Coincidence?

Earlier this year there were three issues that came before the town.  First, in March there was a write-in campaign for a seat on the SPS School Committee. Second, there was a citizen petition for a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the SPS school committee that required calling a special town meeting. Third, there was a second citizen petition calling for changing the Town Charter, our Constitution, by adding a recall provision.

Do these issues have anything in common, or are they merely coincidence?

The SPS write-in campaign candidate could have obtained nomination papers, returned them by February 9, and been on the ballot for the March 30 Annual Town Election. A last-minute write-in campaign bypassed the Candidates’ Forum, the in-person Meet the Candidates drop-in event, and the on-line Candidate Guide for the 2026 Annual Town Election.  Whether by design or merely by circumstance, the campaign avoided the usual scrutiny and vetting, which is a crucial part of running for office.

The ‘no confidence’ in the School Committee petition was filed with the Town just after it was too late to add it to the Annual Town Meeting warrant.  By law, this required the Select Board to call a Special Town Meeting within a specified time frame, at an estimated cost to taxpayers of as much as $25,000. It placed an additional burden on Town staff to administer a second town meeting 16 days after the Annual Town Meeting.  The Select Board, as is customary for citizen petitioners, invited the petitioner to present the no confidence article, and answer questions.  The purpose of an invitation is to inform the Select Board and ensure transparency for residents who would ultimately need to vote on the petition.  The petitioner refused the invitation and did not appear.  

Amendments to town charters are usually prepared by a committee of citizens which conducts open meetings, takes public comment, and discusses the proposed changes in an open, deliberative process.  The citizen’s petition to add a recall provision to Sudbury’s Town Charter, was drafted by a small, unidentified group behind closed doors.  The public did not see it until it was distributed in the Special Town Meeting Warrant on May 6, 14 days before the May 20 Special Town Meeting.   The drafters did not allow public input or have public discussion until the recall article was on the floor at the Special Town Meeting.  As with the ‘no confidence’ petition, the petitioner refused the Select Board’s invitation to appear, to explain the petition, and answer questions to inform the Select Board and ensure transparency for residents who would ultimately need to vote on the petition.  The recall petitioner touted the article as ‘real accountability’.  Baloney.  Real accountability takes place at annual elections.  

The write-in candidacy and two citizen petitions were as non-transparent as it gets, while claiming to champion transparency and accountability.

On May 20 we learned from Town Counsel that all four of the alleged violations of law listed in the ‘no confidence’ petition, including multiple OML violations, did not exist. The petition’s remaining criticisms turned out to be political differences of opinion.  The petition was able to stoke outrage with unsubstantiated allegations before the truth could get its shoes on.  With just five minutes on the floor provided to the School Committee to defend itself, and emotions running high, Town Meeting voted the petition.  Now that we know the foundation of the no-confidence petition was a house of cards, the vote must be considered a nullity, a miscarriage of justice.  It will carry no weight with me and should not with you.

What are the takeaways?  

Combine easily made false accusations against elected officials, with the stunningly low recall thresholds, and a write-in candidacy that bypassed much of the vetting process, and what do you get?  Political Retribution. Not accountability.  Not transparency. 

Do you think they are a coincidence?