To the Editor:
I think it’s interesting that Mrs. Anita Clayton, former Berne town clerk and then deputy town supervisor, has chosen this time to make misleading accusations about email accounts under her charge and to publicly disparage someone who is bringing an action against the town of Berne for a civil rights violation in which she was complicit. 

 She was given the option to apologize and avoid court action for the town just like the other board members (who did not choose this option). Is she consulting a lawyer who approves of her illegitimate public ridicule and personal attacks during an active lawsuit in which she is cited?

She sees nothing wrong with illegally preventing free speech at a public hearing. She is also very comfortable illegally destroying or otherwise obscuring public records for her political purposes. Don’t let her distract you from her current violations of the First Amendment and state laws.

The town supervisor and Clayton are people who fail to acknowledge the laws that govern the actions of elected officials and public servants. They assume nobody is going to spend $7,500 to take them to court and so do what they please.

And, in their typical, vengeful thought process, they overlook the very stark legal difference between a regular town board meeting and a public hearing.  

Mr. [Kevin] Crosier, as supervisor in a regular town board meeting in 2017, did not have to listen to the distraction of anyone in the gallery at all, particularly anyone who had harassed and heckled him in public meetings for months and threatened to vandalize his property on social media.  

Board leadership in 2023, including Anita Clayton, decided to get revenge for that 2017 event by denying Mr. Crosier’s free speech in a public hearing, a meeting required by law for the specific purpose of hearing the opinion of residents. But then they had to take it a step further and decided to publicly disparage that same resident. Now Mrs. Clayton is just attempting a distraction from her unethical violation of multiple laws and the First Amendment with her email nonsense and unsubstantiated public declarations. 

 Mrs. Clayton says this happened and that happened to control her email accounts, contacts, and vendors in her recent letters, as if she had taken the proper steps, but doesn’t cite dates or documentation, because, as town clerk, she says she destroyed such records after just one year. How convenient. 

She says Mr. Crosier refused to turn over his email. Where’s the documentation? She says the former supervisor misrepresented himself as the current supervisor. Where did he say he was the supervisor to any sender of the random emails he received? Did he represent himself as the supervisor to me? To The Altamont Enterprise? Her accusations are absurd and futile.   

Anita Clayton’s documented unethical and potentially illegal actions need to be acknowledged. Unbelievably, in her official capacity as deputy supervisor, she arranged to have the following falsehoods actually included in the Dec. 19, 2023, minutes:

“Deputy Supervisor Clayton wanted to discuss the recent letter to the editor in the Altamont Enterprise accusing her of destroying Town records which she assured residents is not true. She discussed the records retention schedule, and that correspondence only needs to be kept for one year.” 

Notice that she fails to cite any source to back the statement: “correspondence only needs to be kept one year.”

In fact, as records officer for the town, New York Local Government Records Law 57.25 states that she was actually responsible to: “retain and have custody of such records for so long as the records are needed for the conduct of business.” And records are basically defined under 57.17 as anything the town receives (unless borrowed from a library) . 

As an example, I presented 26 hardcopy notices of highway defects signed by 26 people. She stamped them as received in February 2020. But the current town clerk couldn’t find them. Numerous notices of defect; emails, photos, and documents have all been unavailable after far less than five years in direct violation of the law. Where are all the notices of highway defects, Anita?

New York Local Government Records Law Section 57-A, paragraph, 57-25 and New York Town Law 65a cover situations our former town clerk is either not capable of comprehending or very intentionally violated in my opinion. 

Town Law 65a -4 is very specific regarding the notices of highway defect, “The record of each notice shall be preserved for a period of five years from the date it is received.” And New York Records Law defines records as anything, photos, papers, recordings, files, etc.  

Under New York Records Law 57-A, the record retention period is left to the judgment of the records officer, which is obviously a big problem in this case. It certainly appears that Mrs. Clayton repeatedly violated New York Records Law 57-A and Town Law 65a by destroying, hiding or losing public records documenting highway defects after just one year. The current town clerk cannot find them. 

Coincidentally this obscures the negligence of the superintendent of highways. Mrs. Clayton’s published false statements in the minutes are politically motivated, unethical, and a dangerous disservice to the traveling public in Berne.

According to Freedom of Information Law requests and my requests as a town board member to retrieve the records of the notices of highway defects I have submitted to Anita Clayton as town clerk, since 2015, none of those records have been available for five years as the law requires. It certainly appears that, as town clerk, Mrs. Clayton made all records of highway defects unavailable after just one year in violation of Town Law 65a (as she now admits in town board minutes).  

As a records officer, one should understand that it is your responsibility under New York Records Law 57-A to determine that Notices of Highway Defect records need to be kept for five years as Town Law 65a requires. Especially after this has been pointed out repeatedly. There is a huge range of other reasons that various correspondences need to be kept more than a year.  

Documentation is posted online with this letter.

Joel Willsey

East Berne

Editor’s note: Over the course of a week, Anita Clayton did not respond to the assertions in this letter. 

The Local Government Schedule for retention and disposition of records states a summary record for complaints and requests of service for “unsafe, dangerous or defective condition of highway, street, road, bridge, sidewalk, or other capital improvement” shall be kept for six years; the complaint itself shall be kept for six years “where remedial action is taken,” or for one year where no action is taken.

With regard to “records prepared for or used at meetings,” those “not accepted as part of the minutes, including agendas, background materials, and other records” shall be kept for one year.