Until Haarde answers to his hiding behind Troiano's online identity his credibility will continue to be questioned. No, Mr. Haarde, the SEC did not make an official finding about your lack of personal ethical and moral character. They most certainly DID distinguish between your professional vs personal lack of ethical and moral integrity. Running unopposed may be what you consider an honor but it is what the voters consider an indicator that Sudbury lacks qualified candidates to fill two extra seats.
Perhaps in the next three years you can consider why using a friend's online identity to coach voters on how to manipulate town governance is wrong. Perhaps you can have the integrity and courage to stand up on your own two feet instead of feeding the egregious fire of groups like Lavendergate for personal gain. Honor thy name is not yours. Transparency goes two ways.

Congrats, Bob

Thank you for your public service. I commend you for your time, effort and sacrifice in serving the Town.

Transparency and disclosure also are high on my list. Keep up the good work.

Good luck and best wishes for next 3 years

Kirsten,

By your own words you are not credible when you talk about the SEC distinguishing between professional vs personal lack of ethical and moral integrity: In a comment on another article you write:

A written request = Documentation and accountability. Written documents can be referenced with authority and used in decision making. Verbal interactions cannot be proven as haven taken place. Documentation is key for credibility

Kirsten - honor thy name is not yours. Transparency goes two ways

Bob, this is a great interview. I, too, commend you for your time, effort and sacrifice. Being a Selectman is a difficult job, and you have served the Town of Sudbury well in the past 3 years. Like Andrew, I place transparency and disclosure high on my list.

I am happy to have you as a Selectman, and I value you as a fellow citizen. Thank you for all that you do.

Now we have two SCtoo's? Would the real SCtoo please stand up?

It's nice to have a pleasant and productive dialogue - others should experience that sometime. Bitterness is toxic and unproductive.

I too am thankful for Bob's leadership. While there are unfortunetely some who would prefer a single view/side on the BoS and apparently detest an alternate view on anything, I cringe to think how things would be without Bob to balance the entrenched on the Board.

Regardless of private citizen versus elected official if you take a vow not to clutter the comment section and never post again, stand by it.

Her excessive commenting is what got her kick off the Fb site. Not to mention her aggressive combative tone.

Everyone is wrong except you Kirsten- I think you are confusing your "determination" with manic compulsive disorder.

No, I am not confused. You are giving me way to much credit by reading into my comment that I am supporting Bob Haarde in my comment or not understanding what you wrote. My comment applies to all people "don't make a promise you can't keep." I am simply pointing out you are making posts after you said you never would.
That being said since you are going to attack my state of mind, is tough to agree and support senseless and witless drivel when you can't stick your promises.
Have a nice day.

I want to ensure all of you that the accusations of being "unethical" belong to that person alone and I defend and respect the right to do so. But please do not be misled for a moment to think that State Ethics is anyway involved. I took the time to discuss this matter at length with David Gianotti, Division Chief at State Ethics, and he assured me these claims have no merit. I will admit though that asking State Ethics if 'sending an email that was later pasted to Facebook was against the law' caused a bit of a chucklefest. The obvious truth is I am against recall and sent out many emails to many people explaining why a messy recall battle would be bad for our town. I respect the opinion of people who want to drag Sudbury through that but I do not. Pasting to Facebook happens constantly. Recently, many are pasting information regarding gun control on Facebook and almost 100% of it came from another source. No one is trying to steal anyone's identity. On Facebook, people post information to like-minded communities and many times people are even asked to copy it and send it to others, such as legislators, to support a cause even though it originated from another source. This is a difficult concept for some to grasp. As far as the law goes, once something is posted, Facebook can share that content subject to their terms and applicable privacy settings. I don't need to steal anyone's identity to say I am against recall, I support 3-5 and anyone who knows me already knows that.

Great interview Bob. You have my vote. You have done a great job for the last three years and I am looking forward to three more.

Kirsten, are you really closing your flower shop?

Kristen, what you don't realize is that you, more than any other, are the only person who brings up the FB group "Lavendergate." That, and your references to transparency and "our" culture as if one group owns it underscores your lack of understanding of social media and "our" concerns. Social media is a platform that enforces the ultimate in transparency. You are arguing against an entire market if you disagree, not with me or any of its users. And you are arguing against a software platform rather than discussing the topics that concern citizens. Most all of your posts initiate discussion of the aforementioned software platform and group rather than discuss the subjects of the articles on which you incessantly comment. It leads one to believe your time would be better served going after Mark Zuckerberg than citizens and candidates of Sudbury.

