Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Confidentiality 38d topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlemont assessors review Great River Hydro confidentiality request, add penalty language to 38D letters
Summary
At its Sept. 9 meeting the Charlemont Board of Assessors discussed a confidentiality request from Great River Hydro, heard legal guidance from DLS counsel about Open Meeting Law and disclosure of 38D/F information, and decided to add explicit penalty language to future 38D request letters while not levying a penalty this year.
The Charlemont Board of Assessors discussed a confidentiality agreement from Great River Hydro and procedures for handling 38D/F information at its Sept. 9, 2024 meeting.
Assessor’s Clerk Carlene Hayden told the board that after consulting with an attorney at DLS Law she was advised to defer to the Town Attorney about signing any confidentiality agreement. The DLS attorney, Hayden said, generally would not recommend the town sign confidentiality agreements because the Open Meeting Law and the Freedom of Information Act impose public‑access obligations.
Hayden told the board that G.L. Chapter 59, § 52B already limits inspection of certain 38D/F information to assessing staff, the Commissioner of Revenue or the court. She said the DLS attorney also explained the assessors could rely on a consultant’s appraisal if a taxpayer did not provide requested financial information and that a statutory penalty exists for failure to cooperate; Hayden said the attorney cited a $250 penalty for an industrial property in the example discussed.
Hayden reported she had reviewed the consultant’s template 38D request letter and found it did not contain the penalty language required to notify a taxpayer that a penalty could be assessed for noncompliance. The board agreed Hayden should add the penalty language to future 38D request letters. Hayden said the board will not levy a penalty for noncooperation this year but will inform Great River Hydro that the board may levy the penalty in the future and will revisit the issue prior to next year’s 38D requests.
Why it matters: 38D/F requests seek taxpayer‑provided financial data used for commercial/industrial valuations; missing information can affect appraisals and tax assessments. Adding explicit penalty language clarifies the consequences of failing to provide documents and preserves the assessors’ statutory options.
Votes at a glance: On routine business the board unanimously approved the Aug. 5, 2024 minutes (motion by Chair Jacqueline Cashin; seconded by Karen Rau) and later voted unanimously to adjourn and enter executive session to deliberate on pending abatement and exemption applications under G.L. Chapter 59, Section 60 (motion by Cashin; seconded by Anthony Ostroski; roll call votes: Cashin—Yes, Ostroski—Yes, Rau—Yes).
The board asked Hayden to coordinate with the Town Attorney on any future confidentiality agreement and to update the 38D request letter template to include penalty language before the next cycle of requests.
