To the Editor:

I have documented and proven beyond any doubt that the recording of town board executive sessions is not illegal. The editor has confirmed this repeatedly as well, yet Anita Clayton continues to insist I am wrong [“Mr. Willsey owes many people an apology,” letter to the Altamont Enterprise editor, March 20, 2026].

I provided very compelling evidence in my recent letter [“Public would be better served if executive sessions were recorded,” The Altamont Enterprise, March 5, 2026] that the bipartisan board approved recording policy of 2020 vastly reduced the frequency of unnecessary executive sessions and addressed a number of problems associated with executive sessions.

So where did the current town clerk get the idea that this policy was illegal? Take a guess.

I would suggest that the town clerk use AI to research Town, Municipal, Highway and Public Officer’s Law as a preliminary step instead of continuing to listen to folks like Anita. This strategy is particularly effective in better understanding legal issues where town business is concerned. It wasn’t around in 2020 when I authored the policy declared “illegal” by the current town clerk, but then, and now, I actually contact people in my research. 

With all the laws, advisory opinions, and court precedents very, very searchable by AI it’s easy to start with general legal questions as a first step. AI is very effective with such dependably organized and accessible data.

For example, ask; given this (example scenario), what New York laws may be violated? That pulls the first peel from the onion.  Now you may have several laws to cite in composing additional prompts, or you will get an explanation of why no laws appear to be violated. Either can result in more information for formulating more questions. 

I prompted AI with some general questions (as anyone could) for preliminary perspective. I left out any prompts about violations of law for the purposes of this letter. Clearly, the information very quickly available this way, contradicts the opinions expressed by the former and present town clerks and the 2025 town board members, two of whom are on the current board:

— Lack of Authority:

Under New York Town Law § 30, the clerk is the custodian of records and the “clerk of the board,” but they are not a member of the town board. Only board members (the supervisor and councilpersons) have the legal standing to propose motions or request that a motion be made.

— Unauthorized Legal Declarations:

A clerk does not have the authority to unilaterally declare a board-passed policy “illegal.” Legal determinations are the responsibility of the town attorney or the court system. By labeling the policy illegal on the November 2025 agenda, the clerk overstepped her administrative role into a judicial one.

— Contradiction of State Guidance:

The New York State Committee on Open Government has consistently stated that, while the Open Meetings Law does not require recording executive sessions, it certainly does not prohibit it. Boards have broad discretion to adopt rules for their own proceedings, making a recording policy a valid exercise of local authority, not an “illegal” act.

— Violation of Due Process and Transparency:

To rescind an existing policy, the board must follow proper procedure, which includes providing the public and board members with the necessary documentation for deliberation. Placing a motion on the agenda based on a false legal premise without providing supporting evidence at least 24 hours in advance undermines the integrity of the meeting.

I asked some questions about our newly created, legally repugnant, recording policy created at the November 2025 town board meeting and got this result:

You’ve identified a classic legal and clerical paradox in how these minutes were drafted.

From a strict drafting perspective, if a board moves to “rescind X” and then defines X by quoting the original policy exactly, they are effectively saying: “We are canceling the following rule: [Quote of Rule].”

However, the way it is written in the Berne minutes creates two major problems:

By stating they are “rescinding ... as follows” and then listing the exact 2020 motion (which mandates recording and 10-year archiving), the text is logically circular.

—The intent was to kill the old rule.

—The phrasing ("as follows") usually introduces the new standard.

— The result is a “double negative” effect. If you rescind a motion that says “Record everything,” you stop recording. But if you “approve” the rescission of that motion by restating it as the current action, you have created a document that is internally inconsistent.

Summary: You are correct — the minutes are nonsensical.

 In reference to Anita Clayton’s claim that she told Supervisor [Sean] Lyons that the new 2020 recording policy was illegal and told him she would therefore not observe it, I posed some questions to AI:

— Failure to Perform Statutory Duties:

The clerk is the “clerk of the board” and is responsible for attending all board meetings, keeping a complete record of every proceeding, and maintaining all town records. If the board passes a policy requiring the recording of executive sessions, the clerk’s refusal to do so likely violates their legal obligation to maintain accurate and complete records as directed by the board.

— Ultra Vires Conduct:

When a public official acts outside their lawful authority or refuses to follow a lawful mandate from the governing body, it is known as ultra vires conduct. A clerk does not have the legal standing to veto or “opt-out” of a board policy based on their own personal legal opinion.

— Misconduct in Office:

Intentionally refusing to carry out a lawful policy established by the Town Board could be grounds for official misconduct (a misdemeanor under New York Penal Law)

— The “Illegal” Claim:

As previously established by the Committee on Open Government, there is no state law that prohibits recording executive sessions. Therefore, the clerk’s claim of “illegality” is factually and legally incorrect. A clerk cannot legally justify a refusal to work by citing an “illegality” that does not exist in state statute. 

In summary, a town clerk cannot legally choose which board policies to follow. Their role is to implement the board’s decisions, and a refusal to do so is a breach of their oath of office.

My recent letter that inspired Anita’s unfounded personal attacks last month was thoroughly researched and all documentation was provided online.

Joel Willsey

Berne