because
there were some uh questions and confusions from uh individuals who had
watched those meetings as to how um our thinking had sort of played out. And um
if I'm being entirely honest, a lot of my thinking has played out outside of
meetings. And so um makes sense that it it would not have been totally clear. Uh
and so I just wanted to offer some of that. Um
uh to bring us back to um kind of the for me anyways, I'm only going to speak
for myself. Um my original concerns around this particular budget line item
um I brought up um at a previous council meeting and and first at the the finance
uh budget hearing where this had um been discussed. Uh and at that time um my
concern that I had brought forth uh was largely related to um how the the item
was included within the budget. not so much the the number itself um but the
fact that the the licensing board had sort of been singled out um within the
the budget. Uh and so um I was already feeling a little um uncertain about this
particular item. And so, uh, when it came time to, uh, have the finance
committee discuss potential amendments to the budget, uh, and, um,
a conversation, you know, began around this particular item and, um, a desire,
uh, from, uh, councelor Denim had had been brought forth to to cons, you know,
reconsider the amount. Um, I was interested in having that conversation
because of some of that uncertainty that I was feeling. Um, as I've looked back
on that, I think that this is an instance of, you know, uh, being a new
counselor and and sort of learning the ropes. Um, and I just want to take
responsibility for that because I think I can and should have approached that
particular situation better. Uh, and I think if I were to do it all over again,
um, rather than discussing, you know, small amounts, um, that ultimately, um,
I felt weren't the right path forward. Um,
I if I were to do it again, I would have uh, recommended that we zero out this
line altogether and ask the mayor to come back for an appropriation um, from
his office to properly fund this amount uh, or this uh, position. Um I think one
of the things that we heard that we've heard um previously around this uh is
that we had an individual who was um doing this work uh on a volunteer basis
uh who and who was willing to do it for uh an extremely reduced rate um that
everybody seems to agree was not enough money to adequately pay that position.
Um, and when I heard um when I heard that being presented as um an argument
for for moving forward as it was, um that didn't sit well with me either. Um
that felt like we were taking advantage of um a person in who was in the city's
employment. Um and so I'm actually very much pleased to
consider the the higher amount here. Um and uh the information that's been
provided um around why you know having this as a stipen um
makes sense to me. Um and you know I appreciated that uh the the information
that the auditor was also in favor of that approach. Um I think what continues
to not sit quite right with me is again the way that this is built into the
budget. Um every other stipend is uh under the responsibility of one
department or another um under the responsibility of paid employees of the
city. Uh and if we actually look at the job description that the mayor sent to
us uh along with the memo um it states that this position is under the general
supervision of the mayor or the mayor's designate. Uh and so it continues to be
my opinion that this belongs in the mayor's office budget. Uh and it is my
desire and intention to next year um revisit this and um I appreciate in the
mayor's memo uh his stated desire to um work with us to to figure out the best
path forward. Um and so I want to make that that known. I think um it it it
wasn't a good look to I think you know take it out of of that particular
section of the budget and to then claim savings from the cuts that were made to
the position that was doing it. It didn't feel honest to me. Um, and
as we look at this, um, again, I think it's important that that a department is
responsible for this, uh, and given the amount of money that they bring in that
we've heard about. Um, I and the the interactions that this individual has
with the state and all of the forward- facing work that they do, um, I think it
really makes sense that it's coming out of the mayor's office. And so, um, all
that to say, um, I'm not looking to hold up this vote by any means, um, or, you
know, the the ability for us to move forward with this position. And so, I'm
in favor of voting in favor of this tonight. Um, but I want to provide some
of that context and to provide some information about my future intentions
about how I think we should be approaching this particular position.
And that's kind of all I got. >> Thank you, Councelor Schmidt. Um,
Councelor Smith, online, I see your hand raised.
Um thank you. I also wanted to give my perspective as a sociologist uh
particularly a sociologist that has looked at uh gender and work patterns.
