West Stockbridge — After four meeting agendas posting the identical action—to deliberate on a contract with cannabis consultant, Tech Environmental—the West Stockbridge Select Board approved a revised agreement with the company during its September 15 session. The measure marks the third time the two remaining members on the dais, Chair Andy Krouss and member Kathleen Keresey, voted unanimously to move the contract forward.
Former Select Board member Andy Potter resigned July 30, and a November election is scheduled to fill his open seat.
A copy of the September 15 agenda packet containing the updated contract can be found here.
What led up to the Tech Environmental contract
Since beginning operations in 2022, cannabis grower Wiseacre Farm has been the subject of complaints filed by residents of West Stockbridge and nearby Richmond who abut the facility, voicing concern about odors emanating from the facility’s Baker Street site that have interfered with their daily lives and the enjoyment of their homes. Those affected individuals formed Neighbors Advocating for Fresh Air (NAFA).
The Select Board previously engaged Tech Environmental in February 2024 to review and comment on a 2023 plan presented by Wiseacre and developed by specialist Byers Scientific. The plan uses an agricultural fan and odor-neutralizing agents to deter the negative effects of the smells from its facility. At that time, the Massachusetts-based firm charged West Stockbridge $4,500 for a site visit and initial review, with those fees paid by Wiseacre under the terms of its Host Community Agreement with the town.
Meanwhile, Wiseacre’s 2022 three-year special permit to operate was recently acknowledged by the West Stockbridge Planning Board to automatically renew for another two years without town intervention due to a state law allowing such action. As a result, its special permit will not be up for renewal until November 2027.
Third vote taken for consultant services
The August 26 meeting was listed online but cancelled, according to Keresey, and another meeting was held two days later, on August 28, with the same agenda: “Vote to approve contract with Tech Environmental.” That meeting was not listed online. At the August 28 session, both board members unanimously approved the contract without any discussion of its terms, parameters, or fees. At the group’s September 5 meeting, Krouss stated that another vote was necessary “due to a clerical error in posting” the August 28 meeting, and, again, without any discussion, he and Keresey approved the contract.
Two record requests made by The Berkshire Edge to town officials resulted in a copy of the contract being released September 8 and 9.
Fast forward to September 15. A unanimous decision by Keresey and Krouss for the agreement with Tech Environmental tallying $11,700 finally stuck and detailed the company’s two-fold duties: first, to develop a “baseline odor monitoring program” that could be used to determine thresholds for whether Wiseacre is complying with that odor standard and, second, to train up to 10 employees regarding how to respond to odor complaints. That training would include details on using an “n-butanol jar kit” test, with the company also obligated to develop a standardized odor complaint form to be used to document complaint specifics such as frequency and intensity.
Minor changes to the previous agreement were noted by Town Counsel Nicole Costanza intended to safeguard the municipality from any responsibility to collect unpaid invoices, maintain liability coverage, and govern possible litigation consequences stemming from the project.
Although the measure passed, Keresey and Town Administrator Marie Ryan agreed to work out the details of how the project would unfold, including who would be trained under the program and where the testing kits could be kept.
Neighbors push back
Residents at the meeting argued that Tech Environmental’s service fees will be borne by town taxpayers, asking the dais to clarify what departments will be paying for these costs.
Residents also pushed board members to consider that their actions—including the almost $12,000 charge by Tech Environmental—are allegedly made on behalf of primarily two families who have complained about the odor coming from Wiseacre. Some attendees argued that a coffee roasting company in town and local farm animals similarly exhibit negative smells but are not being surveilled.
Krouss and Keresey declined to answer these concerns as the public comment period does not require a response.
At the meeting, Wiseacre Manager Iin Purwanti Cox alleged she had a verbal altercation with a Baker Street neighbor earlier that day as she was investigating an odor complaint for the facility. According to a video she filmed of the encounter sent to The Berkshire Edge, she was told by the individual, “We’re not happy with your presence,” and the individual questioned whether her position at the company is “her livelihood.”
