It’s been a long time coming, and would be a great thing … if in fact, the proposal ended discrimination.

The resolution to be voted on in two weeks time is actually being billed as a compromise and it seeks to eliminate criticism that has been leveled against the Boy Scouts in conjunction with the organization’s current ban on admitting gay teens.

If it passes, gay teens would be welcome to participate as scouts.

But that’s not the end of the story and this resolution is not the end of discrimination. That’s because gay scouts would still be tossed out of the organization when they turn 18. And more significantly, what remains in place under this proposal is the ban on participation of gay and lesbian parents who seek to volunteer as leaders for scouting troops.

Telling a parent that he or she can’t participate in an organization because he or she is gay or in a same sex relationship is not only wrong, it’s illegal in nearly every public sense of the word.

Of course, the Boy Scouts are a private organization and free to exclude whom they wish. But this policy is not just incredibly short sighted. Excluding an entire segment of the population and all they have to offer based on sexual orientation is unwise, to say nothing of wrong and it speaks to an issue that seems largely defined by fear.

This has also become a topic defined by geography and, unfortunately, religion — it’s the coasts (where scouts are primarily secular in nature) vs. middle America (where they are largely under the auspices of churches — most notably the Mormon Church).

And in this battle, we all lose.

It’s not like individual troops haven’t sought to work around the ban. Many, especially on the east and west coasts, have quietly gone about the business of admitting gay teens and same sex parents despite the national policy. By doing so, they risk a great deal in going against the national ban — and could be kicked out of the organization.

But now, many secular councils are speaking out, refusing to let one segment of society dictate the morality of a national organization with a history of inclusion.

We applaud the move of councils like that of Western Los Angeles County which represents more than 14,000 scouts. Earlier this week, that council publicly called for a national policy that would include gay scout leaders as well as gay scouts. According to the president of the council, there are more than 5,000 adult volunteers in the council who “should be judged on the basis of their character, not their sexual preference.”

We heard several people this week say that this shouldn’t be about sexuality. Sexuality has no place in the Boy Scouts.

And we couldn’t agree more. This isn’t about sexuality — it’s about discrimination and bringing it to an end in a storied organization founded on far greater principles than that. The only people making this an issue of sexuality are the ones refusing to be inclusive – not the parents and scouts who simply want the same rights as the families around them.

So the time has come for action. It’s no longer enough to just quietly admit gay families while refusing to speak out against the policy. We invite all troops to work up the courage to stand up to those seeking to keep misguided discriminatory policies in place with this organization. We encourage the scouts to end all discrimination or at the very least, go back to the proposal they put forth in January in which individual councils are left to decide for themselves whether to admit gay youth and parents into their troops.

We are not a small nation and this “one size fits all” resolution doesn’t work in a country as diverse as ours. There are many opinions and firmly held beliefs to consider and its time for the Boy Scouts to stop dictating morality on a national level to the rest of the country.

This is an amazing organization that should get back to its roots by allowing people to be true to themselves. The days of don’t ask don’t tell are mercifully behind us. The U.S. military has gotten past this issue, so why can’t the Boy Scouts?

Time to take the oath.

The offering, as you can see, is a bunch of candy — yes, candy, that reports indicate a woman has been discarding regularly at Long Beach, ostensibly “for the birds.”

We know of no birds that thrive on pure chocolate, colorful sugary confections and stale Swedish fish, and, in fact, suspect that this sort of crap can, in fact, be harmful to wildlife.

Then there is the potential for young children and dogs happening along who will find it hard to resist candy and other food items laying on the beach — especially chocolate which can be harmful if not fatal to dogs.

It’s not just candy either – one Express staffer recently saw a pile of old meat discarded on Long Beach, something else dogs may find totally irresistible but we found incalculably gross.

These carelessly dumped food items are also attracting another type of animal — rats, which can often be seen roaming the beach in the early morning hours sniffing out the unnatural booty.

And we fear with summer at our door step, this problem is only going to get worse in the coming months. Long Beach and other area beauty spots tend to be a haven for warm weather dumping when all sorts of summer folks who are either too cheap, too lazy or too selfish to dispose of their household garbage legally and responsibly.

It all winds up on the beach (often on Sunday night before people head back to points west) along with the resident candy and meat and TVs and whatever else people are looking to get rid of. But why worry? It’ll become someone else’s job to clean up.

So if you’re reading this — and you know who you are — do the rest of humanity a favor and stop leaving your crap on the beaches and roadways.

If your food is still edible, please donate it to a local food pantry so humans in need can benefit from it. If it’s no good, then it belongs in the dump — and certainly not on the beach where innocent wildlife, pets and, God forbid, children can get at it.