And one of the things that was really notable to me when we were talking about
this was that it was being reduced from a salary rather to a stipend. And in
many jobs which are assistant jobs, traditionally women have been shortch
changed with an increase in the salary which would also benefit the retirement
benefits and other you know um domino effects type of issues. And so 1,200
and500 both felt too much of a low a low ball number to feel comfortable doing
that. And I hope the clerk can understand that my position is as a
woman who has studied a lot of these issues and I felt that it was an
injustice in the way that it was moving forward at that level. I'm grateful that
it's moved up to 2400. Um hopefully in the future if it deserves more
compensation than that. Um I'm very open and hopeful to have that conversation.
So, I just wanted to say that that my reservations really were from the
context of um what has traditionally been um deemed as women's work in many
assistant roles and making sure that we were not creating bias in how we were
looking at how to compensate that. So, I will be voting yes for this with the
hopes that in the future we will have more discussions on how to properly um
and fairly compensate this position since it's a very um heavily um
warranted position with a lot of work. Thank you.
» Thank you, Councelor Smith. Um, councelor Krinski,
» I uh would like to thank uh councelor Smith for the sociological perspective
uh and councelor Schmidt for his in-depth
analysis of and thinking and reviewing and careful thought on the subject.
I have given much reflection to the matter myself and I frankly am sorry
that we've spent this much time over what was originally a $300 cut and I
think that's uh insulting to anyone who works for this city and I would like to
extend my apologies to that individual whoever that may be regardless. Uh I
think we all we all understand that whenever we have issues we try to deal
with it as a position and not a person. It is a position. It is a that and
that's what we're working with. Insults are not what we want to do here
in this council. Uh with regard to how we move forward,
I think our path was cleared before when we voted with a split vote. four of us
voted in favor and four against uh the cut. Uh so at this point it seems quite
clear with what the mayor's lit laid out that this position is deserving. And if
you haven't been listening and tuned in, I don't think you understand what's been
going on with the city and with the licenses that have been in question and
held up. Uh I and I I know that many of you do. It's important work for the
city. I again will vote yes and extend my apologies to the individual and I
would hope that my fellow colleagues are doing.
» Councelor Januk. >> Thank you, Madam Vice President. Um, so
I just have a couple things to say. Uh, I wasn't there for this original full
council vote. Um, and if I was, we might not have been here um, doing this again.
Um, but I do I will say that I appreciated the extra time to really
think about this issue more deeply and see how it's all played out. Um, I think
my main thoughts are um I definitely agree with the other members of the
council in feeling like this is work that needs to be compensated fairly. um
and that given the importance in in um the litany of things that this uh
position needs to to handle um it makes sense uh both to to compensate them
fairly through a siphon um at least in this structure and then also raise that
site. I was happy to see that as well. Um, I I do think that there are fair
questions about how this position is structured and I think that that's a
separate conversation and um I think us as council as we know we have very
limited tools in terms of numbers in the budget and we can only um
we can only cut um and I think that that was I personally feel like that was the
wrong tool to use in this situation um to exercise our oversight over this
position if we have concerns. I I think that council has a lot of authority to
to potentially weigh into this using ordinance. Um and we should pursue that
in the future, but I I think that we're talk if we're talking about this budget,
the question is does this person deserve to be paid for the work that they're
doing? And and I fully agree um that they do. So I will be voting yes to
this. Um and yeah, I think that's all I have.
» Councelor Marque, >> thank you madame vice president. Um,
I originally made the motion to reinstate the 300 back to the budget. I
disagreed with the finances committee's recommendation at the time of cutting
300 from the position. Um, I
agree with councelor Schmidt with there maybe and councelor J. McQuade that
there maybe should be a fresh look of how the licensing clerk is structured
under the mayor's budget. I also want to echo um councelor Kisinski's
concerns. I I believe the optics are not great for council and I believe we
dropped the ball on this. Um and I also want to extend um an apology. Excuse me.
Point of order, council marquee. veering away from the
» I I I I appreciate what you what you're saying, but we're what's at hand right
here is a $1,200 appropriation. >> I want to extend my apologies to Mr.
