One day in about 1885, George Fowler put pen to paper and signed away his remaining rights to his ancestral land at Montauk.

Mr. Fowler, a member of the Montaukett tribe, was among a shrinking number of native people who remained then, some two and a half centuries after the arrival of European colonists, and their diseases and economic exclusion.

In the quitclaim agreement he signed that day, Fowler gave up all of his right, title, and interest to what had been his home in exchange for an annual payment from Arthur W. Benson, the founder of the Brooklyn Gas Company and developer of Bensonhurt who had just a short time earlier become the owner of all of Montauk’s approximately 11,500 acres.

The Fowler agreement is part of a cache of documents preserved at the Brooklyn Historical Society and now available digitally from the East Hampton Library that had been fought over for much of the 20th century. Interest in the material has increased following an agreement that will preserve Mr. Fowler’s house in the Freetown section of East Hampton, which Mr. Benson had given him in exchange for his property at Montauk.

The Benson papers, as they have come to be known, contain a significant trove of records, including account books of the Proprietors of Montauk going back to the early-19th century and a 1724 record of a land sale between the Montauketts and the East Hampton Town Trustees. Those involving Benson’s takeover of the land paint a picture of his efforts to consolidate his newly bought property and rid himself of earlier promises made to the Montauketts.

“The ready availability of the information provided in these scans is almost the stuff that dreams are made of from a research standpoint,” said Gina Piastuck, who runs the library’s Long Island Collection.

Unlike the rest of East Hampton, Montauk was carved off early on by the town trustees and left in the hands of a group of private citizens. A court upheld the Montauk Proprietors’ title to the land in 1851, and in its decision, ordered that all of the records relating to Montauk be taken from the town and given to the proprietors.

By 1879, the Proprietors had decided to sell out, and Mr. Benson was the winning bidder, offering $151,000. However, before the deal was finalized, the Proprietors, on advice of their lawyer, decided to turn all of the material over to the town. This did not sit well with Mr. Benson, who about a year later managed to convince them to instead give them to him. In a journal entry among those digitized by the East Hampton Library, Mr. Benson was quoted as promising to keep the papers “in a safe at Montauk and make available for viewing to East Hampton and Southampton residents.”

The importance of the papers became clear early on when members of the Montaukett tribe sued Mr. Benson, then his estate, claiming that their rights had been obtained by fraud and “undue influence by the Bensons and their agents and employees.” Instead of being made available to the townspeople, John A. Strong, an authority on the Montauketts, wrote in a 1993 book on the tribe’s losses, the documents were kept by Mr. Benson and used by his lawyers to plan legal strategy.

Interest in the papers continued into the 20th century. In 1922, The East Hampton Star reported that they had been given by Mr. Benson’s granddaughters to the Long Island Historical Society. In 1934 the East Hampton Town supervisor appointed local justices of the peace, Merton Edwards and William T. Vaughn, to a committee to investigate if copies at least could be obtained.

Negotiations with the Brooklyn Historical Society, as the organization was by then named, continued through the 1930s to no avail. In 1935 The Star reported that the records contained “accounts and receipts of the Proprietors of Montauk, a large number of documents relating to keeping cattle there, and 17 of the original Indian deeds and agreements. A number of these Indian deeds have never been transcribed and so are not to be found in the printed records of the town.”

A delegation from the library that included the late president of its board, Tom Twomey, and Ann Chapman and Janet Ross, visited the Brooklyn Historical Society in 1997 without success.

Finally in 2013, Mr. Twomey and Dennis Fabiszak, the library director, were able convince the society to loan the papers for digitization on the Long Island Collection’s state-of-the-art system with the help of Norbert Weissberg, a library donor and Brooklyn Historical Society trustee.

The society’s then-director personally delivered the three boxes containing the Benson papers, and during about a month’s work they were carefully opened and scanned. Steve Boerner, a library archivist, spent long hours cataloging the material and studying its chronology.

Tantalizing to all involved, a last box of documents awaits in off-site storage in Connecticut. Mr. Fabiszak said that he hoped that material could be added, though it could be a while.

Copies of the Benson papers are available on the library’s website under Long Island History.

The East Hampton School Board voted unanimously Tuesday night to fund a full-day prekindergarten program at the Eleanor Whitmore Early Childhood Center for the 2015-16 school year.

“I think this is a historic moment, and an enormous achievement for our community,” Laura Anker, a member of the Eleanor Whitmore board, said at the meeting.

The former East Hampton Day Care Learning Center has run the district’s half-day pre-K program at its facility on Gingerbread Lane since the 1996-97 school year, with about 44 students enrolled this year in three morning classes. The resolution approved on Tuesday allows for 54 students in next year’s prekindergarten, at a rate of $8,157 per student, per year, and a total of no more than $440,475 for the 2015-16 school year.

“This is pretty monumental, to say the least,” Richard Burns, the district superintendent, said yesterday, extolling not only the educational benefits of a longer prekindergarten day, but the social and behavioral ones as well.