“I’m a West Stockbridge resident,” Cox said back at the meeting. “I want to be protected as a resident, not to be harassed because I try to make sure [of] the accuracy of someone who made a complaint. I want to be protected by my Select Board. I want to feel [like I] belong here.”
Cox urged the dais to look “really closely” and “fairly” at what is occurring with the Wiseacre situation.
Testing begins September 17
NAFA member Thomas Ruffing confirmed that testing by Tech Environmental began September 17, pursuant to its services contract with the town of West Stockbridge.
“The [representative] is on site making baseline measurements to be in a position to measure the severity of residents’ reports in the future,” Ruffing told The Berkshire Edge in a phone interview.
Complaint alleges open meeting law violations committed by Select Board
Attorney Aaron Dubois, who represents Wiseacre and co-owners Jon Piasecki and David Jadow, said the odor controls instituted by the facility comply with town orders and the noise from the mitigation fan does not rise to a level that exceeds local standards. He called the actions of the Select Board and town officials a “harassment” of his clients, the Tech Environmental testing “subjective” as it is not effective for its desired result.
Dubois cautioned the dais that due to recurring executive sessions calling for discussions focused on litigation involving his client when such judicial proceedings are not occurring, the contract may be void as violative of open meeting laws.
On September 12, Dubois filed a complaint with town officials alleging Keresey and Krouss, as Select Board members, violated Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws. That narrative was updated September 17 and can be found here as well as the related complaint form that can be found here. Both were submitted by Dubois to The Berkshire Edge.
Dubois’ complaint is based in part on the seven executive session meetings held by the Select Board—on February 26, March 13, April 9, May 8, June 9, August 8, and August 13. The agendas for those sessions listed an item “to discuss strategy with respect to litigation … [with] Wiseacre Farm.” An eighth session posted to occur on August 26 had no agenda.
Those sessions, for Dubois, constitute an abuse of open meeting law exceptions, regulations that specify the certain circumstances whereby a Select Board can meet in closed rather than open session. One of the 10 exemptions offered by state statute allows a meeting in executive session when it centers around litigation: “To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares.”
“Given that there is no litigation or threat of litigation facing the Select Board, a reasoning that may once have been believable for one or two meetings has now stretched to at least seven Executive Sessions under the same fictitious rationale,” the complaint states.
According to Dubois, those seven or eight sessions were actually meetings during which the Select Board, with or without its town counsel, conducted negotiations with their consultant, Tech Environmental, for the $11,700 contract executed at the end of August and early September.
“Potentially engaging their own consultant is not a violation per se, but the totality of the actions taken by the Select Board raise truly troubling questions,” the complaint states. “It has taken months, but now there is a sufficient evidentiary record that their stated reasoning is bogus, they knew it to be bogus, and they continued to use the cover of the Executive Session exemption to keep it from public view and discussion.”
Although some executive session meetings with town counsel may be needed to negotiate a contract, Dubois alleges those sessions enumerated in the Select Board’s executive session agendas were “intentionally mislabeled so that a nominally public governing body may operate in secret” and violative of state law.
The totality of the September 15 Select Board open meeting discussion, ongoing executive session agendas, and the quick two-day turnaround for Tech Environmental, based in Chelmsford, Mass., to be on site in West Stockbridge testing point to a violation of the law, Dubois stated.
He outlined remedies that could be taken by town officials to compensate for the alleged open meeting law violations, including disclosing the reasons behind the executive sessions and making public the minutes of those meetings, rescinding the September 15 Tech Environmental contract, and requiring Select Board members to undergo training on executive session procedures.
The town has 14 days to respond to the complaint, and a special executive session is planned for September 29 at 9 a.m., during which the Select Board is slated to discuss the filing. Should a response not be filed by town officials, that remedy lies in a filing with the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General.