Amen Heath. The reality for all you anti-Krsten folks is that this sad little person needs significant mental illness assistance. Unfortunately whatever anger and problems she clearly has are being spilled into this forum. If I were an actual mental health professional, I would advise her that she would find peace and be more productive if she actually took a step back, read her posts and realize that she is actually not making any progress at all with her rants. If she would look at things objectively she might actually find others who agree and she could take a more proactive approach towards problem solving.

Bob, thanks for your service to Sudbury the past 3 years.
We are fortunate to have you as one of our select persons.
Paul & Kristen Bisson (Highland Ave.)

Bob understands the importance of asking the tough questions and challenging entrenched assumptions - this is a good thing. Also, some tension between (and among) the Board of Selectmen and the town's employees, boards, commissions, etc. is healthy and constructive.

Bob is a good listener and advocate for all. Bob Haarde cares.

Believe me when I tell you nobody could EVER use Mike Troiano as their own personal speaking tool. (let alone use his actual facebook account!) Have you met the guy? Mike Troiano is 100% his own voice who is voicing his own opinions. Those opinions align with the opinions of many others in this town, including my own and perhaps Bob Haarde's.

Good luck Bob (not that you need it). Thank you for all you have done and continue to do for Sudbury.

Most would say that running truly unopposed - without anyone pulling papers, is a de facto vote of confidence in Bob Haarde, both as a person and in his agenda (though clearly not by the definition of some).
And yes, “Lavender-gate” did indeed germinate from the inculcation of the lacking transparency and moral compass of the BoS, but NOT at the hands of Mr. Haarde. So those who spew venom should do so in another direction. Perhaps toward those who would rather discuss the BoS officers reorganization in an un-noticed meeting agenda item, departing from years of history to rotate the Chair. It is THAT intentional division that spawned a group of town residents that look to change that kind of behavior as it stands in the way of getting things accomplished and spurns distrust.
Personally, I'd much prefer to have a Selectman that has to recuse himself for conflict of interest because of who his employer is versus a decision by Town Counsel regarding potential personal litigation.

Bob, I hope you are successful in your second term. I also hope it is high on your agenda for the board to have it put in writing that:
• The Chair rotates EVERY year
• The agenda can be mutually agreed, rather than dictated by the Chair, and
• The opportunity for public discussion not be limited to pre-submitted questions

All are forms of unnecessary censorship and a blockade to openness and transparency.

Just Sayin>KVD

Mr. Haarde is doing a tremendous job on the BOS and all around town. He displays the fearlessness we need at the BOS when it comes to representing people of the town or having his own opinion. I applaud his willingness to not back down and stand by his beliefs. Mr. Haarde brings change and fresh ideas to the BOS which is needed.

I appreciate the time Mr. Haarde has dedicated to the BOS, schools, children’s sports, charity events and even taking the time to be in the 4th of July Parade to name a few. Mr. Haarde’s involvement with the town and residents is at a higher level than others. He adds integrity and transparency to the BOS.

We are very fortunate to have Mr. Haarde dedicating himself to the BOS for another 3 years.

Thank you very much Mr. Haarde.

Scott Sawin

To set the record straight again... I "admitted" to cutting and pasting a few lines from an e-mail Bob Haarde sent me after I started the "Lavendergate" Facebook group. In it he argued to avoid the divisive and unproductive bid to recall Larry O'Brien that Ms. VanDijk and others were calling for at the time, and to focus instead on a change from 3-5 Selectmen that would make sense for the town. It was one of many ideas I put forward to the group, from many people, *because I agreed with them.* Turned out the group did as well... then the town did, then the legislature did, and here we are at the ballot to confirm that change next Monday.

If you're trying to glean some insight about what kind of person Bob Haarde is from the single e-mail Ms. VanDijk's is working so desperately to turn into a smoking gun, I'd suggest it be this: Even when presented with an opportunity to go after the people who publicly snubbed him for the Chairmanship, Bob Haarde was concerned first with what was good for Sudbury. That's what kind of a person he is, and how much he cares about this town.

That's why he'll have my vote, and (I expect) why he's running unopposed.

"Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:57:37 -0700
Subject: Re: (Lavendergate) Here's my take on tonights meeting,…
MICHAEL TROIANO commented on his post in Lavengate8:57 am Jun 27
Kirsten - A recall is not going Sudbury is one of the few, if not only, towns left in Massachusetts with no checks and balances. Even if Drobinski and I agree that Larry had violated the public trust and should be penalized, we have no power to do so. Sudbury needs to install the powers of censure, recall, and expansion to 5 or to 7 Selectmen in our charter.

