Residents press council to release building-division audit; council split over attorney-work-product claim

Multiple residents urged the council to release the full building-division audit referenced by the grand jury, saying redactions could protect privacy while restoring community trust. Sarah Blank told the council: "Tonight, 4 of you are refusing. This is about trust." Several other commenters echoed the demand, describing the audit as public-funded work residents have a right to see.

Council defenders pointed to attorney-work-product doctrine and the circumstances surrounding how the independent investigator was retained and how materials were consolidated. The town attorney explained that certain interview notes and work papers were produced with an expectation of confidentiality and may be protected: the staff response states the investigator's work product "contains notes from interviews conducted with an expectation of confidentiality to various owners, stakeholders, and town employees" and that those materials "are protected from disclosure under the attorney work product doctrine." Several council members said a publicly released audit memo and an approved corrective-action plan had already been published and that the town has taken steps to implement recommended reforms.

Public commenters said the published memo and CAP summary are insufficient. Jennifer Edson argued the town had previously designated a document "publicly releasable" and said withholding the underlying report may violate the Public Records Act. Councilors who opposed full release said redacted work product with heavy blackactions would not satisfy transparency and could create additional confusion; supporters of release said redaction could balance privacy with public accountability.

No separate vote was taken specifically to release the consolidated work product; the council instead adopted its written responses to the grand jury while leaving the question of further disclosure and monitoring for follow-up.