Share This Article
Sudbury neighbors – I’m writing in response to elected Select Board Vice Chair Janie Dretler’s opinion urging voters to reject Article 3, the citizen petition that would add a recall provision to Sudbury’s Town Charter. Her piece asks residents to believe this proposal is poorly designed and somehow dangerous to Sudbury’s stability. But when you look past the rhetoric, a different picture emerges.
First, recall is not radical—it is a recognized democratic accountability tool. Dozens of Massachusetts communities (over 150) have already adopted recall provisions through local charter acts or special legislation, including towns such as Acton, Hopkinton, and others. Recall is not an experiment. It is an established mechanism that gives voters—not elected officials—the final say when trust in leadership breaks down.
Second, adapting proven language from other municipalities is not a flaw—it is responsible drafting. Ms. Dretler criticizes the fact that Article 3 draws language from other towns. In reality, municipalities across Massachusetts routinely look to other communities when drafting bylaws, charter amendments, and special acts. Using language that has already been reviewed, enacted, and implemented elsewhere is often the most practical and legally responsible starting point.
Third, evolving a citizen petition after legal feedback is not evidence of weakness—it is evidence of doing the work correctly. The fact that this proposal began in one legal form and was revised after receiving guidance should reassure voters, not alarm them. Citizens are not expected to be municipal attorneys. When residents receive legal feedback and adjust accordingly, that demonstrates diligence, transparency, and respect for the process.
Fourth, accountability and stability are not mutually exclusive. We are told Sudbury already has accountability because elections occur every few years. But elections only provide accountability on a fixed schedule. Recall exists for the rare circumstances when voters believe waiting years is not acceptable. That is not instability—that is democratic oversight.
Ms. Dretler warns that recall could be used over policy disagreements. But under our system, voters—not a small political group—would ultimately decide whether a recall succeeds. Gathering signatures, certifying petitions, and winning an election are already substantial safeguards. Recall mechanisms are intentionally difficult to trigger.
Finally, the most concerning part of this debate is not Article 3—it is the effort by sitting officials to discourage voters from even having this tool. When elected officials argue that residents should not have access to a mechanism of accountability unless it first goes through a government-controlled review process, voters should ask: who benefits from delay?
Article 3 does not remove anyone from office. It does not overturn an election. It simply gives the people of Sudbury the right, under defined legal procedures, to hold elected officials accountable between elections if extraordinary circumstances arise.
That decision should belong to the voters—not to the officials who may one day be subject to it.
On May 20, the question is simple: should Sudbury residents have this democratic tool available if we ever need it?
That is for the voters to decide.
Sincerely,
Josh Herting