To the Editor:
In her Enterprise interview last week, Anita Clayton reportedly poses the question: “What does that mean to denounce someone?” [“Berne Dem Primary: Lippert v. Clayton for town council,” June 8, 2021]

She then answers the question: “It means to condemn, criticize, attack, censure, revile and vilify someone.” I also see it defined as “to publicly declare to be wrong or evil.”  

So, Anita seems to understand the word. She goes on to claim she was required, in her endorsement interview by the Democratic Committee, to personally denounce her GOP comrades. I do not believe it was even suggested that she should denounce anyone personally.

In fact, I am specifically told she was simply asked why she was so comfortable denouncing me and the other Democratic board members but not the GOP board members who clearly carried out many well documented, illegal, and unethical actions.

One denounceable example being the repeated evil and unethical attempts by her respected friends and comrades to illegally manipulate the planning board membership by trying to publicly intimidate a member into quitting and then just illegally removing her instead to make room for Tom Spargo (a man with no planning board experience) to be appointed chairman of all things.

With all her experience, I would have thought she would recognize that as something she should denounce. The New York State Supreme Court thought it was wrong — that fits the denouncement definition. It would not be unreasonable to expect a political candidate, someone endorsed by the Democrats, to denounce the documented, blatantly illegal, and unethical actions perpetrated by the GOP competition.

So, as reported, Anita goes on to say she won’t denounce her GOP friends as she is above that kind of behavior “…toward elected officials of the town, town employees or town residents.”  But do you remember way back in April when she denounced me, an elected town official, and a resident in a letter to the editor on these very pages?

She vilified us publicly and implied we violated the law, exposing Mr. [Highway Superintendent Randy] Bashwinger’s $15,000 bankruptcy and his wife’s personal medical history. She implied we did this knowing his wife was gravely ill and her family in crisis [“Enough is enough,” The Altamont Enterprise, Letters to the Editor, April 8, 2021].

She set off a chain reaction of nasty ignorant attacks on us on Facebook and letters to the editor. The problem being that I made no public comment whatsoever on the subject prior to the article, I had no knowledge of Mrs. Bashwinger’s condition, and the HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] law does not even apply to me.

So, we have documented here that she does indeed denounce elected officials and residents and did so in her own words, recently, in a libelous way and in this very paper. And now she is endorsed by Randy Bashwinger and the GOP?

I was a recipient of a group text where she said, “I think it would be great if we could get Randy on something illegal. We all know he’s dirty.” Sometimes she speaks the truth in her habit of denouncing elected officials, residents, and employees.

Oh, did I mention she referred to the highway department employees as idiots in a text to me? That was not sent to a group of people or published in the paper. Does that still count as a denouncement?  Because that would clinch it. In my opinion, that documents that she does indeed denounce residents, employees, and elected town officials.

I could poke holes in most of her claims in that interview, and unlike Anita, document my opinions. She apparently thinks that someone appointed to a job can be dismissed at the whim of the GOP, without notice or process because hiring is a different process. That is simply wrong.

Cheryl Baitsholts, as I understand, had Civil Service protection as the town’s appointed dog control officer and The Enterprise investigated and reported on that too as I recall.

Appointed board members can’t be removed without notice and without cause either. The New York State Supreme Court ruled on that in a Berne situation when her respected GOP comrades and friends illegally removed a planning board member.  

What is actually true is that it is not economically practical for anyone to contest being illegally removed from an appointed position that pays a few thousand dollars (or nothing at all). Court cases are the only remedy — there is no enforcement of laws like Article 78. It simply provides the avenue to remedy such situations in court.

Who is going to spend $8,000 or $10,000 in court over a job in, say, the $1,500-to-$6,000 range? It works when your entire livelihood is at stake, but there is no practical remedy for illegal removal from these low-paying positions.

Look at her statements on the fatal incident at the highway garage. She minimizes the importance of multiple safety violations directly related to the incident. These problems were identified and documented by state investigators.

Anita, unbelievably, calls them “minor safety issues.” What is “minor safety?” And she is quoted as saying: “The issues with the building at the highway department did not start with this administration.”

The building was not the issue; important safety standards, procedures and protocols are ignored by the superintendent of highways in highway projects (as I have proven and documented with the town since 2015) and now PESH [Public Employee Safety and Health Bureau] determined that is the case in Mr. Bashwinger’s shop operations as well! 

Anita is now protecting the guy “we all know” is dirty, even after two profoundly serious workplace catastrophes.  

In my opinion, it has been proven and documented that Mr. Bashwinger is negligent in observing safety standards and protocols; it has been recognized and documented since 2015, the current board has obstructed every attempt to address the problem and there has been little attempt to address the deficiencies in over seven long years.

So, Anita, I don’t think it matters what past administrations did eight years ago. Can you document the pre-existing deficiencies you imply existed then?

I could go on with this for about 2,500 words, so I will just end by saying it is pretty clear that Anita Clayton is the wrong choice for the town board.

Joel Willsey

Berne Town Board

Editor’s note: Anita Clayton alleged that the Berne Democratic Committee asked her to denounce the “current administration,” referring to the GOP-backed town board majority, in a letter to The Enterprise in February. The topic did not come up during Clayton’s interview last week.

For a story following up on the February letter, neither members of the Berne Democratic Committee nor Clayton would tell The Enterprise what questions were asked of candidates, each citing the confidentiality of candidate interviews. Committee member Larry Zimmerman said, “All candidates were asked roughly the same questions — the only variable being the position for which they were seeking the nomination.”

Anita Clayton declined to respond to assertions made in this letter.