Thank you Christina. I stand with you in support of out town officials.

"What I do know is that years ago I sat at someone’s house for a coffee with various members of the school committees in town and John Drobinski to discuss school budgets."

Thanks for the heads up Christina. Those who follow the rules refer to this as a violation of the open meeting law. I'll be filing my complaint with the Board of Ethics today with your letter as evidence of my claim. Thanks again!

Another blatant open meeting law violation. Christina, this is exactly what is wrong with the behavior of Drobinski and O'Brien. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Christina, you are brave to post this thoughtful perspective on the bigger picture.

Thrice Rusty,
If you could give me your real name and number, I'd be happy to clarify. Or you can have the Board of Ethics call me directly. I'd be happy to talk with them. Thanks for reading the letter. It means a lot to me. Christina

Bob,
Sounds great. I am swamped right now with end of the year volunteer work but would be happy to make any attempt to make it work. You can feel free to reach me by email after the school year ends. Christina

Christina,
I can understand you've had good experiences in the past. Have you had a chance to watch the selectmen's meeting from Tuesday that was broadcast via Sudbury TV yet? I would love to understand why the Police Chief was not asked to attend a discussion on his own letter and why John Drobinski refused to schedule a meeting for next Tuesday to readdress this issue. I sincerely would LOVE to better understand Drobinski's refusal to second Bob Haarde's attempt at further clarification. I have watched that meeting twice now - believe me, John Drobinski comes across even worse after watching it a second time.

Christina - I agree with many points in your thoughtful letter. However, when it is available, please view the last school committee meeting. I will be curious if you still feel such an all-around position of support. As a mom, I doubt you will be able to dismiss the clear pain and frustration being felt by many parents at Noyes these days (especially those whose children are the collateral damage of Mrs. J's dismissal). Your point about bad judgement and poor ethics is very true, but many facts HAVE been revealed that are deeply upsetting to many of us in the Noyes community (lies told to parents in that class about curriculum, major communication voids, police called to the school for "horseplay", etc., pending litigation paid for out of school funds). While perhaps no one was out to "dupe" anyone" or "break a law" - I think we can all agree that we want the best for our children and transparency & communications from competent leaders is a good starting point. There is tremendous room for improvement in this area, but I am hopeful it will happen - thanks to the many concerned voices now speaking out.

Christina, Thank you. I agree.
Having been at the Selectmen's meeting on Tuesday, many issues became clear; Mr. Haarde receives a packet of information relative to the Tuesday meetings on Fridays. He missed an opportunity to ask then for the presence of the chief. He should have done so. If the Chief could not attend then the discussion would have been tabled until a time where he could have been there. Second, the emotions were running high. Many people there were angry and upset. Lots of misinformation, and a 'kangaroo court' atmosphere was apparent.
I was emotional as well. To the residents sitting both in front of me and behind me I sincerely apologize for my rude behavior. I make no excuse other than to say, I should have not taken my frustration out on them. It is never the right way to handle a situation. Further, I apologized to Mr. Haarde for an outburst, and again do so here.
This town is my home, I protect both. I am deeply, deeply saddened at the direction this has taken Sudbury, and would only ask that we somehow move forward with a renewed sense of respect for diverse opinions, and good debate.
Thank you.

Kirsten –

What you call a Kangaroo court, I call citizens being heard.

As someone who spoke in the “court”, I found the interchange refreshing and open. Forty citizens, most who did not appear to know each other, came out to participate on an issue that did not directly impact them in a physical or financial aspect, but touched their sense of fair play and democracy.

Yes, your “court” wasn’t the staged, ask a question and sit down, town meeting format. It was not a school committee meeting were you have three minutes to speak. No one attempted to cut off debate and break into executive session. The SPS Vice Chair was not there with her iPHONE timer beeping at the end of each persons speaking time. It was more free flowing than that.

Even better, while I don’t agree with Selectmen Drobinski’s answers, he was responding and engaging in a conversation. Even the town manager went to lengths to try to answer the best she could questions about her employee. I don’t agree with the answers. But at least I got them.

If Tuesday was a Kangaroo Court, we need more of them in town.

Everyone should watch the replay on sudburyTV.org and decide for themselves.

www.sudburytv.org

Christina,

Thank you for writing such a heartfelt letter. I totally agree with you on all counts. The emotional content and tone of anonymous posts leads me to believe that almost all of the controversy is driven by personal animosity or political gain or both.