So tell me, Mr. Troiano, could you please read the last line of this quote from the Lavendergate comment thread that you and Haarde and 900 people crafted simultaneously together? "Sudbury needs to install the power of censure, recall, and expansion to 5 or 7 Selectmen in our charter."

Um, gee, I see a black kettle.

Mike Troiano - I am grateful for all your hard work and respect you immensely. Even more in the face of constant scrutiny.
Bob Haarde - I am grateful for all you have done and all you will do on behalf of the citizens of Sudbury. It isn't easy to be in the spotlight and I commend your reserve.
To all the members of the facebook page in constant question - I applaud the decorum of everyone who has supported, participated and maintained level headed progress.
I hope to see everyone exercise their right to vote next week.

Folks ... I know this is a hot-button topic, but please ... no name calling. One comment was removed for that reason. Discuss, argue, agree and disagree ... but keep it civil and clean.

All of the back and forth is a waste of everyone's time. Bob Haarde will serve another three years as selectman, 3-5 is going to pass and Kirsten Van-Ritalin will keep blabbering to what she think is a group of people who cares about what she has to say. It's all par for the course.

Bob, thanks for all your hard work and the countless hours you've spent working to make Sudbury a better place. You can't please all the people all the time, but I hope you take solace in pleasing most of the people most of the time. Keep up the good fight, it's working.

Does this policy apply to Kirsten calling Mike T. a "puppet" (among many other things), which sounds silly, but in context is quite personally insulting.

I believe Kirsten owes everyone an apology, which I'm sure would be accepted graciously were it delivered sincerely.

(btw, I suggested Mike T.'s benign explanation (unknowingly so) over a week ago in this space but was similarly insulted.)

let's move on. it's time. 3-5.

Another comment was deleted for name calling. Thank you JON999 for bringing it to my attention.

I have heard that Kirsten is relocating her home and business. So she may no longer care about what she stirs up in Sudbury since she apparently will not be here for the long term. I would like to ask her though, since she is such a staunch proponent of transparency, who is propping her up behind the scenes to encourage her and continue these baseless and hurtful attacks?

Who *are* the people in Sudbury who will be here after Kirsten leaves who are encouraging Kirsten to keep this thread going? Can Kirsten demonstrate transparency and list the names of those supporting her to continue?

Who is Todj Gozdeck talking to? Can he ask a direct question to a particular individual? Is he able to focus on the issue? Who is propping him and others up behind the scenes to continue in this hypocrisy?

It's the Freemasons!

Kirsten,
It's over let's move on. Please refocus your energy and efforts on something else that can benefit the town. For example, maybe a drive for everyone to wear name tags in town and we can move forward toward this healing process you constantly speak about. I'd love to be in Sudbury Farms and be able to call everyone by their first name. Hello Bob; Hello Larry; Hello Kirsten...yup Seinfeld episode.

March 25 can't come soon enough. Maybe Vandijk will finally go away after the vote. But I doubt it.

KVD- PLEASE put down the pipe, I mean shovel!

Until Haarde is able to answer to his unethical, immoral, and questionable actions by using a friend's Facebook account to coach the Lavendergate group on how to manipulate town governance I will not stop. It is that simple. So put the focus on "Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:57:37 -0700
Subject: Re: (Lavendergate) Here's my take on tonights meeting,…
MICHAEL TROIANO commented on his post in Lavengate8:57 am Jun 27
Kirsten - A recall is not going Sudbury is one of the few, if not only, towns left in Massachusetts with no checks and balances. Even if Drobinski and I agree that Larry had violated the public trust and should be penalized, we have no power to do so. Sudbury needs to install the powers of censure, recall, and expansion to 5 or to 7 Selectmen in our charter.

So tell me, Mr. Troiano, could you please read the last line of this quote from the Lavendergate comment thread that you and Haarde and 900 people crafted simultaneously together? "Sudbury needs to install the power of censure, recall, and expansion to 5 or 7 Selectmen in our charter."

Tough bite to swallow pride is.