Because the district has been working collaboratively with the Eleanor Whitmore Center over the past year or so to reduce costs, the price for next year’s full-day program will actually be less than East Hampton is paying for this year’s half-day program, Mr. Burns said.

“We’re going from half day to full day with no increase in the budget and also working on adding transportation at no additional cost to the district,” said Christina DeSanti, a school board member who has been a big supporter of the move. “All of the research shows that kids in full-day pre-K are performing three to four months ahead of their peers who have had a half day.”

“I’m thrilled about the full-day program, and also the continuity with having the existing pre-K program be the provider is a benefit for the students because we already have a relationship with them,” Beth Doyle, principal of the John M. Marshall Elementary School, said yesterday.

The school board agreed in December to solicit bids for half and full-day programs. Of the three organizations that submitted proposals, the Eleanor Whitmore Center was the only one with a full-day plan. Long Island Head Start would have been able to accommodate 16 children in an existing half-day program at the Children’s Museum of the East End in Bridgehampton. SCOPE Educational Services proposed half-day morning and afternoon programs for 18 children each, but would have needed the district to provide space, equipment, and other services.

“There is so much research on the benefits of having prekindergarten; a full day doubles those benefits,” Ms. Doyle said. “Also, the time to play, the social aspect, is really important too.”

This year the Eleanor Whitmore Center retooled its prekindergarten program to add an optional fee-based extended learning program in the afternoon. “It’s been nice for us because we could pilot the program as full-day this year and we’ll be using the same materials nextyear,” said Maureen Wikane, executive director of the center. “It’s been on my mind for a couple of years, so to really see this come to fruition is amazing.” The center’s staff and board “did our best to make it cost-effective, knowing how much we want to keep the program and how important it is for the children.”

Pre-K teachers from the Eleanor Whitmore Center have been collaborating with kindergarten teachers this year, the principal said, and attended the district’s professional development day, too. “Kindergarten is what first grade used to be, so prekindergarten is what kindergarten was,” making professional development and a consistency between the two all the more important, she said.

“Students have to read for comprehension by third grade,” Mr. Burns said, “and pre-K certainly should help with that.”

With Tuesday’s vote, East Hampton will join the Amagansett, Montauk, and Bridgehampton Schools in offering full-day pre-K. Programs in Montauk and Bridgehampton are for 4-year-olds; Amagansett has programs for both 3 and 4-year olds. For parents, the longer school day comes with an extra benefit. “We realized that the half-day program just didn’t make sense for working parents,” Mr. Burns said.

The Eleanor Whitmore Center offers day care and early education for children from 18 months old, as well, and it will continue to offer afternoon care for prekindergartners until 5:30 p.m., Ms. Wikane said. The school day is likely to run from 8:30 a.m. to about 2:30 p.m. next year.

A prekindergarten open house will be held at the center on April 13 at 6 p.m. Pre-K registration will be on April 14 and 15 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the center for district residents who will be 4 on or before Dec. 1, 2015.

The Eleanor Whitmore Center sits at the edge of the John Marshall campus on land leased from the district. On Tuesday, the board also approved a 10-year extension of that lease, which was set to expire on June 30. The center owns the building and is responsible for installing and removing all improvements on the property.

Four local laws designed to curtail noise from the ever-increasing number of aircraft landing at and taking off from East Hampton Airport were hashed out last Thursday night during a crowded hearing at LTV Studios in Wainscott.

Many in the audience had been on hand last summer at an East Hampton Town Board meeting discussing the negative effects of the noise, largely from helicopters. The board has worked with consultants since then to compile data on the problem and develop airport access policies that not only comply with Federal Aviation Administration requirements but would be defensible against legal challenges from the aviation industry.

Airport use restrictions proposed for the coming season and beyond would establish a year-round overnight flight curfew, would ban helicopters from the airport from noon on Thursday to noon on Monday from May 1 to Sept. 30, and would subject aircraft defined as “noisy” to a once-a-week round-trip limit during the season, and an extended curfew.

With groundbreaking policies on the table that could drastically change the outlook for both aircraft operators and airport businesses as well as those affected by the noise from above, both sides pulled out all the stops. Supporters of the regulations came from across the East End, airport businesses brought their employees, pilots prepared presentations, and the aviation industry sent regional representatives.

Those supporting the proposed laws protested the impact of the limited number of airport users on a much larger segment of the community. Those against them said reducing air traffic would have a widespread and devastating economic impact that could result in closure of the airport, and questioned the data on which the restrictions are based. The proposal, they said, is overreaching and would become mired in costly litigation.

Just over 40 people expressed support for the laws. Of the 26 people who spoke in opposition, 19 identified themselves as pilots or plane owners, aviation industry representatives, owners of airport-based businesses, or employees of those businesses.

All 10 of the elected officials in attendance, representing municipalities from across the East End, thanked their East Hampton counterparts and urged them to, as Southold Town Supervisor Scott Russell said, “stay the course.”

“Don’t be bullied by anyone,” said County Legislator Al Krupski, who represents the First Legislative District, “otherwise known as the flight path,” he said.

Southampton officials, however, expressed concern about the possible diversion of air traffic to their town’s two landing sites, a helipad in Southampton Village and Gabreski Airport in Westhampton. Several speakers from Montauk, where there is a private airport strip, expressed the same concern, and urged the board to finish and assess a “diversion study” purporting to show what air traffic patterns would look like under the new laws.

Opponents said reducing air traffic would have a devastating financial effect, not only on the airport itself — the decline in revenue from fewer flights would result in its closure, many said — but on the entire community. People who have been arriving here by air will vacate the area if they cannot continue to do so, they predicted, taking their spending money with them, and businesses that rely on airport traffic will take an economic hit.

Cindy Herbst, an owner of Sound Aircraft, told the board, as she has throughout discussions of airport regulation, that a reduction in flights would be a serious blow to her business. “There is no way to survive a trial run of these restrictions,” said Maureen Quigley, one of her longtime employees.

Many supporting the rules said that businesses, and the community, would adjust and survive, and cited a negative financial effect on the value of property situated under the flight path.

“If the only reason they care about East Hampton is because they can get there by helicopter, then let them go,” Susan McGraw Keber said.

“People have been coming here since the horse and buggy . . . people are not going to stop coming here just because they can’t come by helicopter,” Patricia Currie said. If some leave, others will replace them, she said. “Please pass the restrictions; we will survive.”

Andrew Sabin, whose uses the airport in his business, called the proposed rules “unreasonable,” and said that costly litigation would ensue.

“We do support reasonable restrictions at the airport,” said Jonathan Sabin, his son — a nighttime curfew, for example, but not a weekend helicopter ban. But, he said, “declaring that most users of the airport are of no social value is not a good starting point for negotiations. It’s dangerous to enrage that demographic.”

“We are a resort community dependent on seasonal traffic, and that cannot be ignored,” said Rod Davidson, a member of a town airport committee and a Sound Aircraft employee. He declared the proposed regulations a “death sentence” to the economy that would do “irreparable damage to our community and our livelihood.”

Peter Wolf, an airport planning committee member and chairman of the East Hampton Village Preservation Society’s airport noise committee, called predictions of economic disaster “nonsense.” Businesses will work around it, he said, likening the institution of new regulations to the onset of zoning laws in the 1950s, which also caused protest and dire predictions but was, he said, in the “general public interest.”

Margaret Turner, executive director of the East Hampton Business Alliance, acknowledged the need for noise relief but expressed concern about the rules’ effect on businesses, calling them “too extreme and onerous.” To impose them without fully understanding their impact was “dangerous,” she said. She and others said acting without definitive findings from a committee charged with assessing the financial effects was unwise.

Committee members, who represented both the aviation and the noise-affected communities, could not reach a consensus on what to say about the result of their economic modeling, and issued no report at all.

“How can the board move forward with these oppressive restrictions while lacking the financial forecast?” asked Evan Catarelli, also a Sound Aircraft employee.

Other regulation opponents questioned the data on noise and aircraft traffic used to underpin the proposed rules.

Gene Oshrin, a member of the East Hampton Aviation Association and of the town’s airport committees, submitted an analysis by the engineering firm Greenman-Pedersen of the noise study prepared by consultants for the town, which, he said, addressed “the shortcomings and lack of validity of the town’s noise study.”

In comments at the hearing and at a town board meeting on Tuesday, Bruno Schreck, another pilot, said that the way the town’s consultants presented the airport user and complaint data “kind of distorts the reality,” and submitted his own graphs and charts about the noise impact.

When Irving Paler, a Wainscott pilot, began reading aloud the names of people who had called the airport noise hotline to complain — public information that he had obtained, along with the number of calls they had made — some in the audience protested. “These are all made-up calls,” Mr. Paler charged.

Some complaint-line callers proudly took ownership, however, calling out “That’s me,” when he named them, and joking about whether they had made the upper echelon of most-frequent callers.

“It is not about data, it is about airport operations assaulting everyone else,” said Barry Raebeck of the Quiet Skies Coalition. Aircraft emissions, he said, are a “huge environmental toxin in our midst.”

“The profiteers and carpeteers from New Jersey have pulled out all the stops,” Frank Dalene said, with “fear-mongering and absurd Doomsday scenarios.”

“This was predictable,” he said, as no business wants to have to cut back on profitable operations. However, he said, all types of businesses have to deal with regulations that protect the community, and so should aviation.

“Every polluting business has always wanted the same thing — to continue to pollute while making as much money as possible,” said Patricia Wadzinski of Amagansett.

“They impose on us uninvited to exploit the region for monetary gain,” Gene Polito said. With new helicopter ride-sharing services, said Barry Holden, the number of flights will continue to increase. The opponents of regulation, he said, “are in it only for their own business interests . . . . We’re in it to protect the most beautiful place on earth.”

