ADAMS, Mass. — The state Attorney General's Office has determined that the Planning Board violated Open Meeting Law by continuing to deliberate on a matter after adjournment.

 

According to the determination, the violation occurred after adjourning the Jan. 27, 2025, meeting when three board members stayed to discuss permitting concerns for Aisling Mountain Farm, a 22-acre equestrian facility on West Road owned by Kathryn Foley.

 

The board was ordered to amend its meeting minutes within the next 30 days, to include a summary of the discussion that occurred after the meeting was adjourned, to certify to to the AG's Office that it has done so, and to comply with the Open Meeting Law going forward.

 

The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Catherine Foster on Aug. 22, 2025, alleging that the board violated the Open Meeting Law during and after its Jan. 27 meeting.

 

Although filed nearly seven months after the January meeting, the Attorney General's Office said it met the 30-day filing deadline because Foster did not become aware of the situation until it was raised at a July 23 Select Board meeting.

 

"The Open Meeting Law requires that complaints be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation, or if the alleged violation could not reasonably have been known at the time it occurred, then within 30 days of the date it should reasonably have been discovered," Assistant Attorney General Matthew Lindberg said in the determination.

 

"The complainant could not reasonably have discovered that the Board deliberated after adjournment of the January 27 meeting until the issue was raised during public comment at the July 23 Select Board meeting. Because the complaint was filed within 30 days of the July 23 Select Board meeting, the complaint was filed timely as to this allegation"

 

During the Select Board's July 2025 meeting, Christian Rowe, the farm's estate manager, complained during the public comment period about the Planning Board's handling of the proposed campsites.

 

The farm has been at the center of a prolonged dispute involving town officials over its camping operation and other permitting requirements.

 

Foley and Rowe have previously raised concerns about what they describe as excessive regulatory scrutiny, harassment and misuse of authority by certain municipal employees. The Open Meeting Law violation marks another development in the ongoing dispute.

 

Foster's complaint alleges that the Planning Board violated the Open Meeting Law when it deliberated at the Jan. 27 meeting on a topic that was not listed on the notice, deliberated outside a posted meeting, and created insufficiently specific minutes of the meeting.

 

The state determined that the board violated the Open Meeting Law when it deliberated outside a public meeting but declined to review the remaining allegations of the complaint.

 

Approximately 32 minutes into the January Planning Board meeting, then-Chair David Rhinemiller raised the need to schedule another meeting to address what he described as "clearing house stuff" involving the West Road camping facility.

 

"Although we decline to review this allegation, we caution the Board that identifying topics as 'clearing house' or 'housekeeping' matters does not insulate them from the notice requirements of the Open Meeting Law," Lindberg said in the determination letter.

 

During the meeting, Rhinemiller said the property owners had not applied for a permit or attended a previous meeting when invited. Foley, who was present, responded by explaining why she had been unable to attend.

 

In a follow-up with iBerkshires.com, Foley said the board had scheduled a hearing on the campsite for October, but she was out of town and had emailed the board explaining that she could not attend. However, she alleges that Rhinemiller withheld the email and never shared it with the other board members. She forwarded the emails between her and the Community Development Office about postponing her appearance to iBerkshires.

 

During the January meeting, two board members expressed concern that the matter should not be discussed because it was not included on the meeting agenda, the determination said.

 

"After a few more comments about the property and permitting, the Board coordinated scheduling of a meeting. Approximately 43 minutes into the meeting, the Board voted to adjourn," the document says.

 

The board eventually voted to adjourn, but three members — Rhinemiller, then-Vice Chair Michael Mach and Sandra Moderski — remained in the room and continued discussing the farm's permitting issues.

 

The conversation included concerns about gas and electric utility easements and whether the property owners should be required to provide professional drawings identifying their locations.

 

According to the determination, two members agreed that the best course of action would be for the owners to "withdraw until they figure out what they want to do."