Brookline Select Board adopts rewritten right-to-know policy, sets page fees and USB delivery requirement

The Brookline Select Board voted unanimously to adopt a rewritten right-to-know policy intended to standardize how the town handles RSA 91-A requests and to limit staff burden.

The policy, presented by the chair, directs that all requests be routed through the town administrator, treats electronic responses as paged documents (the first 250 electronic pages are provided without charge under state law) and authorizes charging $1 per page for each electronic page beyond those first 250. The chair said towns adopting similar policies interpret 'electronic communication' as equivalent to pages when calculating the free threshold and fees.

The rewrite also changes the town’s practice for providing electronic copies. Under the new procedure, requestors who want electronic files must provide a brand-new, factory-sealed USB stick; town staff will copy documents onto that device and return it. The chair explained the step as a cybersecurity precaution: the town will not accept used media that might introduce malware into municipal systems. As the chair put it during discussion, “we are no longer going to be responding to right to know requests with emails…If you want electronic copies of it…go buy a brand new USB stick, bring it to us, and we will put the documents on there and hand it back to you.” (Chair, summary of policy remarks.)

Board members noted legal gray areas in how RSA 91-A is interpreted and said the policy is intended as a best-practices approach that could be adjusted if court guidance or statute clarifies the law. The policy applies townwide to all boards and cannot be applied retroactively to prior requests. It also sets an internal routing process: an employee who receives a right-to-know request must forward it to their director, who in turn forwards it to the town administrator to ensure consistent handling.

Members said the fee structure and USB requirement are intended to limit burdensome volumes of electronic requests and to offset staff time and technical costs. Several members confirmed the town had consulted legal counsel on the approach and that the new policy represents a minimum-management position for now.

The board approved the policy on a motion, agreed to prepare signed paper copies for the town records, and planned to finalize implementation details (for example, whether the town will provide an in-house copying session to populate submitted USB sticks). The select board delayed a formal vote only briefly while waiting for an absent member to return, then adopted the policy unanimously.

Next steps: the board will circulate a final printed copy for signatures and proceed with internal implementation and public notice about the new process for records requests.