By the way, if you really feel like throwing something on the beach, why not stop by the Sag Harbor Fair Foods Market this Saturday and pick up some “seed bombs.” Yes, they may look like chocolate truffles, but in fact are much healthier for the environment — a mix of clay, soil and coastal dune plant seeds designed to re-vegetate beaches in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy.

If all goes well, these little seed pods may sprout, thrive and bring back the beaches that were so radically affected by Sandy’s wrath.

Now that’s the kind of “littering” we can get behind.

Which is too bad, because the expert had some scary statistics to offer, including those from a recent survey, which says one in five minors were sexually solicited online over a one-year period. Also discussed was the preferred method of cyber sex offenders who use the Internet to groom and entice children for victimization.

Parents were also offered tips for keeping their kids safe online — including having access to all their social media accounts — and recommended blocking software to keep kids off potentially dangerous sites.

But this is not an issue that is going away. Yes, cyber predation is a scary possibility, but there are other things going on closer to home in this digital age that can make children a victim. Bullying texts, sexting, hacking or posting of embarrassing photos are some forms of online behavior that can irreparably damage a teenager’s reputation and self-esteem.

Which is why we encourage the PTSA to continue the discussion — and we encourage every parent to make an effort to attend future programs like this.

This issue isn’t going away any time soon — the Internet will be a constant presence and battle for parents who are trying to keep their children safe for years to come.

Pryor has been an amazing principal and champion for the school. He has always had the best interest of the Bridgehampton students and the community at heart, and was a part of a district wide effort to change the public’s perception of the school during his tenure. Chalk that up to the fact the district’s students have excelled in recent years while Pryor has gotten the word out about innovative programs in Bridgehampton — including its greenhouse and agriculture programs. Because of the school’s diminutive size, Pryor was also able to oversee tailor-made programs for students with special interests.

But a blessing can also be a curse, and it was, indeed, the diminutive size of the school that made the district consider ways to trim costs under the specter of the state’s 2 percent tax levy cap.

The fact is the Bridgehampton School district was top-heavy and just too small to justify the need for both a school superintendent and a principal. With Pryor’s departure, those two positions will now be merged into one — as they were years ago.

We applaud Bridgehampton School District for recognizing the need for this fiscally responsible move — and we see it as just the first of many East End districts that will soon have to work out similar realities for themselves. With the rising costs of district salaries and benefits — the highest line items in every annual budget — and with the tax cap in place, there will be no way to get around that.

Which means needs and priorities will have to be seriously considered in years ahead. We have small schools on the East End when compared to districts to our west and increasingly, administrative costs will play an important role in determining what programs will remain and which must be sacrificed. Down the road, will it be vital — or even realistic — for small districts to keep a principal and assistant principal in each school as well as a district superintendent? Is it something the district can continue to afford?

Only the community, population and time will tell.

In the meantime, we wish Jack Pryor the best as he heads on to his next endeavor. He has left quite an impression on the Bridgehampton School District and will be missed.

And what they really don’t want is 7A, the extensive traffic calming plan which was put out to bid last week by Alex Gregor, Southampton Town’s highway superintendent.

Let’s face facts. Everyone agrees Noyac Road as it now functions in front of Cromer’s Market and the Whalebone General Store is something of a disaster. With no separation from the roadway, customers are forced to pull in and back out directly onto Noyac Road. There’s also a curve in the road there and approaching drivers often don’t know what’s coming their way by way of congestion when they hit that stretch.

Plan 7A would certainly remedy the situation. The design includes a back stop style curb that would force drivers to use dedicated entry points into the shopping plaza. It would also shift the roadway slightly south, allowing for medians to be created in Noyac Road that would provide turning lanes into the shopping center.

But it would also channel traffic down a newly one-way Bay Avenue into a very narrow residential neighborhood.

That’s a major problem for many residents, who not only disagree with that aspect of the plan, but even the need to start with such heavy-handed remedy for the area.

The residents have spoken and they don’t want 7A. Neither does the Southampton Town Board, which refused to send the plan out to bid last month. Both prefer a phased in approach beginning with less extreme measures — such as rumble strips, improved pavement striping or perhaps blinking lights.

These less aggressive measures could conceivably be instituted before Memorial Day and the start of the silly season. And if they prove to be successful, they would also save the taxpayers of Southampton in the neighborhood of half a million dollars currently earmarked for 7A.

And if they aren’t successful — then we go to plan B — which is 7A, or at the very least aspects of it like the introduction of a dedicated curb cut at the Cromer’s parking lot.

But the push to go out to bid anyway for a project residents don’t support and the town board has no will to enact shows a certain stubbornness on the part of Gregor and an unwillingness to compromise on behalf of his constituents. We agree that safety and excessive speed on Noyac Road are major issues. But soliciting bids for a project that most certainly won’t be accepted by the town board accomplishes nothing and shows an inability to play nice with others.