Publius,
That you do not understand why transparency is important dumbfounds me. PROCESS and PRODUCT are what the issue is. The unethical PROCESS nullifies the PRODUCT's validity. 3-5 is an initiative that should be brought forward in a transparent and inclusive way--not by a reactionary coup driven in part by a member of the BOS that has an agenda of personal gain. Haarde has yet to address the fact that he did not use his own identity and voice to coach these members. Why? Because as the SEC pointed out, had Haarde identified himself and conducted himself as he did he would have been in a conflict of interest and a finding would have been made. This behind the scenes manipulation by a Selectman is NOT acceptable. Equally not acceptable have been the actions of other members of the BOS. The Town of Sudbury--BOS and other members of pertinent boards of Committees should be the authors of any article to change our town governance. That is transparency and collaboration. By voting in favor of this article you vote in favor of the unethical and highly questionable and divisive method it came to be on the warrant. And you condone future initiatives brought about in the same fashion. 3-5 does not exist in a vacuum. Sudbury needs to heal from the egregious behaviour of the group Lavendergate with the help of Haarde, our Town Selectman. Haarde and Troiano need to make a public apology to all of the citizens who have been subjected to their manipulation. Very simple.

These blogs have become a medium for online bullying. I'm all for freedom of speech but geesh.

Bob, thanks for your service.

siobhan hullinger,
It is conjecture and rumor to suggest it otherwise as well. You need to consider your words before you hit submit.

Kirsten, what you say about the whole Haarde-Troiano thing may be true, and I don't doubt that it is. The problem is that you have neither the CLOUT nor the CREDIBILITY to change this. 3-5 is not perfect and there are definitely some issues with the process, but you will not be able to stop this. I know you think you have the whole non-Lavendergate crowd on your side, but you really don't. You may have a few residents who have trickled into your flower shop express support for your stance, but to think you have vast support from "silent majority" is delusional at best. Just because 3-5 hasn't been done the way YOU want it done doesn't diminish its merits. You can whine all you want about transparency and ethics but the end result is the same.

You want to convince everyone that you turned against 3-5 when you uncovered what you think is a smoking gun. The fact is, you turned against 3-5 when you where humiliated in front of your kids at town meeting. From that point on, you became contentious against the whole process because your moment in the spotlight was over and people in Lavendergate didn't want to pursue your recall ideas. I'm sure you will still be yelling from your soapbox after Monday, but it's time for you to understand your place in this town.

Tough bite to swallow pride is.

Siobhan,
I told you before that our conversation is over. And your delusion (a term your group favors) notion that I told you a complete non truth is more of the same. You just crossed a line that brings you back where you started on February 14 2013. I suggest you speak to someone about this problem you seem to have concerning me. Your not getting anywhere creating stories about me and my family. Stick to what you know as fact and not what you imagine.

Kirsten,
If your conversation is over with Siobhan then could I please have the proof?

By the way I have heard you say before that "your discussions were over" yet you keep coming back.

Kirsten- You said your kids were with you at TM. You said you wanted to show them how town government works- You posted they were with you on the patch! so.................now they were NOT with you??? Get your story straight.

Kirsten,

Thank you. I no longer think you are crazy or paranoid. Above you said people told you that "Bob Haarde requested text to be posted under Troiano's identity." I may be wrong but I think it's possible you are being used as a pawn in town politics. Please tell us who these people are. If we knew who these people are and what they were telling you then we could get to the bottom of this conspiracy once and for all because they must have the proof we need. But you should not have to bear the brunt of all this ridicule because people are speaking through you and making you do all the work for their own political gain. Isn't this what you claim Lavendergate was all about?

It makes alot more sense now to know that you have people who are telling you this is true and that is inspiring you to carry on. That makes perfect sense. Who are these people?

Kirsten, this is what you wrote in your Town Crier letter:

"When one analyzes this transcript, I believe it becomes clear that Bob Haarde was speaking using the name and face of Michael Troiano. In my opinion, a very serious ethical breech by Haarde has taken place under the goal of bringing transparency to our governance."

So what was once your OPINION has now become FACT? Based on what - your saying so? What exactly has happened between February 14th and now to turn this opinion into fact? Please produce proof of this and show some transparency and credibility.

Tough bite to swallow pride is.

So Kirsten, your general beef is that the Lavendergate crowd has come together to put this 3-5 in place? you think "we" strong-armed it to this point in a wrong way?? what's wrong about it? a group of people who had a certain believe rallied and marketed to the public in order to put some change into place which was deemed desireable. Each of those individuals who come to the town meeting and voted did so of their own desires and using their own alloted VOTE. So what? If majority speaks, they speak and they WIN. Some like it, some don't. Had we lavendergaters been involved earlier, or lived here longer, maybe the Town Baffoonery and mis-management would not have happened. But that's OUR fault. We let it happen for too long by not being involved and using our voices (and/or votes).. but no longer.

