Share This Article
Transparency and accountability are critical factors in town and school administration. They must be balanced with basic privacy rights.
In November 2025 I reminded the community that one year earlier senior SPS administrators failed to protect student privacy when they responded to a Boston Globe public records request. Careless redaction led to some students’ identities and other private information being published widely in the online version of a Globe article.
For months I attempted to get senior SPS administrators to explain how that happened and what was being done to rectify the problem and ensure that it would not be repeated. On December 15, 2025, thirteen months after the privacy breach, I received an email that included the following:
All Public Records Requests are now formally processed through the Records Access Officer (RAO). Student records are compiled by the RAO and are reviewed and redacted using professional software, with oversight from District counsel, to ensure compliance with applicable laws and privacy standards.
Now the Sudbury Public Schools community and the whole Sudbury Community is trying to grasp why Executive Session business is being bandied about based on another public records request — this one made in pursuit of finding a basis for filing an Open Meeting Law complaint.
I understand that it is sometimes not comfortable to serve on a committee when one finds oneself in the minority. However, it is part of a deliberative decision-making body’s work to not necessarily always agree. The job, then, is to do one’s best to persuade fellow members of one’s positions and persist in the commitment made upon joining the committee.
Do we now have a School Committee member who finds herself in the minority at times who is looking for technical missteps, where perhaps there are none, in order to undermine the will of the majority of the School Committee?
In the process of this pursuit has the member publicized confidential executive session material?
Was information she received as a result of her public records request properly redacted to prevent confidential information from being released? How well is the new redaction process really working?
Has the member accurately interpreted the meaning of public records received or is she speculating with a bias?
It is disappointing and discouraging to see any of the School Committee’s time and attention diverted away from their core mission and taken up by what appears to me to be a smear campaign that is harming people and is failing the students, their families, and Sudbury taxpayers.
We also have a negative petition campaign underway attacking the work of the School Committee. I find it strange that petition signers are prepared to critique so vigorously but not one among them stepped forward to run to serve on the committee and contribute to making things better in their view. It’s far easier to take pot shots at folks who are working on tough issues than to roll up one’s sleeves, sacrifice your personal and family time, and do the hard work.
I suggest that the naysayers back off and consider instead how they might make a positive contribution.