COHASSET — September 22, 2026 — The Cohasset Select Board voted not to recommend a citizen petition that would require its own approval before a town department acquires or uses surveillance technology, with members calling the bylaw too prescriptive even as they backed tighter oversight, then closed and signed the special town meeting warrant that carries the article to voters anyway.
The Full Story
Article 14, a citizen petition creating a surveillance technology oversight bylaw, was the only warrant article the board declined to recommend. The petition would route requests to acquire or use surveillance technology through the Select board and require an applicant to name every party the resulting data would be shared with. Member Paul Grady asked for a roll call rather than a voice vote, the chair agreed, and the motion to not recommend carried 4-1 with Will Ashton opposed.
Ashton argued for the bylaw, saying the objections raised against it did not hold up: it does not prohibit data sharing, and a department policy can be rewritten by that department at any time, while a bylaw enshrines a public process at town meeting. He asked the petitioners to accept three changes from the floor, striking significant property damage from the definition of exigent circumstances, striking the mandatory award of fees to prevailing plaintiffs, and requiring approval before a grant is accepted instead of before it is applied for.
Greg Watts called the bylaw overly prescriptive and said writing such policy belongs to the executive branch, not the legislative one. Vice Chair Ellen Maher said it was very broad and carried no language excluding the schools even though a slide deck had indicated it might, and called for a collaborative process with public safety officials to set policy and operating procedures. Grady said plainly that he did not support that kind of oversight and trusted the police.
Chair David Farrag said the bylaw would build a new administrative matrix around a police department already short officers and open it to discovery motions on the civil and criminal sides alike. He objected to the fees provision, noting that few things in Massachusetts statutory law allow an award of attorney’s fees and that a bylaw violation carries only a nominal fine.
Farrag said the petitioners were well intentioned, but that most of the bylaw’s contents came from a group with an agenda of its own, and that he would not recommend it in its current form.
The board recommended every other article it took up, and voted to close, sign and publish the warrant. Article 3, capital improvements, was recommended once the board settled its last open item, a new town telephone system at $232,051. The three zoning articles, amending the definitions section, the division into districts and the table of dimensional regulations, each arrived with recommendations from the advisory committee and the planning board.
