Greenport Village trustees tabled a proposed media policy Thursday night after board members questioned language that would centralize communications through the mayor and village administrator — and would also require reporters to submit written questions before requesting interviews.

The proposal appeared on the board’s agenda for adoption without prior public debate and without any internal discussion with the board itself, according to interviews over the weekend with three of the village’s four trustees.

Trustees Lily Dougherty-Johnson, Julia Robins and Mary Bess Phillips told the North Fork Sun they played no role in drafting or discussing the proposal before it appeared on the agenda. Each also said in separate interviews she was unaware of any existing village media policy, despite Mayor Kevin Stuessi’s assertion Thursday night that the proposal was just an update to a “pre-existing policy.”

As written, the proposal would designate Stuessi and new Village Administrator Jenna Esposito as the village’s primary spokespeople, prohibit employees from talking to reporters without authorization and require journalists to submit all questions in writing before requesting interviews with any village employee.

Instead of voting on the measure, trustees agreed to revisit it during a future work session after Phillips said she she wasn’t ready to move forward.

“That’s something that I believe we should be discussing at our next work session. That would be the best thing to do because I’m a little confused by it myself, and I have some comments for it, as I’m sure some of the other board members do too.”

Dougherty-Johnson likewise questioned whether the proposed restrictions covered trustees, who as paid officials can be considered village employees.

“I feel like how it’s written, to me, it reads like it would be all employees,” she said Thursday night. “There’s no clarification.”

Esposito responded that the proposal was intended to govern employees, but not trustees. Stuessi described the measure as just a policy update.

“Both [human resources] counsel and village counsel made a recommendation of updating the pre-existing policy in regards to line employees, to make sure that it comported with all required laws,” he said.

There is no media policy on the village’s website, and all three trustees said they had never read or even heard of one, prior to last week’s proposed resolution. Neither the resolution nor the language in it identifies the so-called pre-existing policy, explains what changes counsel recommended or specifies which laws required the revisions.

The document – available on page 25 of the agenda – also doesn’t say what problem it was intended to address. Yet trustees had been scheduled to vote on the resolution that night.

‘The North Fork Sun will not comply with any future village policy insisting that reporters submit questions in advance, nor will we stop seeking interviews with village employees whenever we feel they are warranted.’

Trustees raise concerns

The proposal would prohibit employees, department heads and staff members from providing any comments, statements or interviews on behalf of the village unless specifically authorized.

Had the resolution passed last week, Village Clerk Candace Hall’s spontaneous comments in an unplanned interview with the Sun over the weekend about the success of Saturday’s annual summer basketball tournament would have violated village law.

Robins said in an interview on Sunday that the policy as written was unacceptable to her.

“I have serious concerns about First Amendment violations,” she said. “It looks like they’re trying to cover stuff up, and it’s not a good look for the village.”

Robins also criticized Stuessi’s management, saying matters that should be debated publicly are increasingly being discussed in executive sessions, which are closed to the press and public.

“I’m very troubled by the fact that a lot of the work we do now, he does in executive session instead of open meetings,” she said of Stuessi. “And I think it’s because he just doesn’t want anybody to know what he is doing, including his board.”

Phillips said the proposal had never been discussed with trustees before Thursday’s meeting and appeared poorly conceived.

“As drafted, it over-centralizes communication authority and lacks an emergency response exception, creating a single point of failure during storms, infrastructure disruptions, water quality issues or other life-safety events,” the longtime trustee said in an email. “It also conflates routine media relations with urgent public safety alerts.

“A policy that imposes unnecessary delays or funnels all communication through a single gatekeeper risks functioning as a de facto restraint on press access and undermines the public’s right to know — especially during emergencies when timely information is essential for public safety.”

Dougherty-Johnson said she received an emailed copy of the draft language last month and had asked whether it applied to trustees, but had not received an answer from village attorneys before the question arose at Thursday’s meeting. She said she understood the apparent intent behind the proposal, but believed it required considerably more discussion before a vote.

