BARNSTABLE CIVIC RECORD TOWN RECORDS-ACCESS RESPONSES: TRANSCRIBED EXTRACTS Prepared 22 October 2026 for the draft Action page. These are extracts, not complete originals or a finding of wrongdoing. Text inside the extract boundaries reproduces the Town's statements. Editorial scope notes are identified separately. No quoted requester replies are presented as the Town's words. 1. TOWN ATTORNEY EMAIL, 19 FEBRUARY 2026 From: Karen L. Nober, Town Attorney To: Nathan Herschler Subject: Re: Barnstable Petition to Charge Fee in Excess of $25 Sent: 19 February 2026, 22:01:55 UTC (5:01:55 p.m. Eastern) Source: original email received by Nathan Herschler; extracted from its plain-text message body. Opening paragraphs, closing, signature, quoted earlier messages and attachments are not reproduced here. --- BEGIN TOWN EMAIL EXTRACT --- With respect to your request re Councilor Crow, your original request of Jan. 28, 2026, was for all emails sent or received by him during a specific time period. We told you that there were approximately 1,900 responsive emails. Since that request was not limited to emails sent between Councilor Crow and specific individuals, the number of responsive emails is of course larger than what was responsive to your request where you did specify individuals. Attorney Cogliano will need to review all of those emails to determine if anything in the emails is atty-client privileged or is atty work-product. The cost estimate we provided remains our cost estimate if you choose not to revise that request. If you do not agree with this, you may appeal to the Supervisor of Public Records. If you do revise it, and if you do limit the request to emails between certain specified individuals, none of whom are Town lawyers, then we will use the lower hourly rate and provide you with a new cost estimate. However, if your new request is for what you previously asked for – which is what it appears you are doing, regardless of whether you choose to style it as a “compliance search” or a “targeted supplementation step”, terms that have no actual meaning – we will not undertake a new search to search for records that you previously asked for and which we provided. I note that we did not provide you with a first “tranche” in response to your May 2025 request; we provided you with a complete response. As you know, you agreed to revise that request in recognition of the fact that for part of the requested time period the records you were seeking were not on the Town server, and we provided you with our response, relying on the individual Councilors to search their private email accounts and having the Town IT department search for responsive records on the Town server. That was made clear to you at the time. Please let us know if you wish to proceed with your original request, in which case you need to provide us with payment of the cost estimate provided to you, or if you wish to amend it to request something different than what you requested in May 2025. --- END TOWN EMAIL EXTRACT --- Editorial note: This describes the Town's position. It is not a finding that every responsive record was produced, that the Town refused every later request, or that a fee was unlawful. The original broad request and a request limited to specific correspondents have different scopes. 2. TOWN LEGAL LETTER DATED 25 JUNE 2026, PAGE 2 OF 2 Author: Allison M. Cogliano, Assistant Town Attorney Subject: Response to Public Records Requests dated June 4, 2026, June 6, 2026, and June 8, 2026 Source: original two-page PDF attached to correspondence received by Nathan. Filename: 2026June25TaccognaLarsenNicholsCameronPRRResponseLetter_06262026140942.pdf The paragraph below was checked against a visible render of page 2. Line wraps have been joined. The requests, consolidation explanation, appeal notice and signature are not reproduced in this extract. --- BEGIN TOWN LETTER EXTRACT --- As you may be aware, Councilor Felicia Penn recently passed away. The Town does not have access to her personal email accounts as they are not on the Town server. The Town addressed this issue in 2021 when the Town Council voted to require all councilors to use Town-issued phones and Town email accounts to conduct Town business. As for requests related to Councilor Crow’s private email, Councilor Crow has informed us that he conducted a search as requested and found no responsive emails. --- END TOWN LETTER EXTRACT --- Editorial scope note, checked against both pages of the original: The four requests concern communications with specified individuals about specified properties or projects, not every message in either Councilor's accounts. The two Crow requests concern: - Harbor Vue / 307 Main Street, January 1, 2025 through June 4, 2026; - Pleasant Hill / the DaLuz appeal / DEP superseding order of conditions, June 1, 2025 through the date of search. The Penn requests begin January 1, 2024 and concern 23 Pleasant Street / Pleasant Hill / Happy Hollow / DCPC, through June 4 or June 6, 2026. The letter treats the four requests together and states the Town's rationale for doing so. The claimed 2021 Council vote has not been independently verified for this page. Earlier 2023–2024 Crow correspondence does not by itself contradict a result for these 2025–2026 Crow request periods. WHAT THE ACTION PAGE ASKS COUNCIL TO EXAMINE Search scope, accounts and date ranges; preservation; who searched and how; independent verification; fee itemization; what was produced or withheld; and a public production schedule. These extracts do not establish intent.