Trustees debate release and redaction of attorney communications in 124‑page records packet

Trustees considered whether to release documents produced in response to an open-records request, including emails and attorney communications that a speaker said total roughly 124 pages. The item mattered because speakers debated whether municipal communications with counsel are privileged and which portions must be redacted under open-records law and recent state legislative changes. A trustee (name not specified) summarized the packet and legal background and cited the state Open Records Act and “house bill 21 63,” referring to statutory language the speaker read aloud about limits on privilege. The speaker said the statute provides that “only a court can determine” whether attorney communications are protected and warned the board that it could create a conflict of interest by deciding to withhold records itself. Another trustee said staff member Bryce had researched the issue and that the packet included emails, bills, minutes and guidance going back several years. The trustee asked the board to look for material that should be redacted, including Social Security numbers and bank-account numbers, and noted the public’s right to review town conduct. At one point a trustee asked whether the board should “make the records provided through an open records request be made available for review in the town office” and said the town’s copy of the packet could be inspected there. That same speaker then said, “I’d like to make a motion that we release the records to everyone who wants to see them.” The transcript does not include a second, a roll-call vote, or an outcome for that motion. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the distinction between attorney-client privilege for individuals and for municipalities and referenced guidance from the state auditor’s office and court rules. One trustee noted that the packet included correspondence produced by an attorney who “is now the attorney for the State Auditor’s Office,” and another urged careful redaction of “private information” before any release. Trustees discussed logistics: the packet is large (the speaker said “a hundred and 24 pages”), and the board planned a page-by-page review for private data and statutory redaction categories. The transcript records requests to look specifically for Social Security numbers, bank information and other personally identifiable information that would qualify for automatic redaction under open-records rules. The transcript shows trustees debating process and legal authority but does not record a final finding or formal vote to release the packet without redactions. Trustees directed staff and board members to review the packet and suggested placing the item on a future agenda for final action.