On the bright side, perhaps a smaller version of the project will come through as a result of the bidding process that could address some of the issues without going whole hog. That would be a good thing. Otherwise, this whole exercise will prove to have been nothing more than a huge waste of everyone’s time.

But we are in the age of the Internet and often speed is valued over accuracy. As a case in point, we offer as evidence the questionable reporting by CNN and Fox News on Wednesday when both went on the air with the “news” that a suspect had been arrested in connection to the bombings at the Boston Marathon.

It turns out the news was false, naturally, the “fact” attributed to unnamed sources. But for more than an hour, both CNN and Fox News maintained an arrest had been made when it hadn’t.

For us, that points to a much wider and very disturbing trend specifically in the realm of broadcast news outfits — their increasingly irresponsible behavior. To its credit, NBC refused to go with this story and reiterated that while CNN and Fox were reporting an arrest, a suspect hadn’t even been named yet.

As writers at a small town newspaper, this fervor for breaking news and getting there first — at any cost — kind of disgusts us. When speed leads, thoughtful, responsible journalism is collateral damage. We have noticed some community weeklies’ need for speed results in breaking news that can’t be quantified as real news – but it is something to put on the banner to generate more clicks. Is this what we are really about in the age of the Internet? Is this how we seize that moment?

In this case it’s not only a shame for the thousands of people directly affected by the bombing and the nation as a whole who suffers, but this kind of irresponsible reporting could seriously impact what is still an open investigation.

Given what we’ve been seeing coming down the pike lately in the form of good sized renovation projects, we feel it would be beneficial for the village to develop a list of comprehensive long-term goals. We’re talking specifically here about issues that affect our waterfront — from development on Long Wharf to pollution in the cove and development in historic neighborhoods inundated with storm water.

There. We’ve said it. Now, let’s explore why….

Take this week’s news, for example, and the plan that William Egan has put forth to expand and raise his historic Garden Street home, much to the chagrin of neighbors.

This is not an issue related so much to the aesthetics of the project (though from a historical perspective is certainly something that needs to be considered), but rather flooding which has greatly affected the area in recent years.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Egan is doing the absolute right thing — building up his property and thereby raising his house above the potential reach of a storm surge — such as that which Superstorm Sandy delivered last October, ravaging this particular neighborhood with significant flooding.

But for neighbors, the raising of the property means the threat of increased flood waters pushed from Egan’s property only furthering the impact to their own inundated properties.

The fact is, with the economy turning around and Sag Harbor now designated as “the place to live” on the East End, more people are buying homes in the historic district. These are people with the money and means to renovate and expand their old homes, much as Egan is, some in flood plains who will also be asked to comply with FEMA recommendations.

We believe it is incumbent on the village to consider developing a comprehensive plan where we truly understand the facts and options surrounding issues of drainage and historic preservation in flood prone areas.

Similarly, this village has been fighting to preserve its identity and authenticity for decades, which is largely why the village zoning code was revised in 2009. But now, four years down the road, can we definitely say it’s working as well as we hoped? Are there sections of the code that haven’t been as effective at preserving this village in the way want? Is it time to revisit our residential code in addition to our commercial code?

Because we should have an opinion on that — we should revisit those parts of the code we’re not thrilled with now, before a building project comes along that will cause the village to respond reactively rather than proactively.

While the village has been good at tackling big projects like the remediation of Havens Beach which is scheduled to begin within weeks – that was a plan 27 years in the making, there are a number of long-term projects we see looming. Road run-off and septic intrusion continue to be an issue elsewhere in the village — just look at the red tide event we experienced in the cove last summer. Then there’s the talk about potential uses for Long Wharf, which are still largely unarticulated in any substantive way.

And this is why we would like to see the village really develop a larger comprehensive plan that incorporates all aspects of waterfront development, including drainage in flood prone areas. Rather than dealing piece meal as these issues arise, it would be wise if there were a document in place providing definitive direction for the village as more projects and storms come our way in the months and years ahead.

Let’s face facts, the waters are rising, the historic homes are aging and more new residents are looking to make this place their home. None of these issues are likely to go away soon so we’d be wise to get out in front of them. Call it flood insurance if you will. An effort to stem the tide be it due to Mother Nature or human encroachment.

Great! We say bring it on. It’s indicative of the passion the people in this village display and it’s what we’ve always loved about this community. It’s not just one faction throwing its hat into the ring this time around — we’re seeing a diverse group of people who really want to see Sag Harbor succeed.

With a month to go, we may expect to see even more candidates enter the fray. Ultimately, that’s positive. One of the worst things that can happen to a community is apathy, but Sag Harbor is apparently not prone to apathy this year — proving this is a vibrant population with strong opinions.

But populations change, and as residents in the greater Sag Harbor area have become more involved, the fact is, the village population continues to shrink. More part time residents and weekenders take over homes previously occupied by year-rounders, leaving fewer potential candidates to fill these offices. It’s particularly hard to find qualified people willing (and able) to serve on the volunteer village boards.

So, given the challenges, we’re pleased to see this time around both new faces emerging as well as some familiar folks who have lots of experience in village government.

Also encouraging is the fact that a number of candidates are stepping up to the plate as solo candidates, rather than running as a block. Not to say that teaming up with a slate doesn’t make sense, but it’s great to see people running on their own terms. Independent thinking means these are people who wanted to seek office in order to tackle specific issues.

And when it comes to issues, we have a few we would like to see the village board make a priority in the coming years. A major one is Long Wharf, and we hope the village takes a proactive approach to its management by developing a comprehensive plan for that facility.

We’re also still embroiled in the police contract. The reality is no matter what happens in arbitration the cops have been working two years without a contract. Once this is settled, the village board will likely be right back at the table working on the next one. As a result, we advocate for an immediate and truly productive discussion about the future of policing in Sag Harbor.

This needs to be a comprehensive discussion. The cost of police services is an issue that has been raised time and time again. We would like to hear candidates in this election talk about taking a real look at long-term costs and suggesting real alternatives. What are the legislative solutions locally and what can be pursued on a state level to make policing more affordable? Also, as a community we need to ask what we want. Do we believe the cost justifies what we’re getting? These are big questions about police services and it’s important the dialogue include the entire community rather than just the board debating amongst themselves.

Environmentally speaking, we also think Sag Harbor needs to start looking at stormwater runoff issues as well as in-ground septic systems and perhaps revisit what can be done to keep them from affecting the waters that surround us. The bay is our livelihood and it’s what makes this place so appealing to those who aren’t fortunate enough to live here year round.

This is a small village, but the issues are big. So we encourage all comers in this year’s election — and bring along inventive ideas for making this place work better for all of us.

It left behind a beautiful and historic building that had served it well, but one that has fallen into a sad state of disrepair.

Roof leaks, questionable mid-century additions and cordoned off entrances are just a smattering of ways in which the building has been compromised and neglected over the years.

Which is sad for a structure of this grandeur.

Luckily, Mayor Mark Epley and the Village of Southampton has enlisted the services of Machado and Silvetti Associates to come up with a pretty bold vision to re-invent the property as a centerpiece for the next 100 years.

It’s called the Southampton Center and we like what we saw from the architects on Tuesday night. At its heart, the plan involves reclaiming the building’s three original structures — each with its own entrances so they may be used for individual venues or opened up for one large one.

It changes everything, and provides the flexibility to provide programming in which the sky is the limit.

It also changes the focus of the building. Instead of there being one entrance  – as was the case on the Job’s Lane side of the structure in the Parrish’s tenure — the latest idea is to make the building accessible on all sides which allows for new pedestrian pathways to lead onto the property.

The addition of a glass walled café and covered outdoor arcade would provide new places for people to socialize and relax — whether or not an event is currently going on there. And we’re particularly excited about the idea of WPPB 88.3 FM relocating its broadcasting studio to the property. It’s a vibrant and creative way to bring a lively cultural asset to a part of the village that could use a little more human activity.

Of course, this is still a long way from reality — and nothing is set in stone — including how much it all will cost. But the focus now is to imagine the possibilities and the community has been invited to weigh in on the plan, including offering advice on how the building should ultimately be used. And that’s how it should be in any public offering of this scale.

In the meantime, the village is partnering with arts organizations to offer a summer slate of film, performing arts and visual arts at the site — just to show residents what is possible.

So we encourage everyone in Southampton Town to stay involved in the development of this property. Pay attention, pipe up and let your voice be heard. Because chances like this only come along once every 100 years.

The reality is we do have a wonderful school district. People are literally moving into Sag Harbor simply so their children can become a part of what has been created here. And that does deserve credit. The teachers, support staff, administration and school board members that have been a part of the growth of this school should be applauded for their efforts.

Similarly, parents who have children in the district — many of whom in the last month have actively participated in a community effort to try and understand the root of what has been happening on the school board level — should be assured the quality education that drew them to Sag Harbor is not waning as a result of this internal conflict.

However, that does not mean it is not reasonable for the community to want to delve into the issues of transparency or process more deeply, educate themselves on the public right and become a more involved part of this process. If anything, we believe that is an essential ingredient to any successful school district that never wants to stop increasing achievement, programming and success.

As teacher Peter Solow so aptly pointed out last week, a school board is not the whole of a school district. The entire school community encompasses all of its stakeholders, and collectively, we should be working together in a shared decision making process as equals in regards to any policies being considered district wide – whether they are policies being entertained at the school board level or within the school’s numerous advisory committees.