Health dept. reports fifth death, sees testing trend

By DIANE VALDEN

ANCRAM—Approval of the minutes of the previous board meeting is usually one of the first items dealt with on any board meeting agenda and probably the most routine.

But at recent Ancram Town Board meetings, the minutes have spurred controversy over what they do and don’t contain.

The contention first became evident at the April Town Board meeting, when Town Supervisor Jim MacArthur asked for a motion and second to approve the minutes from the March Town Board meeting and there was dead silence.

After what seemed like a few minutes the supervisor said, “I’m waiting for a motion to approve the minutes.” After some more silence and still no motion, Town Clerk Monica Cleveland, who has held that post for the last 20 years, read a statement regarding how she prepared the minutes of the March meeting.

Mrs. Cleveland first cited the law, noting, the town clerk is to attend all town board meetings and keep a complete and accurate record of the proceedings of each meeting and of all propositions.

“Public Officers Law provides that minutes must consist of a record or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other matter formally voted upon and the vote thereon… Beyond…serving as a historical record of the town, the town minutes book serves as the legal record of town actions and proceedings. It is recommended that the information be short and specific; adjectives and editorial comment should not be included in the official minutes.”

She continued, noting, should errors occur that demand corrections or amendments, a town board member cannot unilaterally alter or direct that minutes be altered. Minutes can only be altered by a majority vote of the town board and the corrections or amendments must accurately reflect what transpired at the meeting.

Further, in her preparation of the March minutes, Mrs. Cleveland spoke to several of her town clerk colleagues, the town attorney and “leaned on opinions given by the Association of Towns and the Committee on Open Government.”

Town Clerk Cleveland said the process with regard to the March minutes left her “conflicted” and “backed into a corner” but that she chose to exclude certain conversations from the official meeting minutes.

The excluded “conversation” was a confrontation between board members over the posting of a Sheriff’s Office flyer via the Ancram townwide email system.

Mrs. Cleveland said, “I strongly feel that parts of our last meeting did not need to be included. There was no vote taken. There was no resolution passed on the subject. And so, after much deliberation and counsel by our attorney, I did as I was directed and I left the confrontation out. I could not in good conscience report one part and not the other. And, I was extremely uncomfortable with the choice of some of the language that was used. I did not feel that those words were worthy of the historical record of the town.”

Following her statement, Supervisor MacArthur again asked for a motion and second to approve the March minutes. Councilperson David Boice made the motion, Councilperson Colleen Lutz seconded it and the motion was passed by a vote of three to two. Mr. Boice, Ms. Lutz and Mr. MacArthur voted in favor and councilpersons Amy Gold and Bonnie Hundt were opposed.

But the issue of what should and should not be recorded in the official meeting minutes did not end there. It came up again in June, when Town Ethics Board Chair Jack Lindsey brought it up after receiving three phone calls from concerned residents. Mr. Lindsey researched the matter, consulting with the Association of Towns, the State Comptroller’s Office and NYS Department of State Division of Local Government Services.

He presented a document to board members from the NYS Department of State Division of Local Government Services that he thought they might find useful in making policy going forward called Making a Good Record: Minutes, Findings and Decision Documents.

One particular statement of note in the document says, “While approval of minutes is common, there is no requirement in state law that minutes be approved. However, there is a state law requiring that they be distributed within a certain timeframe.”

Mr. Lindsey noted that there are clear minimum requirements for what minutes should contain such as motions, resolutions and votes. But there is no law saying they cannot contain more.

He said the citizens he spoke to thought the minutes should include as much as possible about what went on at a meeting to create a public record.

“All of us like to know there’s a pubic record… When any of us as citizens come and speak at a meeting, I think it’s the assumption of all of us that… we’d like some record that we were here and what we said. So even if it’s not the law that you record public comments, I think it might be a policy you might want to look at.” He said the contents of the minutes should be expanded “as much as can be practically done particularly if it’s a public comment on something that leads to a resolution, a motion and vote.”

In answer to a subsequent question from Mr. Boice, Mr. Lindsey said he wasn’t there to make accusations, but rather to resolve what seems to be the appearance of a problem by giving the board some information.

Later in the meeting during the public comment period, Gail Heath, who identified herself as Monica Cleveland’s aunt, thanked Monica for her 21 years of service, noting “you’ve never had a problem until now.”

Sharon Cleveland asked the Town Attorney Elena Defio-Kean if Monica has been keeping the minutes correctly.

The attorney went over the requirements as set forth in many laws. She said every town has different guidelines, but “it is clear the minutes are not supposed to be a recitation of every word that is said. Traditionally, town minutes are short…

“The town board as a collective body can set reasonable things that they want included and give direction to the town clerk. There is nothing legally precluding this town board from establishing things they think are important to be included, but absent that, the information contained thus far is consistent with town law.”

To contact Diane Valden email dvalden@columbiapaper.com