Share This Article
Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) School Committee member Nicole Burnard may have broken the confidentiality of executive session with an Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint that, if Burnard’s statements in the complaint are correct, revealed elements of committee deliberations in recent executive sessions. (Complaint embedded below)
The committee agendas have said the executive sessions were to discuss Superintendent Brad Crozier’s contract. The OML complaint contains claims specifying the sessions were discussing a “buy-out” of that contract.
A March 6, 2026, response from SPS counsel rebuffs each of the allegations of a violation in the OML complaint. The response also states that the attorney’s office conducted an investigation into one of the allegations and found no violation of the Open Meeting Law. (Counsel response embedded below)
Burnard will have the option to seek a formal determination from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Division of Open Government, but the information disclosed in the complaint has already appeared on social media. The complaint is also a matter of public record.
The school committee has been discussing the superintendent’s contract in executive session. The executive sessions were held under Purpose (2) “to discuss strategy with respect to negotiations with nonunion personnel (specifically the Superintendent).” (Example)
Executive sessions for this purpose are meant to be confidential to protect the negotiating position of the committee. It also protects the privacy of the personnel involved. That can frustrate members of the public, but is often the approach advised by legal counsel in such situations.
When listed generically, it could mean the committee is discussing a contract extension, a minor amendment, or other aspects of the contract, including termination or a separation agreement. But Burnard’s description of the alleged OML violation may have revealed the topic of the confidential discussions, alleging that the committee was seeking to “buy out” Superintendent Brad Crozier’s contract.
The district has not formally confirmed anything, but speculation has swirled throughout Sudbury over the last week, including in the public comments session of the March 2 school committee meeting.
Burnard also wrote that Crozier himself, with whom contract discussions were allegedly underway, was her source for information regarding an alleged January 23, 2026 meeting between Chair Karyn Jones, Crozier and legal counsel. That’s the meeting Burnard described in the OML complaint.
Burnard goes a step further in her complaint by including what appears to be copies of a series of emails between Jones and the school attorney. Those emails do not explicitly support the claim that the committee was seeking to “buy out” the superintendent’s contract.
Jones provided Sudbury Weekly the following statement:
“By way of background, communications between legal counsel and members of the School Committee are subject to attorney-client privilege and are exempt from disclosure under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Privilege may only be waived by a vote of the School Committee, and no such vote occurred with respect to the document referenced in the complaint. As a result, the communication remains privileged. Counsel is reviewing how the document came to be disclosed.”
Jones added:
“I cannot comment on discussions that occur in executive session, as those discussions and related materials remain confidential under the Open Meeting Law.”
A footnote in counsel’s response to the OML complaint backs up this information, as well as redactions of the emails in the document containing the response:
“These items are contained in the November 2025 email you attached to your Complaint, which was provided in response to a public records request. The Committee must vote to waive attorney-client privilege in communications before they are disseminated. In this case, it does not appear such a vote has taken place, therefore the communication remains privileged and is prohibited from dissemination without appropriate redactions. To maintain privilege, our office has properly redacted the document in attaching the complaint to this response. However, if the matter goes before the Attorney General’s office for review the Committee will cooperate with their need for information.”
Burnard’s complaint indicates that she submitted a record request to get copies of the materials. “On 2/4 I confirmed the information and conversation with the Superintendent when reviewing my public records request.”
Sudbury Weekly asked Burnard for copies of the record request and the response she received, but Burnard has not responded.
Sudbury Weekly has submitted a record request to SPS for a copy of any record request and associated response that included the emails between Jones and counsel. We will update this story when we receive a response from SPS.
Burnard’s complaint and the SPS counsel’s response are below. Portions of Burnard’s complaint are redacted in counsel’s response, citing attorney-client privilege in the footnote on page 2.
UPDATE: Shortly after publishing this story, Burnard sent the following message “As is the process for all record requests, I sent an email to the Records Access Officer. If you would like a copy of my initial request and the information provided, please also follow the proper channels and contact the SPS Records Access Officer.” Her email contained additional commentary, and Sudbury Weekly has asked her to clarify if that was intended to be included in her statement to Sudbury Weekly.