By the way, I was at that town meeting. You were shut down from your lengthy speech because most of the people there were already in agreement with your point (which was basically FOR 3-5, I think).. and we just needed to get out of that place and get home to release our babysitters. I'm sorry if you took that personally, if it helps, others were also shut down in similar fashion. Which, by the way, is part of the legal process of Town Meeting-- calling to question is legit.

See you at the polls on the 25th. I have no idea if you are currently for or against 3-5, but I'm thrilled that we ALL get to vote and exercise our democratic rights.

Love that you printed the transcript! So it would seem that my desire to focus attention away from the egregious process of the Lavendergate group was effective. I'm satisfied that I managed to make my point despite the unruly crowd and that there is a record of it. But how does this in any way nullify my assertion that because of the flawed process--the unethical, immoral, and highly questionable actions of Haarde in coaching the Lavendergate group who brought this to Special Town Meeting--voting in favor would be voting in favor of the process as well as the product? I have been transparent about that position since my column of Feb 14. I assert that this needs to be brought forward by the town for the town in an open, transparent, and democratic fashion. By the way, again thanks for posting the minutes!

Can this topic please be closed to future comments? I'm concerned for you all. Just because Kirstin says or writes something doesn't make it so. We all live in our own realities. Just let her be and move on.

Publius,
Like I have transparently said more than once--
I will vote AGAINST 3-5 *because*
Flawed Process on behalf of the petitioners and a Selectman who unethically coached the petitioners using another individual's identity
*because*
I believe this change in governance should be brought about in an ethical, moral, and democratic process originating from the Town of Sudbury.
Further,
I support a RECALL (impeach) provision for QUALITY CONTROL as well as TERM LIMITATIONS to ENCOURAGE NEW IDEAS.
This is not new information and I have stated it previously on Lavendergate and was PLAGIARIZED by Haarde when I said that a recall provision is not divisive but DECISIVE town management. Now I am so glad that you and I have had a reasonable discussion. We can agree to disagree and remain civil. I choose to be transparent in my identity. You remain anonymous. Why is that?

Let her fight the windmills alone; maybe after a while she'll get carpal. By responding to her, you're just asking for more of the same old stuff.

Please continue posting my voice of reason but be sure to check the dates of those posts. There are two thresholds being ignored--the unsavory Lavendergate post by Troiano/Haarde and the Special Town Meeting of September (24). These are what is referred to as a "frame of reference". Knowledge empowers opinion and changes of those opinions. Keep posting!

Are you posting my own words as a campaign rally for Lavendergate? Are you trying to somehow apologize for the egregious actions of Lavendergate that included evicting me from the group for asking questions and suggesting proactive alternatives? Thank you for finally recognizing reasonable discourse and sound opinions not based on vendetta but on valid reasons that address our town's need for transparency and to address growth. Please understand that by supporting these unethical and immoral and questionable actions of LAVENDERGATE and HAARDE you are endorsing more of the same in the future. Like the Astroturf initiative it has proven to be, 3-5 needs the proper process to validate it's merits so that we all can look back and feel the residents were treated in a democratic and inclusive process. The time that has elapsed since September 24th has brought forward much information that sheds more light on why this group will do more harm than good.

Slander and libel are unbecoming of you, Siobhan. You have spent manic moments posting my words in order to, what? Discredit me? You have proven that reason and civility comes from the transparent approach I have employed and that I am and continue to be consistent in that approach. I do not tolerate someone who clearly misunderstood or misinterpreted something and claims to know the "facts" and "the truth" when you do not. You misrepresented, libeled, slandered me and now you feign offense. Continue to post my words. You flatter me with your attention but perhaps you need to redirect it to collaboration instead of vendetta. This, Siobhan Hullinger, is my very last word to you: adieu!

It seems some people are not aware that I left Lavendergate after my meeting with Haarde and rejoined in the fall for fact finding purposes only. Again, some people need to hit refresh!

You are in desperate need of help Kirsten. You have an obvious manic obsessive disorder. Now you attack Siobhan , for showing you your own words?
Mr Fucci, can you please close the comment section down, or please remove Kirsten VD . She is rude ,insulting and obviously quite sick.

Compartmentalization, splitting, and projection are argued to be ways that the ego maintains the illusion that it is completely in control at all times. Further, while engaged in projection, individuals can be unable to access truthful memories, intentions, and experiences, even about their own nature, as is common in deep trauma.[9]
[edit]

Vulgar language, even when hidden with symbols, is not allowed. Please keep it clean folks.