Southampton Village Mayor Jesse Warren Accuses Colleague Of Taking PBA Card In Exchange For Support

A vote related to on going contract negotiations with Southampton Village Police Chief Thomas Cummings spurred a diatribe, accusation of bribery from Mayor Jesse Warren, and ultimately, a defeat for the mayor who, during the measure’s April 8 debate, suggested Village Board member and erstwhile loyal colleague Joseph McLoughlin received a PBA card in exchange for supporting the police department.

“This is a public forum, this is grossly inappropriate,” Mr. McLoughlin said, as the mayor pressed, interrupting him, and asking him repeatedly if he’d accepted a PBA card from the department. A PBA card is a laminated wallet-sized card given out by police unions to demonstrate that the bearer has supported the union, and ultimately the police department. Some have suggested that such cards may have an influence on whether the bearer might evade receiving a ticket for a traffic violation or curry some other favor from officers.

On the table at Thursday’s Village Board meeting was a resolution that, if adopted, would have put provisions of the chief’s contract aside when it expires at the end of May, if a new contract currently being negotiated wasn’t approved by then. The chief’s base salary would remain the same, but his benefits package would be re-negotiated.

Mr. McLoughlin is the liaison to the police department, but last month the mayor hosted an unprecedented public review of the chief’s contract, during which Village Board member Gina Arresta criticized an “evergreen” provision she said allows Chief Cummings to be chief as long as he wants to.

His attorney, Steven Losquadro, said last month that the clause allows the stipulations of the current contract to continue if it expires before a new contract is inked. It is not an unusual clause, despite Ms. Arresta’s disapproval. Nor is the breadth of the benefits package for the chief far afield of counterparts on Long Island, despite the mayor’s repeated discussion of how extravagant it is.

The website See Through New York lists over 50 law enforcement officials whose salaries are higher than the chief’s.

During last month’s discussion, Mr. McLoughlin expressed discomfort with the mayor’s insistence on revealing aspects of the chief’s contract in public session while negotiations for the new contract were underway.

Perhaps anticipating the vote’s outcome, the mayor opened discussion of the resolution by a reading of general municipal law’s provisions relating to abstaining from a vote.

“It’s important that we vote,” the mayor began. “It would not be appropriate to abstain.”

There are only two reasons to abstain on a vote, the lawmaker put forth.

The first reason would be due to a lack of information. “That cannot be possible, we’ve been discussing this now for four months,” the mayor said. Plus, he pointed out that the chief’s salary specifics have been the focus of front page coverage in The Press, as well as the subject of articles in regional news outlets.

The other reason for abstention would be conflict of interest. “If anyone has accepted a gift from an independent organization in exchange for their vote on this, you should also abstain,” he said. The mayor said he didn’t think anyone had, adding “but you never know.”

“I will be voting to abstain,” Mr. McLoughlin said. “Not because I don’t believe in police reform — I have been in negotiations with our counsel with regard to Chief Cummings’s contract. I do believe we need police reform …

“The reason for my abstention is not because I believe in contracts that burden the taxpayer … I am abstaining because as police liaison, an agreement has not been reached on the contract as of yet. The last offer had not been responded to and I would like the time to find a resolution to this.”

That Southampton Village was in the press, Mr. McLoughlin continued, was “wholeheartedly embarrassing, and handicapped my ability to negotiate this contract renewal or a temporary extension so the chief can find a proper way to retire in dignity … I believe we can come to a negotiation with the chief and it is inappropriate for me to vote as liaison and negotiator.”

“To have our name plastered on the front page of the regional paper is unbecoming of a historic village known around the world for its beaches and its beautiful downtown,” the board member asserted.

Denying he had anything to do with the story reaching the regional press, Mr. Warren said what was embarrassing was that Chief Cummings makes more than the commissioner of the New York City Police Department.

Chief Cummings has been with the department for 34 years, the commissioner was hired in 2019. Ten years as chief, Mr. Cummings just this year achieved the same salary as his predecessor.

Going on at length for the second time about the provisions of the contract, the mayor exclaimed, “This is incredulous!” Among items he mentioned were payment for unused sick days, a standard compensation.

