To the Editor:

Transparency continues to fade in Berne Town Board operations. Town Clerk Kristin De Oliveira and Board Member Melanie laCour are not acting in the best interests of the town.

They ignored appropriate process and attempted (and failed) to rescind a very effective policy motion we, as a board, got passed under difficult conditions in 2020. That motion vastly improved transparency back then.

Instead of rescinding that motion, their November 2025 efforts have resulted in incoherent town policy; inaccurate, yet approved minutes; and far less transparency [“Palow skewers critic at November meeting,” The Altamont Enterprise,” Nov. 14, 2025].

At the November board meeting, Town Clerk De Oliveira proposed a motion to rescind the 2020 policy to record all meetings. That is not a town clerk’s function; she is not a board member.

The 2020 motion was declared “illegal” on the agenda. That’s not the function of an agenda, and the statement is false.  

On the attached meeting audio, they portrayed that 2020 policy as illegal saying it contradicted New York laws yet they offered no documentation to inform board deliberation. They said confidentiality would be compromised, yet the MP3 file can be edited or a transcript redacted like any other record.

They declared the process of recording and retaining the occasional executive session too onerous. They said the storage room necessary for such MP3 files, for the occasional session, would overwhelm the town’s data storage capacity. 

A one-terabyte drive for $100 can store 236 years of continuous town board audio! Manipulating MP3 files is not difficult.

There is nothing illegal about the 2020 motion. What they said to justify their rescission is false!  

I worked hard to get that recording policy passed. I gained the backing of Bonnie Conklin, who supported my motion and gladly seconded it. We convinced the GOP-backed board majority to approve it. 

It required the town to record all executive sessions and retain those recordings for 10 years. I thoroughly researched that motion; it was not illegal and it did not contradict any laws then or now. 

Our 2020 policy was very successful; it vastly improved transparency in five ways:

— First, it significantly reduced the frequency of unnecessary executive sessions. There were 20 sessions mostly for “personnel matters” in the 31 months prior to the motion and just 4 in the 31 months after. The motion vastly reduced the number of unnecessary executive sessions as we intended it to.;

— Second, it stopped the threats and intimidation that contributed to the board dysfunctionality back to January 2018. With board members knowing they were being recorded, the harassment just stopped!  That well-documented, serious issue was eliminated;

— Third, while it is illegal to bring up any other subject than the reason cited for the session, boards routinely discuss other issues taking advantage of having the entire board assembled without resident oversight. This opportunity tempts all boards, but it is egregious, illegal behavior that defeats the very purpose of a publicly deliberative board. I know this happens firsthand with either party in control, as did the Republican-backed board members who approved the policy in 2020;

— Fourth, New York town boards are required by law to deliberate as a board, in public. Our 2020 motion reduces the frequency of executive sessions and increases public deliberation. The Committee on Open Government should recommend the recording of executive sessions; and

— Fifth, the illicit actions of these kinds actually illustrate the very need for the recording policy they attempted to derail:  

The town board went into the Aug. 13, 2025, executive session citing the illegitimate, vague excuse “personnel matters” [“Berne Town Board terminates transfer-station worker,” The Altamont Enterprise, Sept. 3, 2025]. Berne is notorious for going into executive sessions using that illegitimate reason. 

They came back out, reconvened the regular meeting, and immediately voted to fire an employee under very questionable circumstances and with no public deliberation! 

The 2020 motion was in effect then and required them to record that session. The transcript I requested of that record, redacted as necessary, would have documented the process and what was discussed. They avoided any transparency in the potentially illegal termination of an employee!

To make this worse, in a FOIL response, (full of other demonstrable falsehoods), it was declared that public deliberation took place before the vote to terminate. That did not happen! (meeting audio attached).  

Board member laCour admonished me publicly at the November meeting, for creating “conflict” with the board for disagreeing with her attempt to rescind our effective 2020 policy. Earlier, in the budget hearing, she had publicly discredited my concerns, then the budget she approved failed spectacularly [“‘Blindsided’: Berne board and citizens ponder 68% tax hike,” The Altamont Enterprise, Jan. 15, 2026].

It’s not her function to publicly attack and criticize residents speaking at hearings and meetings. She doesn’t understand her job as a public servant. The town clerk illegitimately proposed a motion to rescind that 2020 motion. These two don’t understand their functions.  

If they thought that 2020 motion was illegal, they could’ve asked to have it on the agenda for board deliberation. The clerk cannot propose a motion, and existing policy cannot be declared illegal before the board deliberates that point. 

To rescind a policy, documentation for deliberation is to be posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. The clerk posted no documents and no board deliberation based on any documentation provided for the meeting took place publicly. With no documentation and no public deliberation, any vote to change a policy is illegitimate.  

An incoherent policy mess resulted from their efforts to eliminate transparency and discredit me:

— First, according to their approved minutes, their motion says the town will no longer record executive sessions. But then says the town will retain those recordings for six months? That’s an incoherent policy;

— Second, it appears we have contradictory motions now; our 2020 motion wasn’t rescinded! No such motion was made! (meeting audio attached);

— Third, the minutes, authored by De Oliveira and approved by laCour, are simply false! Is that malversation? and

— Fourth, also according to those false, approved minutes, the 2020 motion was “rescinded as follows:” (followed by the exact language from the 2020 motion)! That would spontaneously rescind and re-affirm the 2020 motion! That’s incoherent.

Joel Willsey

Berne

Editor’s noted: Documents and recordings referenced in this letter are posted with the letter on the Enterprise website.