Leau as well. I don't believe that he was spoken about fairly at our
» that again, Council Mar um I appreciate that and I share those feelings, but
let's keep the matter to the agenda item at hand, which is should we transfer
this money from the reserve fund to the stipen? I will be voting yes.
» Thank you. >> Councelor Newton,
» um I just want to confirm what uh Councelor Smith and Councelor Smith each
said. Um I think both of those are two of the points that I was really thinking
about. I will be voting yes, but I I agree that this is something we should
consider going forward, the way that it's structured and how it does affect
retirement um and all of that kind of stuff.
any other questions, comments. All right. So, I think um just to add in
my own uh thoughts as well, um I echo a lot of what has been shared here tonight
with regards to this particular transfer. Um it's unfortunate the mayor
is not here tonight. Um and we don't, I believe, have our um any other finance
folks online, but I am curious for future discussion around funding this
out of the reserve fund as opposed to another option. So, that's a curiosity I
have. I don't know if um you have any insights to that, Chairp.
» Sure, I can weigh in. Normally, this sort of thing would happen out of free
cash. Free cash has not been certified yet for this year. So, you usually these
sorts of one-time transfers that are done. We usually don't do any of those
between the start of the fiscal year and the certification of free cash. We do
have reserves for when things like this do come up. We did move some money into
reserves during this last cycle, you know, for when stuff like this comes up.
So, like I don't think that it's something that we would generally
consider best practice, but um we don't have any free cash. All the free cash
rolled over, right? Or we we we either spent it or we put it into reserves and
we won't get any more free cash until it's certified, which I'm being told
should be hopefully in the fall. Um but in the meantime, it's uh I I don't have
any um objection to the funding source. I don't I'm not aware of a better
funding source that we could use at this moment without waiting into the fall
which would have serious fiscal consequences.
» Thank you very much. Appreciate that clarification. Um all right. So if there
is no further discussion or deliberation then um I will take a motion to make
this transfer. Chair Peak. >> All right. I'll make the following
request in the form of a motion. Request is hereby made for the approval of the
following appropriation. Amount requested, $1,200 to be transferred from
reserve fund, $1,200 to be transferred to licensing board stipen, $1,200.
The amount requested will be used for the following purpose. Annual stipend
for licensing clerk LLA. >> Second.
» Great. I have a motion and a second to transfer $1,200 from the reserve fund to
the licensing board siphon for annual siphon for licensing clerk LLA. Any
further discussion? >> Seeing none. So Miriam
» JP Quisinski. Hi >> Tom P.
» Hi >> Tamara Smith.
» Hi. >> Jonathan Schmidt.
» Hi. >> Amanda Newton.
» Hi. >> Nathan Marquee.
» Hi. >> Cam Jamrock McUade.
» Hi. >> Felicia Jazzic.
» I All right. Motion passes. Um. All right.
All right. So, I will take a motion to close the public hearing at this time.
» Second. >> All right. I have a motion in the second
to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Miam.
» Tom Peak. >> Hi.
» Tamara Smith. >> Hi.
» Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi.
» Amanda Newton. >> Hi.
» Nathan Marquee. >> Hi.
» Caam Jam McQuade. >> Hi.
» Felicia Jazzic. >> Hi.
» JP Guazinski. >> Hi.
» All right. Motion passes. Um, we next have on our agenda public speak. So, for
any members of the public in the room or online, this is your opportunity to
speak to us about any items not related to this public hearing that we just
concluded. Um, anyone who wishes to speak about the public hearing, um,
unfortunately that is closed at this time. So, if folks would like to speak,
please feel free to approach the podium or raise your hand online.
All right. I am seeing no one looking to speak. So,
» move to close. >> Uh, yes. Yes, I will take a motion to
adjurnn. >> Move to adjurnn.
» Yes. >> Second.
» I have a motion and a second to adjurnn the meeting. Miam.
» Uh Tamara Smith. >> I.
» Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi.
» Amanda Newton. >> Hi.
» Nathan Marquee. >> Hi.
» Cam Jamrock McUade. >> Hi.
» Felicia Jazz. >> Hi.
» JPinski. Hi. >> Tom Peak.
» Hi. >> All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank
you everyone.