CHARLTON — During its meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, the Charlton Select Board held a first reading and discussion of a proposed policy outlining how town departments should cooperate with federal agencies.
Town Administrator Andrew Golas presented the draft titled Town of Charlton, MA – Select Board Policy on Cooperation with Federal Agencies and Non-Obstruction, explaining it was developed at the request of Select Board member Peter Lancette, and is intended to align with existing public records access procedures and access to town counsel policies, while addressing the nuances of complying with federal requirements.
Lancette who introduced the proposal, said the goal is to provide “clear direction” and ensure the town complies with federal requirements without breaking the law.
“It’s just…something that in this political landscape, I think we need to call out and mitigate any future problems and have clear direction for the people of the town,” Lancette said.
Select Board member Stephen Koronis inquired as to whether the policy addresses an existing issue.
“I’m wondering, one, do we really have a problem? And two…is it an HR issue? Do do employees have to sign something when they’re hired?” Koronis said. Later adding, “This does not mention police or ICE which is really what the buzzwords going around right now are. I just don’t think we have a problem in town.”
Lancette responded stating, “It’s not meant to be confrontational. It’s meant to mitigate any future problems that come up so there’s clear direction at the time of an incident — so there’s no questions, no delays, no potential safety risks. This has given clear direction to all departments how to respond and not to obstruct federal agencies.”
Koronis replied that the policy is redundant because the town already follows state and federal law, adding that he was “wondering what the upside” of the policy proposal is.
“But it even says here is complying with Massachusetts and federal confidentially law and records laws,” Koronis said. “We’re already doing that though.”
In response, Lancette said he thought it needed to just be spelt out. At which point Koronis asked him if he has seen any other towns in the Commonwealth do the same.
“I’ve seen towns initiating actions for the reverse to obstruct,” Lancette said.
To which Koronis replied, “So we’d be the first one opting into something that we don’t have a problem with. That’s just outside of a headline in a newspaper, and maybe not a good one. I don’t know what the benefit is of it.”
Select Board member David Singer said he viewed the policy as largely affirming compliance with existing law.
“Just the way I read and interpret this, there’s nothing in here that is anything other than just honor the law, obey the law,” Singer said.
Singer added that a written policy of this kind could theoretically provide support to the town administrator if an employee of the town should choose to interfere with federal law enforcement.
Select Board member Barbara Zurawski said she had no issue with the policy but she didn’t see any benefit of it either.
Koronis then added that the policy is “basically all around” public records requests under Massachusetts law.
Select Board Chair Karen Spiewak questioned the draft’s inclusion of volunteers, noting that the policy would apply to volunteers acting in an official capacity.
“While I appreciate the effort, I just think it opens up more opportunity for liability — I don’t know confusion, you know, divisiveness — You fill in the blank, but I think it’s redundant,” Spiewak said.
Koronis said extending the policy to volunteers could actually discourage people from volunteering, adding that there are not many people “jumping down the door” to volunteer in town.
“And as far as volunteers go, it’s not like we have volunteers on all the different subcommittees of town that are jumping to join and I don’t know if this would just be a hindrance for them to do that, just from their own beliefs or their own thoughts,” Koronis said.
At another point in the meeting, Koronis asked Golas whether the requirement that town employees comply with state and federal law is already addressed in the town’s employee handbook and suggested the policy could be shortened to a few paragraphs instead of several pages.
Golas replied that the issue was most likely addressed, “probably as a general phrase,” in the handbook, adding that “I believe that this kind of melds both policy and procedure and maybe it could be one is a policy, one is a procedure if it were cut.”
During public comment, Library Trustee Chair Stefan Sage said the draft contains “a number of protective parts,” but stressed that individuals could not be penalized for obstruction until “a court case came through” determining whether they had violated the law, adding that “due process has to be followed.”
“I think there are some valid parts of this. I think the law should be followed,” Sage said. “But we also have to recognize that there seems to be a lot of questionable aspects of how some members of law enforcement are possibly violating the constitutional rights of individuals, and personal information gathering without the right to that information and just collecting it is a violation of constitutional rights, but I think that’s protected in the wording in here.”
No vote was taken during the meeting on Feb. 10, 2026. The board plans to vote on the policy after reviewing its second draft during its next meeting.