The proposed regulations “embody a time-honored tradition of policy for the greater good, of bringing industry up to community standards,” Kathy Cunningham a co-chairwoman of the Quiet Skies Coalition, said, adding, however, that she was speaking as a private citizen. “We’re not asking people not to come here,” she said. “We’re just asking them to come quietly.”

“Please move ahead with this; I prefer to spend the bulk of my summer in my garden, not in my basement,” said Tom MacNiven of East Hampton.

“This is the first board in 30 years that has taken this problem seriously and put meaningful proposals on the table,” said Pat Trunzo, thanking the board members. A former town councilman, he has long been involved in airport matters in that capacity and as a member of the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion.

“This is not merely anti-noise legislation; this is anti-airport legislation,” said Tom Knobel, another former town councilman. He asserted that the laws are likely to have “unintended consequences, through inadequate review.”

Jeff Gilley of the National Business Aviation Association said he and other aviation group representatives had had a good discussion about “reasonable access restrictions” in Washington, D.C., recently with East Hampton Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and Councilwoman Kathee Burke-Gonzalez, the sponsor of the airport legislation.

But, he said, “What you’re proposing here stands out significantly. East Hampton is really kind of out riding point on these access restrictions that we feel are subject to legal challenges.”

“I am for keeping your community quiet,” said Keith Vitolo, a pilot with his own helicopter, which he said is among the quieter craft. “I feel like I’m being victimized and discriminated against because I’m a helicopter owner. It’s me you’re putting out of business.”

“I support controls and noise regulations, but I just hope you consider the other people,” said Doug Cunningham, also the proprietor of a business for which airport traffic is key.

“Vast numbers of people” in the town are not complaining about aircraft noise, said Tina Piette of Springs, and should not be burdened with the costs of airport improvements or litigation, should the airport not remain self-sustaining. “I am adamantly opposed to a tax increase,” she told the board. “I hope you are taking your fiscal responsibility to all residents very seriously.”

“You have read, studied, and listened to every argument,” said Patricia Hope of East Hampton, who supports the regulations. “You’ve listened to outside interests. You’ve seen all the numbers. You’re ethical people. You’re our people, and I ask you to hold fast.”

The hearing record remains open for written comment through tomorrow, after which the town board will review and discuss the comments before deciding on a course of action.

East Hampton Town this week got the go-ahead to designate as historic and preserve a house believed to be the sole surviving dwelling of the Montaukett Tribe, moved long ago from tribal land at Montauk’s Indian Field to a parcel on Springs-Fireplace Road in East Hampton.

The saltbox-style house was owned by George Lewis Fowler and his wife, Sarah Melissa Horton.

Now in serious disrepair, it was deeded to the town by Suffolk County, which had gained the land by tax default in 2002. The transfer was made with the proviso that the site be used for affordable housing, but that plan was put on hold when the property’s historical significance came to light. In a vote this week shepherded by County Legislator Jay Schneiderman, East Hampton’s representative, the Legislature approved a new plan for historic preservation of the site.

It is in what is known as Freetown, an area believed to have been first settled by former slaves of the Gardiner family of Gardiner’s Island and other wealthy local families.

In the late 19th century, Arthur Benson, a developer with designs on Montaukett land in Montauk, offered deeds to Freetown plots to entice Montauketts to vacate their tribal lands.

The deeds were “obtained by fraud and by undue influence,” the tribe later claimed, and in 1910, a tribal chief unsuccessfully sued the Benson heirs for the return of the ancestral lands.

“When they pushed us off Montauk they are said to have burned down some of the houses, but not all,” Jim Devine, a Fowler family descendant, told The Star in August.

A number were apparently moved from Montauk to Freetown, but the one now owned by the town is the only one that remains.

The George Fowler house, said Mr. Devine in a report provided to the County Legislature, “is an important historical site in the history of the Montauk Indians, the multiracial community of Freetown, and East Hampton generally.”

At one time, he said, it was surrounded by plantings including fruit trees, wild concord grapes, wildflowers and herbs, cultivated flowers, and ornamental grasses.

Mr. Fowler was employed for many years by the artist Thomas Moran, for whom he served as gardener and gondolier. He also tended the gardens at Home, Sweet Home.

The Moran house on Main Street in East Hampton has been declared a national historic landmark and is being restored.

In August, when the future of the Fowler house was in question, Robert Hefner, an East Hampton historic consultant, said that the house “completes the picture of the Moran house and Home, Sweet Home. This puts Main Street and Freetown together.”

James Fowler, one of Mr. Fowler’s ancestors, was born around 1700 in Montauk and married to Elizabeth Pharaoh, a descendant of the Sachem Wyandanch.

Other intermarriages between the two families followed, though only direct descendants of the Pharaoh line have been traditionally associated with the role of chief, or sachem, according to Mr. Devine.

