Mayor calls questions “harassment” as Cobleskill considers anti-recording law

COBLESKILL, N.Y. – The Village of Cobleskill is moving ahead with a proposed local law that would sharply limit public access to village buildings and restrict recording inside most village spaces – and the mayor is calling on-camera questions about it “harassment.”

Local Law No. 5 of 2025, scheduled for public hearing on November 18 at 7 p.m. at the village firehouse, would declare much of village hall to be “non-public forum” space. Members of the public would be told they need an appointment or specific “village business” to pass a narrow lobby area, and anyone who continues to record without the consent of every person in view could be referred to police for a potential trespass.

New York is a one-party consent state, and courts have repeatedly recognized a First Amendment right to record public officials performing public duties in public spaces. Despite that, Mayor Rebecca Stanton-Terk described people who enter village hall with cameras as “harassment” to employees and said residents who aren’t there to pay taxes or a water or sewer bill have no reason to be in the building at all.

The push for the law follows a visit by independent journalist Auditing Erie County, who previously documented a “no recording” sign on the mayor’s office door and filmed police struggling to identify any law that actually banned recording in the building. In an October board meeting, Stanton-Terk told residents the proposal came from the village’s insurance carrier. Moments later, she said it was recommended by legal counsel.

When ACT Now Media and Auditing Erie County traveled to Cobleskill on October 30, we found the draft resolution had been removed from the county website because of errors in the language. The village has not made a corrected version easily available online. Our goal was to ask the mayor about the proposal and her recent record in office, and to file public records requests related to those issues.

The mayor was in her office when we arrived. When asked about the law that would effectively turn a one-party consent state into a two-party consent village, Stanton-Terk insisted we “set up an appointment” by phone on a later date, even though we were standing in front of her during business hours. She repeatedly refused to answer any questions on camera, saying she was “in the middle of something,” and provided only a single FOIL form despite requests for multiple copies.

As we continued to ask about the resolution, recent turmoil in the police department, and a reported confrontation at a dog show, the mayor escalated to accusations that on-camera questions were “harassment,” “disgusting,” and “wildly inappropriate.” She declared that the area where members of the public were filling out forms was “not a lobby” and ordered us to leave so staff could go to lunch – even while we actively filled out records requests at the counter.

At one point, an employee in a staff-only area began filming us with a phone from behind the counter, near shelves and desks containing village paperwork. The mayor objected to our cameras as a threat to “private information,” but raised no similar concern about her own employee recording from inside the office area, undercutting the argument that recording itself is the problem.

Despite repeatedly using the word “harassment,” the mayor never asked police to charge anyone or to issue a formal trespass order. Under New York law, harassment generally requires conduct done with no legitimate purpose; asking questions about public policy and filing FOIL requests in village hall is a core part of legitimate civic oversight.

This clash over public access comes after a series of controversies in Cobleskill government.

In July 2023, more than half of the Cobleskill Police Department – including the chief – resigned after the mayor and village board eliminated overtime used to cover open shifts. Local outlets reported that officers blamed the policy change and ongoing disputes with village leadership, and residents raised concerns about public safety as the village turned to the sheriff and state police for coverage.

Village finances have also come under scrutiny. A 2020 audit by the New York State Comptroller found that a former clerk-treasurer received thousands of dollars in inappropriate payments because the board failed to implement adequate internal controls or properly oversee the office. Subsequent reporting alleged that the clerk padded her pay and benefits at taxpayers’ expense.

More recently, Cobleskill officials have been at odds over a dog show at the fairgrounds. Local coverage describes a “dust-up” at a canine expo where the mayor objected to the fire department using a tanker to fill a pool for the event, leading to a public confrontation that had to be defused.

Taken together, the mass police resignations, financial mismanagement uncovered by state auditors, and public disputes with other officials paint a picture of a village hall struggling with leadership and oversight. Against that backdrop, a law aimed at closing off access to village buildings and limiting recording raises serious questions about whether the goal is safety – or avoiding scrutiny.

During our visit, officers at the Cobleskill Police Department were professional and answered questions about how many officers are typically on duty and how to request records. By contrast, the mayor and clerk’s office did everything they could to avoid substantive discussion of the proposed law or past incidents, while insisting that cameras and questions were the real problem.

A public hearing on Local Law No. 5 of 2025 is scheduled for November 18 at 7 p.m. at the Cobleskill firehouse, 610 East Main Street. Residents who want to know whether they will still be able to walk into their own village hall and record what their government is doing may wish to attend, speak, or contact village officials directly before a vote is taken.

Act Now Media will continue to follow developments in Cobleskill and elsewhere in New York where local governments attempt to restrict recording and limit public access to taxpayer-funded buildings.

Police Department Resignations & Overtime Dispute: