Chester board adopts policy on public records requests

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2026 Telegraph Publishing LLC

The first Select Board meeting after the town’s annual meeting is usually a light one and last Wednesday’s Chester Select Board confab was even lighter than its agenda promised.

Sharon Baker  was expected to present a request to use the Chester Green for a Vermont Food Festival on the first Saturday that the Chester Festival moves to the American Legion field on Route 103 South. But Baker was unable to attend at the last minute.

The board also learned that the road policy that, when approved, will combine the town’s road and bridge standards with a new Class 4 road policy would not be discussed on the advice of town attorney Jim Carroll. Carroll advised that since there will be a hearing on the suit brought against the town by property owner Kirk MacGinnis on Monday, March 16, it would be best to wait until that has passed. It may show up on at the Wednesday, March 18 Select Board meeting.

New Public Records request policy

The most consequential portion of the evening was Town Manager Julie Hance’s presentation of a new policy on responding to requests under Vermont’s Public Records Act,which gives the public a right to “inspect and copy” most records of a public agency (including municipalities like towns and school districts.) Hance’s policy is based on a model created by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

But according to Hance, a number of trends throughout the state have made providing those records more difficult, time consuming and expensive. In at least one Vermont town, information from public records led to an attempted fraud that could have cost that town more than $1 million.

Hance told the board that in addition to run-of-the-mill requests, the town has seen an increase in detailed requests for large volumes of information. Those requests may have been generated by artificial intelligence and collected by data research companies that sell such information. Other large or complex requests – whether intentional or not – have forced town employees to set aside regular work to do research to meet the deadlines prescribed in the law.

The new policy is intended to “provide for timely action on requests … without unreasonable interruption of operations and to protect the integrity of the Town’s public records,” according to its first paragraph.

Current law allows towns to put such policies in place to rein in such requests by charging for the time spent by employees fulfilling them and for the cost associated with copying and sending the materials. The law also specifies that the first 30 minutes of work on a request is free of charge and there is a schedule of other costs such as copying and processing requests for audio and video. It also allows the town to say “no” to some requests because the information is routinely available to the public.

For example, town land records are available for public inspection at Town Hall. The term for such records is that they have been “already produced.” Without the policy, if someone calls or emails using the act to request copies of deeds, the staff has to get out the books, make copies and send them to the requester. With the policy, the town simply says that the requester is welcome to come in and look at and copy the deeds.

And the policy lays out a set of costs for fulfilling requests, which Hance characterized as “at the high end” of what the state allows. Legal fees incurred in fulfilling requests are not included in what the town is allowed to recoup. Hance told the board that records requests involving the Police Department routinely require redaction, which is done by an attorney. On Tuesday Hance told The Telegraph that generally the town waives fees on many public records requests, especially those that are deemed “in the public interest” such as those from news organizations.

Saying it was open to amending the policy in the future as more information is available, the board adopted the policy.

State looks in to public requests

At the same time that this is being adopted in Chester, the Vermont legislature is dipping a toe into the topic. While no bill has been introduced, the House Government Operations Committee has been taking testimony with an eye toward putting one forward.

The Vermont League of Cities and Towns – which advises towns on best practices and lobbies for them in Montpelier – suggested several changes including:

• Increasing the time a town has to respond to a request from three days to 14 business days.
• Clarifying the act of denying a request. Currently not responding in three days is considered a denial, which can lead to a premature appeal that can complicate the process and add to costs. VLCT wants language that includes a “clear act of denial” in the law.
• Clarifying the appeal process at the municipal level including designating an official to receive and decide on appeals
• Allowing towns to recover the true costs of producing records including redaction.

VLCT is also asking legislators to create a way to relieve towns from responding to “vexacious requests,” described as excessive, abusive or harassing public records requests. One way of doing this is to seek an order in Superior Court allowing a town to not comply with such a request.

The Telegraph is working on a story on the problems around public records requests, including costs, legal fees, AI and possible legislation.