A sister of George Lewis Fowler, the owner of the Springs-Fireplace Road house, married King David Pharaoh, becoming his queen.

In her 1950 book, “East Hampton History,” Jeannette Edwards Rattray said that the Pharaohs and the Fowlers were the last Indian families remaining in the community.

The East Hampton Village Board would like to reduce the default speed limit in the village from 30 to 25 miles per hour.

On Jan. 30, Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. and Senator Kenneth P. LaValle introduced concurrent bills in the State Assembly and Senate that would authorize East Hampton and Sag Harbor Villages to reduce speed limits in certain cases. A home rule request from the pertinent governing body is required before the State Legislature can act on certain bills, so at its meeting last Thursday, the village board voted to authorize Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. to execute the request.

“Traffic-calming measures are not feasible options in these areas,” according to Mr. Thiele and Mr. LaValle’s memorandum in support of the bill, “due to the landscaping configurations and desired community character.” The memorandum cites the villages’ popularity as tourist destinations, with their “numerous small shops, restaurants, and historic museums” that are “situated on narrow and congested roadways.” As such, “the best way to achieve the safest streets possible for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians in the villages of Sag Harbor and East Hampton is to lower the speed limit to 20 miles per hour.” The proposal was referred to the State Senate’s local government committee. To date, no action has been taken. 

Secondary streets in East Hampton Village have differing speed limits: 30 miles per hour on some, 25 miles per hour on those used as truck routes.

The village board, in response to residents’ concerns, has already moved to reduce the speed limit to 25 miles per hour on streets including Dayton Lane, Mill Hill Lane, and Meadow Way, a move supported by East Hampton Village Police Chief Gerard Larsen.

Mayor Rickenbach said on Monday that the board would like to see a uniform 25-miles-per-hour speed limit, rather than 30 or, as Mr. Thiele and Mr. LaValle’s memorandum requests, 20. “Let’s see how that plays out,” he said of a 25-mile-per-hour limit. “Let’s take it one step at a time.” Many motorists, he said, are not adhering to the posted speed limit. Even at 25 miles per hour, he said, “the pressure to get from point A to point B,” or drivers that are “totally oblivious” to the speed limit, present a hazard to the public. “But at least we’ll have a mechanism for enforcement,” he said of a reduced speed limit.

Last year, the State Legislature approved a reduction of New York City’s default speed limit from 30 to 25 miles per hour as part of a push by the city’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, to improve traffic safety. The city’s new speed limit went into effect in November.

The Montauk Fire Department was required to pay over $81,000 in 2014 into a receivership fund set aside for the victims of the Ponzi scheme run by Brian R. Callahan and Adam J. Manson, brothers-in-law who pleaded guilty in federal court last year to criminal charges stemming from their operation.

The amount the department agreed to pay was based on the profit it believed it had made from a high six-figure investment into Distinctive Ventures L.L.C. in 2006 or 2007, according to court documents. Various sources have placed the actual amount between $400,000 and $1 million.

The department has not been implicated in any wrongdoing. Calls this week to fire officials went unanswered.

Mr. Callahan and Mr. Manson used the money, along with money from other investors, to finance their purchase of the Panoramic View Resort on Old Montauk Highway. Mr. Callahan pleaded guilty last April to securities fraud and wire fraud; Mr. Manson pleaded guilty in May to a lesser charge of attempted wire fraud. Both men are awaiting sentencing.

A court-appointed receiver, Steven Weinberg of Gottesman, Wolgel, Flynn, Weinberg & Lee, P.C., reported the fire department’s 2014 payment to a federal judge in Central Islip District Court on Jan. 30. “The Montauk Fire Department repaid investor funds in the amount of $46,690 in the first quarter of 2014, and $34,970 during the fourth quarter of 2014,” he told Judge Arthur D. Spatt. He indicated he had first contacted the department in the fall of 2013 during his “claw-back” investigation, alerting fire officials that the profit they had received would need to be returned, plus interest.

Judge Spatt is overseeing the civil side of the government’s action against the brothers-in-law, in tandem with the criminal proceedings.

The Montauk department pulled out of its investment early, on a date not given, when members became suspicious, questioning what they were actually investing in. The department was among the few investors who not only got their money back but made a profit, which, however, essentially consisted of stolen funds.

According to Mr. Weinberg’s report, Mr. Callahan was running a Ponzi scheme, taking money from one innvestor to pay another, like the Montauk department, that had asked for its money back. Mr. Weinberg said Mr. Callahan ran the scam from 2005 until the Securities and Exchange Commission closed in on him in early 2012.

“Defendant Callahan failed to maintain investor funds in liquid segregated accounts, and indiscriminately used comingled investor funds to satisfy redemption requests,” Mr. Weinberg told Judge Spatt.

The receiver’s report listed 67  individuals, trust funds, and banks that were victimized. The amounts the investors were defrauded of ranged from a low of $10,000 to a high of over $18 million.

