Share This Article
Town Meeting is often celebrated as the most direct form of democracy. Any voter can become a citizen legislator at a Town Meeting. But when people think about democracy, they usually think about voting on a ballot. That’s how Sudbury elects members of the Select Board, and all other elected boards and committees to represent the people.
Both are forms of democracy. And can be in tension with each other.
For most of the year, the two systems run on separate tracks: residents legislate directly at Town Meeting–the legislative branch, and Sudbury’s elected boards and committees–the executive branch–carry out the town’s business the rest of the time.
It’s uncommon to see significant tension between these branches of Town government, primarily because the most critical Town Meeting articles are binding in some way. When the budget is passed at Town Meeting, that’s the budget the Town has to work with for that fiscal year. Full stop.
But multiple non-binding articles passed at the May 2026 Special Town Meeting, along with a home rule petition to add a recall election provision to the Town Charter. Those articles opened the door to unusual tension and conflict.
The flashpoint was the recall election provision. On the “One Sudbury” Facebook group, refrains began to circulate after the Special Town Meeting, repeatedly, with slight variations, across many posts. “We need to SHOW UP to let our elected officials know that Town Meeting matters,” read one. “Voters matter. Their voice should not outweigh OUR voice.”
Some residents raised suspicions that the Select Board was asking for input for a Fall Town Meeting because they wanted to overturn the recall provision. In fact, the Select Board had to ask for that input to comply with Town bylaws and then decided not to call a Fall Town Meeting. (Bylaw HERE)
The underlying charge of most of the rhetoric is blunt: that passing something at Town Meeting “means zero,” and that officials who lose a vote will “find a shady way to overturn it” according to another comment.
The accusation is serious. But the context of what actually happened is critical.
What a Town Meeting vote does, and doesn’t, settle
Passing the recall provision is a useful place to begin, because it is only the first step in a longer process that many residents have never encountered.
When Town Meeting approves a measure like the recall, that vote does not put the measure into law. Instead, the vote authorizes the Town to petition the state legislature with a “home rule petition.” Beacon Hill must approve a change in the Town Charter. Voters who opposed the recall provision at the Special Town Meeting or later have the right to make their case to the legislature that the petition should not be granted. The provision’s supporters have the right to make their argument in favor.
Sharing positions and perspectives with lawmakers is the democratic process. But the messaging on social media has repeatedly sought to frame opposition to the home rule position as opposition to democracy itself. One comment on social media said “Imagine not getting your way when the rules were clearly followed in the [spirit] of democracy, so you write a long, boring letter trying to convince [legislators] who don’t live in Sudbury to ignore the will of the people who live here?”
Other posts on social media have claimed the Select Board unfairly put their thumb on the scale in opposition to the recall provision by sharing their position on the article with the submission of the petition to Sudbury’s legislative delegation. The Board has taken no formal action to pressure legislators to kill the bill.
Sudbury’s State Representative, Carmine Gentile, is a Sudbury resident who was present at the Special Town Meeting and could observe first-hand the opposition positions on the article. He has made his opposition to the petition known to the legislative committee, including reading the Select Board’s position in his testimony to the Joint Committee on Election Laws on July 21.
Testimony on Beacon Hill
The tension between direct and representative democracy was on full display during the Joint Committee on Election Laws’ July 21 hearing. Sudbury residents joined in person and remotely to provide their thoughts in support of and opposition to the recall provision.
The only locally-elected officials from Sudbury to offer testimony during the hearing were Select Board member Dan Carty and Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School (LSRHS) School Committee Member Maura Carty. The LSRHS School Committee members would not be subject to Sudbury’s recall provision if it is passed into law, because regional schools function as a separate unit of local government, with elections governed by their own regional agreements. (The Town of Middleton actually had a bill to expand their recall provision to their regional school committee in the same hearing.)
Dan Carty’s comments focused on the many times when the Select Board position differed from the ultimate vote of Town Meeting over the years. He then characterized the opposition as election deniers:
“Please do not be baffled by the B.S. and instead see it for what it is. This is a case of sour grapes, plain and simple. Or by another name — election denying.”
Maura Carty focused on the theme of democracy:
“Respecting the outcome of a lawful vote is not about agreeing with the result, it’s about honoring the democratic process, preserving confidence in our institutions, and ensuring that citizens know that their participation matters.”
Resident Elizabeth Spitzer called out that only two of seven proposed amendments were debated at the Special Town Meeting. Motions were made to “call the question,” which prevented the remaining five amendments from being presented or debated or any debate on the main article. Spitzer felt that was an indicator of disrespect for the legislative process.
Then she went straight at the tension with direct and representative democracy:
“Those in favor of recall keep suggesting that there was overwhelming town support for this article, and the Select Board are going against the town’s interests and wishes. However, every member of the Select Board was elected with at least 1,600 votes in their most recent election. This article won with 474 to 394 votes. Even though we have a legislative process in Sudbury by Town Meeting, most people in the United States are more familiar with representative democracy as that’s how the state and federal process works. We as a town voted more strongly for Select Board members than for this recall provision. Voting on these provisions is part of the responsibilities of the Select Board, and they voted before the town did, thus they cannot be voting against our wishes.”
“Calling the question” at Town Meeting is a legitimate parliamentary procedure. It does not undermine the legitimacy of the ensuing votes. But it can have a downside if it prevents any sort of legislative compromise or consensus building with the minority, particularly when that minority vote is sizable — as it was on the recall provision. If the article in question is to advance a home rule petition, that sets the stage for additional rounds of political battle at the State level.
The hearing testimony was poignant not because it demonstrated that either side was absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but because it highlighted the legitimacy of both arguments. Supporters and opponents of the bill were using broadly-shared values of democracy and good governance to support arguments in opposite directions.
A Recipe For Conflict
One of the most frequently repeated talking points in recent weeks is that Sudbury’s elected officials regularly ignore the will of the people. Strip away the specific issues and it becomes a philosophical question: in a town with both direct and representative democracy, how do you determine the “will of the people”?
One thing is certain: when the majority of an elected board, which was elected by a majority of voters, opposes an article that ultimately passes at a Town Meeting, it gets complicated.
The whole “will of the people” line is one of the most common populist messages in politics. And the “will of the people” claim is a direct challenge to the representative side of democracy, in Sudbury and in general. It ignores the premise that elected officials answer to the whole town, not only to the voters who turn out for annual elections and Town Meetings.
Representative Gentile’s recent comments on the recall provision are a populist argument that one-ups a populist argument. Asked at a recent Select Board meeting whether he supported the recall bill, he said he wouldn’t support it as written, adding, “I had over 7,000 people that voted for me, so I think the majority would want a much better piece of legislation.”
Both sides of the recall fight are reaching for a populist trump card, with each claiming the real “will of the people” rather than acknowledging the reality that neither Town Meeting nor the ballot box speaks for everyone.
The direct democracy of Town Meeting assumes the people have one will and that the assembled majority expresses it. That’s precisely the assumption representative democracy is designed to counter-balance, with an executive branch that must also represent the people who aren’t in the room or didn’t cast a vote at the ballot box.
Who gets to be the people? In Sudbury this summer, nearly everyone seems to be claiming it’s them, and them alone.
That raises an important question. It’s not whether Sudbury has direct democracy or representative democracy, but whether it can hold the two in honest tension, recognizing the two democracies have essential roles and functions. The differing sides on every issue speak for some of the people, not all of them. Coming to consensus on difficult issues is how democracy as a system works, and how the people’s will is ultimately carried out.
