Share This Article
A Citizen Petition requiring the calling of a Special Town Meeting (STM) for May 20, at a cost to the town of about $20,000, was filed with the Town Clerk in April. The petition is asking the town for a vote of ‘no confidence’ against the Sudbury Public School Committee. Such a claim is unprecedented in Sudbury.
The petition alleges violations of the procurement process, violations of the conflict-of-interest law, violations of the open meeting law, and non-transparency. None of the claims are backed by facts, references, or proof of any violation. It is a litany of baseless accusations, rooted in misinformation. It is a pageant of rumor and malicious gossip.
The Town Meeting Warrants usually have a paragraph, Petitioner’s Report, explaining what the article is really about. Not so here. The Report is full of allegations and accusations, but devoid of substance. It leaves you guessing about what was done wrong. The School Committee is being ambushed from the shadows.
As is customary with all citizen petitions, the petitioner was invited to present her article to the Select Board at its April 28 meeting and provide supporting information. It was an opportunity to explain her article, answer questions, and help residents know what it was about. She did not appear.
One of the petitioner’s complaints was lack of transparency by the School Committee.
Were any findings or determinations made by the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, a court, an ethics commission, or any governmental or regulatory body to the complaints in the petition?
- No violations of the procurement process. MGL Chapter 30B section 5.
- No violations of the conflict-of-interest law.
- No violations of Open Meeting Law.
- No violations of executive session laws.
In fact, no complaints were filed on most of those accusations.
The petition also accuses the School Committee of:
- Pattern of conduct that has eroded public trust
- Destabilized district leadership
- Places the interests of the individual Committee members above the educational welfare of Sudbury students
Again, none of these accusations are supported by facts or references.
The ‘no confidence’ petition has the effect of smearing reputations of the members of the School Committee, people who have served the town to improve education in Sudbury’s public schools.
The School Committee made positive strides in the past year in process and substance:
- Instituted office hours with listening sessions.
- Improved / Expanded school communications with the school community.
- Reached agreement with Sudbury Extended Day for a 5 year contract extension.
- Implemented a parent advisory council for a more open and robust line of communication with all parents, no matter what their views on a particular subject might be.
- Advocated for earlier posting of meeting materials so residents had more time to engage thoughtfully with district issues.
We can understand differences of opinion, and we can work to resolve them, but the broad brush of the petition goes beyond such differences and tarnishes reputations. How is this accusatory petition viewed outside of Sudbury? Does such discord make prospective residents more or less likely to want to move here, educate their children here, and raise a family? If you thought having a cell tower in the neighborhood was bad for home values, what do you think this petition will do?
Let’s not let our differences divide us.
There is a remedy for significant differences: vote the person out of office. Meanwhile, you can change the composition of the SC every year and elect candidates that better suit you.
The damage inflicted by the no confidence petition has already hurt the town. Let’s not make it worse. By voting NO on STM Article 4 we can say no to a gossip mentality, acknowledge that there are differences of opinion, but that we can rededicate ourselves to work together for the betterment of our children, our schools, and our neighbors. We can take the high road for the future of our community.
Please join me in voting ‘NO’ on this misguided petition.