He also complained that fellow board members would fight so hard for the chief’s contract when they balked at giving a raise to his “working class” assistant who “only “ takes home $700 a week. Miranda Weber was hired six months ago at a salary of $50,000; a resolution tabled on Thursday night sought to increase her salary by $18,000, or 36 percent.

Continuing to push for the vote, the mayor insisted, “We have to vote to not renew it. This is a very rich lavish contract. We must vote to not renew it so we can have strength at the negotiating table.”

He said the current contract was adopted without counsel present in a private room.

As he spoke, Village Board member Andrew Pilaro could be seen shaking his head and mouthing the words “That’s not true.” The agreement was reviewed by the town’s attorney, Mr. Pilaro said.

The mayor returned to taking the accusatory tact.

Once again, the mayor read from state law emphatically articulating an opinion from the section that speaks of gifts given or solicited that can be reasonably inferred were given or solicited to influence or reward an official. “Intended as a reward,” he repeated, with emphasis, “for any official action on his part.”

Straightening in his chair and extending his arms out, the mayor attacked.

“Trustee McLoughlin, I ask you, Have you accepted a gift from a private organization in excess of $75, it could be $500 or $1,000,” he asked.

“No, I have not mayor, and I find it very unbecoming, you are accusing me on a livestream Youtube channel. You are accusing me of taking a bribe,” Mr. McLoughlin answered.

He paused, and before he could continue, the mayor asked again, “Have you accepted a PBA card, because that has a value of over $500, and if you have, you certainly would have to abstain.”

“I have not accepted anything of value from the police department,” Mr. McLoughlin said, pausing again, only to be interrupted again.

“Have you accepted a PBA card?” the mayor persisted.

When Mr. McLoughlin declined to answer, Mr. Warren pressed. “It’s really an easy question, yes or no. Have you accepted a PBA card. It has a value, you have to have a donation to the PBA in order to receive that card so you will not be pulled over. So you’re right — if you have accepted a PBA card, you should abstain.”

Mr. McLoughlin doesn’t drive.

“I will not be subject to this type of questioning in public,” the village board member reiterated. “You are accusing me of taking a bribe, which is not appropriate. This is a public forum. … This is grossly inappropriate.”

Beyond the potential negotiation disadvantage public discussion of an ongoing contract dispute entails, Mr. McLoughlin expressed concerns about potential legal ramifications of the resolution.

Board member Mark Parash also voiced concerns about holding de facto negotiations in public.

“I’m not comfortable with this,” he said. “This is not in defense of the chief, this is not in defense of the police department. This is what I feel about the way the village is conducting its business. And how if we aren’t careful, could we put ourselves in harm’s way.”

Both Mr. Parash and Mr. Pilaro offered to assist with negotiations. Mr. McLoughlin invited all the members of the board to take a turn at the table.

“Mayor, you have yet to join me at any meetings with the chief,” Mr. McLoughlin said.

Ms. Arresta suggested that the vote should move forward and the evergreen clause be removed, adding “Maybe if he didn’t have a contract, he’d come to the table in good faith.”

To justify the rebuke, she noted, “He’s been leaking all the way down the line to the press.”

When Ms. Arresta remarked that the chief is “gone two months of the year, Village Attorney Kenneth Gray attempted to rein in the discussion. “We’re now delving into areas of strategy of negotiations and that’s inappropriate, “ he said.

A vote was called, and with the mayor and Ms. Arresta voting in favor, Mr. Pilaro and Mr. Parash voting against, and Mr. McLoughlin abstaining, the measure failed.

“I’m sad,” Mr. Parash said speaking to the clash between the mayor and Mr. McLoughlin, adding he was “really disappointed.”

“Yes, it was unfortunate,” the mayor said. Without apologizing to his colleague, he said the board has hard decisions to make and he was happy to make them and put himself out there.

The chief’s attorney, Mr. Losquadro, watched the zoom teleconference Thursday night and said, by email: “The bullying of Trustee McLoughlin was both shocking and unprecedented, and in no way meaningfully advanced the issue of the Chief’s continued employment by the Village. It mirrors the tactics that have been used against Chief Cummings to date, such as leaking information to the press and mischaracterizing the nature of the Chief’s compensation. Apparently, those who dare to assert a principled position in the Village of Southampton will be demonized and subject to personal attacks. It was extremely troubling and disturbing to watch Trustee McLoughlin’s integrity be called into question in a public forum.”