Yon with all due respect I suggest you check out the Lavendergate Facebook page. It's pushing 800 members in less than 2 days. Nothing to sneeze at. It seems to me that a lot of people are pissed off. Those supporting the other side of the issues at hand seem to be minimal. You know what they say, the numbers don't lie.

Thrice Rusty, who are you?

Can anyone doubt that someone using the moniker Thrice Rusty is motivated primarily by personal animosity towards Ms. Rust?

Nice going Christina! I support our elected officials as well and wish the unelected people would stop creating such turmoil.

Reading this blog demonstrates the obvious divide in this town. Noone has ever said that John Drobinski isn't nice. I met someone recently that admitted he knew nothing about town beyond his own mailbox. This is representative of many in town who determine opinions based on what they are told and don't care or don't have time to ask educated questions.

There is another group of residents that follows things more closely. They follow enough to see where financials aren't transparent, the facts are manipulated, and conflicts of interest exist. Frustrations grow because Town Manager and O'Brien (largely) do not embrace questions posed by the public.

Today, there is no open public comment. Drobinski removed that from the agenda some years ago. Today your question is vetted before you are granted a right to speak. Today they prefer email so noone else knows about the exchange. It is the O'Brien and Drobinski that have failed to demonstrate leadership and made our leadership a mockery. The result is the Maureen Valente empire.

Residents have a right to have questions answered, whether in the majority or minority. We all have an obligation to be respectful and our officials, elected or employed, and they have an obligation let us speak in public and ask our questions.

I've reviewed the evidence and timelines, and there are many questions that the MAJORITY of residents should want answered whether you LIKE the Mobrinski trio or not.

Dear SkimThreePercent, thank you so much for you message Saturday night assuring me that none of this is based on personal animosity. I'm so relieved. In turn, let me assure you that I have no trust fund. I worked in college and I have had a full time job ever since - 32 years. If it helps, I was laid off for a few months after 9/11.

Thrice and SudburyToo, your ignorance is showing...again.

Perhaps before raking up the muck again to air your personal opinions, don't mix them with purported fact. And consider leaving the legal interpretations to lawyers and the AG. You need to cite
the following website and educate yourself on exactly what can and cannot done, in accordance with OML. FYI - this does not allow for personal interpretation.

http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/open-meeting-law/attorney-generals-open-meeting-law-guide.html#Meetings

Any member of an elected board or cmte may attend a meeting, conference, etc. to discuss matters, even those under consideration for a vote at that body (how else can they gather public opinion?) However, they are not allowed to deliberate (i.e. decide) at that time.

It's also important to note that there are other laws, Executive Session, Collective Bargaining, etc, that REQUIRE full disclosure NOT be made, i.e.a lack of transparency.

I don't mind anyone's opinion, but ignorance of the law and false expertise I don't support.

As one of the "unelected people", meaning one of the tax paying townspeople, I am not trying to create turmoil. I just want to have my elected officials answer some basic questions. No political or personal motivation, just a concerned citizen who, thanks to our Founding Fathers, has a right to question elected officials on their actions.

I think Skim has went sour. Her and her buddies with DUIs are as classy as the parent who got asked to leave the Children's Odyssey event a few years back for being drunk. Your little clique have have the best tennis outfits and belong to the best country clubs but trash is trash no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

It is disheartening to say the least, to read some of these blogs. Once again, town officials need to clarify their actions to the people in town and take responsibility. It is not fair to people looking for clarification to be labeled as having personal motivations or animosity. It is amazing that people are being ridiculed for only wanting to find out the truth. It is also very sad that friends/co-workers would let someone drive home in an intoxicated state. One person there that evening, Ms. Roopenian, works in the Planning and Community Development Office with Ms. Rust. I am willing to bet Ms. Kablack, Director of Planning was also in attendance. That is 3 of a staff of 5 from one town department. The incident at Lavendars needs to be addressed, people do have the right to ask questions of their Town Officials. Clarify things and answer questions so everyone can move on. It is not right to not take responsibility and it is not right to deny people the right to ask questions.

If this was an official Town of Sudbury event and especially if taxpayer money was being used to buy alcohol, then it is appropriate to question Town Officials about it in a public forum. If this was a gathering of individuals, asking Town Officials about it is not appropriate.

Siobhan - Can I take that as you agreeing with me? If it was not a Town event, then it does not make sense to be asking Town Officials about it.

Siobhan, would this discussion be limited to the business of the Town government, or would individual morals be fair game?

The conversation should not be considered complete without conflicts of interest being discussed. This is as much if not moreso about abuse of power and conflicts of interest, as it is whether or not residents care if O'Brien consumes 6 mai tais during his visits.

