Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington Planning Board asks town attorney to review second 91-A records request
Summary
At its Feb. 27 working meeting the Washington Planning Board voted to ask the town attorney for a legal opinion on a second 91-A public-records request from Don Revane and directed two members to compile materials to send; the board earlier voted not to seek counsel on the first request.
At a Feb. 27 working meeting, the Washington Planning Board voted to request a formal opinion from the town attorney on a second 91-A public-records request filed by Don Revane and instructed two board members to prepare and send the supporting materials.
The vote followed debate over whether the board should seek legal advice and which records must be produced. Martin, the board chair, and Cashorali, a board member, voted with a majority to seek the attorney opinion while Caffrey, a board member who participated by phone, voted no. Earlier in the meeting the board voted unanimously not to seek counsel regarding the first 91-A request.
Why it matters: The second request centers on messages and emails that some members said might or might not be government records. The attorney’s guidance will determine whether the board must produce emails sent to a quorum and whether personal texts must be disclosed.
Board debate and votes Caffrey moved that the board not seek an opinion on the first 91-A request; Cashorali seconded and the motion passed unanimously. Caffrey then moved that the board not seek any attorney opinion on either request; Piatt seconded and that motion failed, with Caffrey voting yes and the other four members voting no.
Martin moved — and Cashorali seconded — that the board seek an opinion on the second 91-A request. The motion passed with Caffrey dissenting. The board decided Martin and Nan Schwartz, a board member who also prepared the minutes, will assemble a package for the town attorney that separates the first request (background emails) from the second request (materials for legal review). The packet will include a chronology of events and the original emails the board agreed were relevant.
On procedure, Piatt argued that emails sent to all board members are government records while "personal texts don’t need to be produced," and urged the board to send all emails that went to a quorum. Cashorali said the review was "the right thing to do to protect the board and the town," urging consultation with counsel on the second request. Martin said he wanted the town attorney to see everything for a full review. Schwartz noted that she had recorded who announced a recording but that the only way to confirm that announcement would be to hear the recording itself.
Next steps and logistics The board authorized Martin and Schwartz to send the package confidentially to the town attorney (to be cc'ed to board members) and agreed that Caffrey could review the request to the attorney before it was sent. The board set its next meeting for Tuesday, March 3, 2026, at 6:30 PM at Town Hall and adjourned at 6:42 PM.
What the action does not do The board’s vote to seek an opinion on the second 91-A request does not itself determine whether any particular message or text must be produced; that determination awaits the attorney’s advice and any subsequent board action.