Most people are probably not aware that the nation is commemorating National Social Work Month in March. “We’re one of those groups that goes unnoticed,” said Doreen Quaranto, a licensed clinical social worker and director of parish outreach at Most Holy Trinity Catholic Church in East Hampton, “even though we’re in great numbers everywhere.” And, she added, “We do great work.”

It was an understatement. The church’s outreach efforts are not limited to its large and diverse congregation; rather, they are extended to anyone residing in the greater East Hampton area. And the needs are many.

“My program is to help anyone, whether it’s financial, physical, mental, spiritual,” Ms. Quaranto, who spent 20 years as a trauma nurse in Connecticut, said. “They walk in and we see what we can do. The idea being, I know all the federal, state, and county programs, and the other programs in town. If one of those can help the person, I set that up. If not, we look to do the help that’s needed.”

The road to East Hampton has been long and winding. One of the first trauma nurses to be certified in Connecticut, Ms. Quaranto’s work at St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Bridgeport brought valuable experience to her current role, she said. “I liked working out of the emergency department at the trauma center, and my office is that way. Every day I don’t know what I’ll be working on or with whom, but I love it.”

In between those roles, Ms. Quaranto spent four years doing missionary work with the Trinitarians, two running a shelter in Panama City, Fla., and two more setting up health clinics in rural Alabama. “When I was in the missions,” she said, “I felt there were so many more needs that needed to be filled. In social work, I would still use my medical background but could venture to a much bigger role.”

She earned a master’s degree from Fordham University in the Bronx, where she met her husband, Richard, a Huntington native who owned a house in East Hampton.

Contrary to popular perception, there is hunger and homelessness on the South Fork, while moral failure and its consequent behavior know no boundaries. Ms. Quaranto, like all of the South Fork’s social workers, has no shortage ofwork. Along with other houses of worship, Most Holy Trinity collects food for, and encourages donations to, the East Hampton Food Pantry. Her role, however, includes a search for long-term solutions to hunger, she said.

“If you come in tomorrow and say, ‘I can’t pay my rent,’ I will go over your whole budget,” she said. “I will give you the food pantry hours, what you need to do to sign up. Can you get there? Are you elderly, do you need to have someone pick up food for you?” Special circumstances, such as food allergies, are also considered, she said. “I look at the overall picture, which is how social work teaches: look at someone in their environment, so we’re not putting square pegs in round holes.”

Churches on the South and North Forks meet homelessness head-on. “From Nov. 1 to April 1, we make sure no one freezes to death,” Ms. Quaranto said. Guests are given a hot dinner, a place to sleep with bedding, an opportunity to wash up, and medical screening. “Then we give them a hot breakfast, a bag lunch, and send them out during the day.”

Domestic abuse and worker exploitation are other societal crises the parish tries to resolve. “I get people whose husband is beating them, but they’re afraid because they don’t want to lose the children, or they’re undocumented,” she said. “We send them for counseling to the Retreat and try to make a plan for them. We get people who say their boss fired them and didn’t pay the last week or two. I write a letter to these nice American bosses saying, ‘I represent the biggest Catholic church in the area and we’d like to fix this.’ Very few say they want to meet face to face.”

Ms. Quaranto helps those lacking health insurance navigate health care programs and insurance plans, and Most Holy Trinity’s outreach extends to those learning English as a second language. “I have volunteer teachers who love working with our people. It’s wonderful to see,” she said. Most students have to walk to the weekly classes, she said, “but they think nothing of walking two to three miles.”

Last night, Most Holy Trinity hosted the winter’s final interfaith community soup dinner, sponsored by the East Hampton Clericus. Ms. Quaranto, who coordinated the dinner, said that the event was more about fellowship than feeding. “People meet each other on a level playing field,” she said. “We’re all sitting around a table eating soup together. A lot of social workers come and hand out literature.”

After years as a trauma nurse and missionary, Ms. Quaranto said, she had considered retirement. Such a move would have left a considerable void in a world where so many are in need of so much. Retirement, she concluded, “didn’t appeal to me as much as I thought it would. I’ve never regretted it. Though I saved a lot of lives in trauma, I have probably saved a lot more families in social work.”

A change to town laws that is under discussion would allow personal watercraft such as Jet Skis, which have been banned from East Hampton Town harbors, to be launched from designated ramps throughout the town and traverse the harbors in order to get to open waters, where they are unrestricted.

Seven launching ramps closest to the mouths of harbors would be cleared for use should the town board approve the revised law, Ed Michels, the head of East Hampton’s Marine Patrol, told the board on Tuesday.

They include those owned by the town at Northwest Creek, Gann Road at Three Mile Harbor, Louse Point on Accabonac Harbor, Napeague Harbor at Lazy Point, and Montauk Harbor. Two privately owned launching ramps, at the Gone Fishing Marina on East Lake ­Drive in Montauk and on Clearwater Beach Property Owners Association land in Springs, could also be used.

The town board is considering the change at the request of Martin Drew, a Springs resident, who brought the issue to the table, he has said, on behalf of his brother, a personal watercraft user.

Allowing the machines to set out from the launching ramps would not only “provide an access point,” said Michael Sendlenski, a town attorney who has penned a draft law, but cut down on “the beach launching that we currently see.”

A change to the current ban “shouldn’t­ be a problem,” Mr. Michels said. The change is supported by the Springs Citizens Advisory Committee, said Councilman Fred Overton, the liaison to that group.

At Montauk Harbor, Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell said, boat traffic can be heavy in the morning and again in the afternoon, when commercial and private fishing boats head out from and return to docks. “To throw a personal watercraft into the mix, is that really what we want to do?” he asked.

Apart from the current restrictions about being in the harbor, said Mr. Michels, “they have the same right as kayaks and canoes,” which can also be problematic and a safety hazard when amongst larger boats.

Mr. Cantwell asked why previous elected officials had banned the personal watercraft from harbors.

“When these things first came out, it was a free-for-all,” Mr. Michels said. The craft were much noisier than they are now, and had to be driven at fast speeds or riders would fall off. Now, he said, they are quieter and more stable.

“They used to be, basically, floating chainsaws,” Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc said. Two-cycle engines have now been replaced with four-cycle engines, he said.

“What percentage is no longer floating chainsaws?” asked Councilwoman Sylvia Overby. “I’d say 95 percent,” Mr. Michels said.

Ms. Overby wondered if the law could distinguish between newer and older craft. Besides being noisier, the older craft, she said, would be unlikely or unable to follow the required slow speeds inside harbors. 

Mr. Cantwell posed another question: “How are we going to tell operators they can go to the launching ramp, and only use it to exit the harbor and return?”

An education process and posted signs would be needed, along with enforcement, Mr. Michels said.

Signs that have been posted at various ramps have repeatedly ended up vandalized, said Mr. Van Scoyoc, who said that personal watercraft operators have driven around Northwest Harbor and disturbed shorebirds and other wildlife.

“They do 60 or 70 miles an hour, full speed, some of them, and they’re gone before you can even get out a report,” he said.

“I think the people who are going to launch them from the ramps are not going to do that,” said Mr. Michels. Locals “will know what they have,” if given the opportunity to launch into East Hampton’s harbors, and not abuse the privilege, he said.

Still, he said, “You can’t stop people from doing stupid things.”

“But this adds to the possibility,” Ms. Overby said.

“If it’s done correctly and monitored and enforced it can work,” said Mr. Michels.

The board will review a revised draft law at a future meeting and discuss scheduling the change for a public hearing.

The battle over an alcohol ban at Indian Wells Beach in Amagansett intensified on Tuesday when Town Supervisor Larry Cantwell and Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc visited a meeting of the East Hampton Town Trustees. Before the meeting concluded, complaints were aired, pleasantries were extended, and one very controversial sign had been ripped from its post.

The trustees strongly opposed the East Hampton Town Board’s July 2014 decision to prohibit drinking on the beach during lifeguard-protected hours on weekends and federal holidays, to a distance of 1,000 feet in either direction from the road end. The action was taken in response to residents’ complaints that raucous, drunken parties had overtaken the beach and rendered it unfriendly to families. Ultimately the trustees, who manage most of the town’s beaches, waterways, and bottomlands on behalf of the public, agreed, grudgingly, to a ban, on a trial basis and with a sunset provision.

The law took effect on Aug. 2 and expired on Sept. 15. Yet a sign stating that alcohol is prohibited on the beach, without specifying dates, times, or where the ban begins and ends, was never removed — an enduring indication of the town board’s disregard for their jurisdiction, said the trustees.

Diane McNally, their presiding officer, was blunt in opening the discussion. “We really weren’t looking to prohibit alcohol on the beach again,” she told Mr. Cantwell and Mr. Van Scoyoc. 

“This is straightforward, from my perspective,” Mr. Cantwell answered. “I think we need to do it again . . . if nothing else, for an insurance policy, and I would like the trustees to agree to what you agreed to last year.”

The trustees were not in an agreeable mood. “But the sign is wrong,” said Tim Bock. “You’re making it like it’s nothing. . . . You didn’t do anything you agreed to.”

“We’ll change the sign,” Mr. Cantwell said.

“Why is the sign still there when the law is over?” Deborah Klughers demanded. “Let’s give the public the truth.” She insisted that the sign be removed immediately.

Changes, including an attended booth on Indian Wells Highway that turned away taxis and buses, reduced the number of beachgoers toting large quantities of alcoholic beverages, Mr. Cantwell said. “Can you determinewhat exactly the impact was? That’s hard to do, because it was only in effect for a month. From my perspective, this is about ensuring that the beach isn’t going to turn into a drunken, wild party as it had in the last several years . . . in order to protect the people who use that as a resident-family beach. That’s the heart of this.”

