Share This Article
The SPS School Committee’s conduct is stifling the collaborative work of its own members.
During the Feb. 10th SC meeting, the SC’s toxic behavior violated their own operating protocols, such as: treat fellow SC members with dignity and respect, a committee member does not have authority to investigate, and represent the needs and interests of all students.
Most critically, three SC members made a choice to not put the needs and interest of all students at the forefront of their work, instead choosing to delay or stop SC work on policies.
This isn’t the first time this has happened. During the Nov. 25th SC meeting, they tried to limit the scope of what the new Policy Subcommittee was “allowed” to do. Member Gerson at 2:34 made claims that the subcommittee could only review policies when they were updated by MASC. This is simply untrue. In fact, these statements are not even consistent with the work Member Gerson did herself, such as in her last meeting on the policy subcommittee in April 2024, when they updated 9 policies that were not in need of updates per MASC, including Policy JFABG – Enrollment of Children of Non-Resident Employees.
I therefore ask you not to get lost in the spectacle of these baseless accusations of an Open Meeting Law violation. If the SC would like to file a complaint against themselves, they have every right to do so. But, note this was all predicated on the SC chair Nicole Burnard’s unauthorized “investigation” of an informational meeting in which all four attendees have consistently stated that there was no policy deliberation and everything complied with OML. In her “investigation”, the chair only bothered to contact half the attendees, and then she chose not to believe them.
Ironically, these three members of the SC may have broken the very law they congratulate themselves on upholding. OML clearly states that all discussions must be limited to agenda items, yet this didn’t happen during the agenda item labeled “Policy Subcommittee Compliance” which was about whether an OML complaint should be filed. The three members actively discussed indefinitely postponing the future agenda item of Parent Advisory Councils (PACs) – only just voted on during the Jan. 27th SC meeting. Creation of a Parent Advisory Council is always the work of the full committee; it is not even work of a Policy Subcommittee. They launched another discussion with the Superintendent about how SPS currently supports LGBTQ students. They deliberated on whether work done on a policy, even before the supposed OML violation, should all be scrapped. Those discussions were not in line with the agenda item.
To make it worse, SC Chair Burnard unilaterally chose to consult legal counsel, at the expense of Sudbury taxpayers, in direct violation of committee policies that state the chair may only consult on routine matters unless explicitly directed by the full committee. Sadly, this is not the first time this has happened this year.
But this isn’t just about OML — it’s about values. There is no reason why this Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Student policy, which many surrounding districts started adopting as early as 2016, shouldn’t be discussed by the full committee at their next meeting. There is no reason why the possible creation of a new Parent Advisory Council cannot be discussed. There is no reason why the SC cannot work now to better support students in our schools. An open meeting complaint has nothing to do with these student needs.
The SPS community deserves better. It’s time we start holding our SC members accountable and ensure they are advocating for SPS students. The SC must allow discussions, foster collaboration, and stop blocking meaningful change.