The Tisbury select board this week acknowledged that member Roy Cutrer committed a technical violation of the state’s open meeting law when he sent an email to all members of the select board and planning board last month.

Planning board chair Casey Hayward lodged a formal complaint on Sept. 19 after the email, in which Mr. Cutrer objected to Ms. Hayward’s conduct during a public meeting two days earlier.

Mr. Cutrer’s action sidestepped the law’s requirement that municipal boards and commissions must give the public notice in advance of any deliberations, including the exchange of opinions, town administrator Joseph LaCivita said at Tuesday’s select board meeting.

But because the email did not concern a matter that is before the select board and did not call for any board action, town counsel David Doneski said it qualified as a technical violation.

The state requires remedial action whenever the open meeting law is violated in any way, Mr. LaCivita said. 

Mr. Doneski said a reminder to the board to avoid such actions would be sufficient remediation in this case.

Mr. Cutrer sent the Sept. 19 email to complain about Ms. Hayward’s behavior during a public meeting Sept. 17, when select board member John Cahill visited the planning board to seek support for an article on the upcoming special town meeting warrant.

The article, which passed on a voice vote Sept. 30, sought nearly $300,000 to renovate the former Tashmoo water works engineer’s house as a residence for town administrator Joseph LaCivita in the near term and for other municipal employees in the future.

At the meeting Sept. 17, Ms. Hayward responded angrily to the select board’s request for support, saying the town should not provide housing for its highest-paid employee. Mr. LaCivita earns a $200,000 salary with a $36,000 annual housing stipend, which is slated to end when he and his wife begin living at the Tashmoo house. 

Mr. Cahill noted that top administrators in comparable communities earn similar salaries, at which point Ms. Hayward interrupted him.

“You are so out of touch, Mr. Cahill,” she said. “We are not giving a handout to people just because the only people that you know make $200,000 a year.” 

She also made comparisons to her own salary as a teacher and her financial situation as a millennial with student loans.

After Mr. Cahill said “I think it doesn’t have to be argumentative,” Ms. Hayward raised her voice and said “I don’t need you to give me a lecture on economics.”

“Well, I’m being yelled at,” he replied.

Mr. Cutrer also was in attendance Sept, 17, but did not speak in order to avoid violating the open meeting law that goes into effect whenever a quorum of elected members is present.

Two days later, however, he sent the email to all members of both boards to complain about Ms. Hayward’s conduct.

“I was appalled at what I saw and heard at that meeting that night, and I wrote an email to object to what I saw and what I heard and the treatment of people,” Mr. Cutrer said at Tuesday’s select board meeting.

Mr. Cahill spoke briefly about his experience.

“I hope I never am witness to something like that again in any meeting that I attend, whether it be on the business level or political level. It was very unfortunate, and it left a mark,” he said.

Board chair Christina Colarusso was absent Tuesday, but Mr. Doneski advised that Mr. Cutrer was not required to recuse himself from acting on Ms. Hayward’s complaint.

Mr. Cahill and Mr. Cutrer voted to acknowledge the technical violation of the open meeting law and to confirm that the board members have been counseled against taking such actions in the future.