The supervisor said the law did no harm, and he had received no complaints about it. Again, he asked the trustees to support the prohibition during the coming summer season. If John Courtney, the trustees’ attorney, wanted to provide the wording for a new sign, “I’d be happy to accept that,” he said.

The trustees were not finished venting. “It’s the perception that we did work so hard to come to that compromise, and it wasn’t reflected to the public,” Ms. McNally said. “It helped alleviate some problems . . . but you know what, damn it, it really made this board look like fools. And that’s the problem.”

If the sign accurately reflected the law, Mr. Van Scoyoc asked, would the trustees accept the prohibition for the coming season?

“I think that’s what you would like to walk away with,” said Stephanie Forsberg, the ancient body’s assistant clerk, “but what I’m sensing from this board is . . . there were so many discussions on coming up with a compromise, and it wasn’t carried through to be clarified for the public that there was a compromise agreed on, just that there was a ban in place.”

The trustees represent all user groups, she said. “We can’t just say this is going to be status quo.” Given the data — four summonses issued relative to the restricted area while the prohibition was in place — she questioned the necessity of a prohibition. Moreover, she said, “It’s a precedent we don’t want to set in multiple locations.”

Complicating any effort by the two governing bodies to reach an agreement, Mr. Cantwell confirmed that the town board would like the law adopted last year to be in place permanently, “so that we don’t have to have this discussion every year.”

The trustees said they would take the next two weeks to consider the supervisor’s request. With the debate concluded, Mr. Cantwell and Mr. Van Scoyoc left the meeting.

Turning their attention to other matters, the trustees had nearly completed the evening’s agenda when a figure appeared in the doorway. It was Mr. Van Scoyoc, bearing evidence that he and Mr. Cantwell had heard their concerns. In his hand was the sign that has been posted at Indian Wells Beach for the past eight months. The word “prohibited,” riddled with scratch marks, was nearly invisible.

State wildlife officials still have mute swans in their sights, but they’ve toned down their attack since their first proposal last year, which elicited protest from thousands.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation released a revised management plan Monday for the non-native invasive species, which are said to be aggressive toward people and to displace native wildlife. The first draft, issued in January 2014, called for their elimination in New York State by 2025, and sparked outrage from animal activists and residents who have grown fond of the large, graceful birds.

Changes to the proposal include a revised focus on minimizing swan impacts, rather than getting rid of all free-flying swans. Regional approaches would recognize the difference in impacts between upstate New York, where the D.E.C. said there were no mute swans before 1980, and other areas of the state. “This would generally limit mute swans to Long Island, New York City, and the lower four counties of the Hudson Valley (Orange, Rockland, Putnam and Westchester counties), with fewer than 800 birds in total and as few as possible occurring in tidal waters or other important wildlife habitats,” the D.E.C. said in its revised proposal. There are about 2,200 mute swans statewide. “A much smaller and managed population of this non-native species will best serve the public desire to see mute swans while protecting the integrity of wetland ecosystems in New York,” the D.E.C. said.

The D.E.C. initially planned to shoot, capture and euthanize, or sterilize mute swans, and have their eggs and nests destroyed.

However, the revision offers “a commitment to full consideration of non-lethal techniques, including egg-oiling and and placement of swans in possession of persons licensed by D.E.C., except where immediate removal of swans is necessary to protect health or safety.” The D.E.C. said this change would require “some commitment of funding and assistance from organizations and individuals who wish to see non-lethal options used to the extent possible.” Municipalities would be permitted to keep swans at local parks and other areas, which “can be costly to local governments or communities,” it said.

Mute swans, brought to North America to beautify estates in the Hudson Valley and on Long Island in the late 1800s and escaped from captivity around 1910, compete with native wildlife for aquatic food plants and nesting areas, according to the D.E.C. The free-ranging population can be found in coastal bays, marshes, and wetlands, and on lakes, rivers, and ponds throughout New York. Several live on Town Pond and Hook Pond and at the Nature Trail in East Hampton Village.

The first draft of the management plan also would have prohibited the feeding of mute swans. While the D.E.C. still discourages feeding of mute swans and other wild waterfowl, the revision would allow for feeding of mute swans in community-based management programs.

"Wildlife management can present challenges in trying to balance conflicting interests, such as when a beautiful bird has undesirable impacts,” D.E.C. commissioner Joe Martens said. “This revised plan remains committed to minimizing the impacts of mute swans on wildlife dependent on wetlands for their habitats, while being sensitive to public concerns about how and where that is accomplished.”

The D.E.C. said it met with organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Ducks Unlimited, the New York State Fish and Wildlife Management Board, and the United States Department of Agriculture’s  Wildlife Services. “As a result of this thoughtful public input, the plan is greatly improved,” Mr. Martens said.

The D.E.C. is accepting comments on the revised management plan through April 24. Comments may be summated in writing to N.Y.S.D.E.C. Bureau of Wildlife, Swan Management Plan, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12233, or by email to fwwildlf@gw. dec.state.ny.us.