“Ideally, as an organization, we don’t really want employees going around speaking to the press — I get that,” she said. “We also want transparency, and we want things to come to light, especially if there’s malfeasance. But I definitely think it’s something we need to think about and talk about. I’d also be curious to know what other towns and villages do.”

A review by the Sun found no comparable publicly-posted media relations policy on the websites of East Hampton Village, Sag Harbor Village, Riverhead Town, East Hampton Town or Southampton Town. While several municipalities employ communications staff or operate public information offices, none require reporters to submit written questions before requesting interviews.

Deputy Mayor Patrick Brennan did not respond by press time to a written list of questions emailed Thursday night.

Asked whether the proposal would be discussed at the board’s next work session, Dougherty-Johnson said that “I would think it might, but you never know what the agenda is going to be.

“So if it gets bumped a bit, and we take our time to get the legal opinions and give it thought ourselves and get any feedback from people, I don’t think that would be the worst thing in the world.”

Advance questions required

The proposal’s most consequential provision would require reporters to “submit all questions and requests for comments in advance. Written questions shall be provided prior to any interview request, request for comment, or press release inquiry to allow for the collection and verification of information.” The proposal says the village would make reasonable efforts to respond within 24 to 48 hours.

While municipalities generally determine who is assigned to speak officially on their behalf, the Greenport proposal goes far further than any local government press policy on the East End.

It does not clearly distinguish between employees speaking in their official capacities and employees speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern. It also contains no language expressly preserving employees’ First Amendment rights or protections under New York’s whistleblower law.

Although the village may decide whether to grant an interview, it cannot compel journalists to submit written questions before seeking information from public officials.

The North Fork Sun will not comply with any future village policy insisting that reporters submit questions in advance, nor will we stop seeking interviews with village employees whenever we feel they are warranted. The village may establish internal rules governing its employees. It cannot dictate how an independent news organization gathers or reports the news.

Broader criticism of mayor’s management

The proposal comes amid broad and sustained criticism of Stuessi’s management of Village Hall.

The mayor and the village are defendants in two separate lawsuits filed by Greenport restaurateur Zach Erdem and former village building inspector Bernardo Bolanos — both alleging Stuessi improperly targeted Erdem’s restaurant for code enforcement actions, allegations the mayor denies and the village has called meritless.

In March, 2025, village officials received grand jury document subpoenas for village records about the incidents. Court records show the village and Erdem’s attorneys are currently attempting to negotiate a settlement.

Stuessi has also faced persistent opprobrium from fellow trustees, former mayors, Planning Board Chair Patricia Hammes and other village officials over what his colleagues and predecessors have characterized as ongoing efforts to micromanage village affairs.

Critics inside and outside village government have accused the mayor of inserting himself into routine administrative matters, failing to fill key management positions and creating operational bottlenecks within Village Hall.

The hiring of Esposito followed more than two years in which Stuessi declined to replace former Village Administrator Paul Pallas, who retired in February 2024 — despite persistent pleas throughout the village for a new administrator to manage day-to-day affairs and oversee larger projects.  

As the Sun reported in March, during that time period, more than $4 million in federal and state grant money awarded to the village in 2024 — to fix the badly-battered Mitchell Park bulkhead and to build a village ice rink — remained unclaimed.

Against that backdrop, a proposal concentrating media communications through the mayor and village administrator, while requiring reporters to submit questions in advance, is bound to face heightened scrutiny.

Last Thursday, ahead of the board’s evening meeting, the North Fork Sun emailed Stuessi, acting Village Attorney Brian Stolar and the Village Board a list of 10 questions about the policy, including who drafted it, what problem it was intended to solve, why it required advance written questions, whether it had been reviewed for First Amendment compliance and whether employees’ whistleblower rights were protected.

As of press time, neither Stuessi nor Stolar had responded.