I am just curious....trying to follow....it's hard for me. How would anyone know if there was a conflict of interest if the owner of Lavender says there was not? And the police have investigated and found no improprieties? I just feel like a large forum with open conversation, which I am ALWAYS a fan of, will yield nothing that isn't already public. At some point, don't we have to trust that we are all doing our best here to make our town work as efficiently as possible and start looking at issues like the Johnson Farm project and NSTAR (who is cutting 22 trees from inside someone's fence in my neighborhood today)?? All I keep thinking is what would be possible if this much energy was put into those kinds of issues. If as many people showed up to stand in front of the NSTAR trucks as post here, maybe some of the south Sudbury families would have had a chance in their fight. I'm just saying.....I get it. It feels really important to some people and they have to do what they have to do. I just don't understand what will be revealed that will do anything but cause further divide in what I have come to know as the town I will live in forever.

It is a shame that Larry and the rest of the gang that was at Lavendars continue to let this position rip apart the town rather then doing the right thing and step down or at a min let a special election take place where they could run for their seat again. Its obvious they are putting them selves before the town and their obligations as elected officials.

Well said, Christina. Unfortunately, some place a high value on the politics of personal destruction. Helping our neighbors would be a much more worthwhile use of everyone's time.

Why is it a personal attack when someone questions how town officials, who oversee the liquor license process, can gain access to a restaurant after posted business hours and stay an hour after the liquor license ends? I’ve always thought that Larry O’Brien seemed like a nice guy the few times I’ve seen him around town. However, that does not allow him or any other elected official to get any preferential treatment. In my mind it is as simple as that.

Do people really think that at 1:00am (on a weeknight) the employees cleared all the alcohol from the tables and yet elected officials stuck around for another hour because they lost track of time?

I honestly believe that had there been a major mea culpea at the time from those involved, this issue would already be over; it would have been for me. But when I see the Chairman of the BOS read a statement rather than answer questions and recuse himself on advice of counsel, is see politics at its worse. All that is missing now is someone saying they are “not a crook”. Yes, that’s an overstatement I know, but like that case, I think the cover-up is much worse than the crime. The whole situation has caused undo problems for the town, the restaurant owner as well the Sudbury police.

Mike et al., I totally get your position. I really do. I just want to understand HOW you will know. I thought the questions had already been asked. Maybe I am misunderstanding. Thanks for responding so thoughtfully.

Re: Bryan Semple's comments...
The police were only blamed because Bob Haarde dragged them into this witch hunt. Let's just say this is what happens when someone is a bit overzealous in his attempt to harm a colleague.

Hi Christina, I agree that the questions have been asked, but unfortunately, Larry and the others are not giving any answers to them. We lost track of time just won't cut it and is an insult to my intelligence.

Mike, many, many questions have been asked. But only one of them pertains to Town government. That is which entity will hear the next Lavender license review. Issues related to the alleged OUI and the license violation have been handled by the Police. The gathering at Lavender was not a Town government event. People were there as individuals, so, questioning Town Officials about it is not appropriate. Your motivation for wanting to question Town Officials may be as pure as the driven snow, but, when I read this page I see 10 posts containing personal attacks and this page is tame compared to some others. There are clearly some people who just want to cause further embarrassment. Time will tell how much of this is politically motivated. If there are unanswered questions that are appropriate for Town Officials to answer, what are they?

Yon,
The only thing politically motivated is the reluctance of our Town officials to be accountable to the people that elect them. Silencing the public is not the right approach. If there is no big deal, and as Drobinski says "it is minor" then let the Chief of Police come on in and tell us all how he feels. Not doing that just increases the skeptical nature of what is going on.

YON, I'm not sure we know that it was not a government event. Was it a personal "special event" that allowed them to get there after business hours? Perhaps. Was it a government "special event"? Also perhaps. I think at least, that question should be answered.

There are definitely political attacks, and they are happening on both sides. However, I think a regular taxpaying shmoe like myself who’s lived in the town for 17 years, deserves a few answers. If it was not a governmental meeting then you may be right that it is a personal question rather than a town question. Either way, I think Larry and the others can see how negatively it is affecting the town, including non-partisan townspeople like myseIf. If there's nothing to hide, just be honest about what happened (again, sorry, but "lost track of time" after they took all our drinks away an hour before, does not pass the smell test). If there is something to hide, it will come out eventually, but better to bring it out yourself rather than let this continue. By keeping quiet, the only people they are helping are their opponents. I just want the truth and I think I can handle it.

Siobahn, it seems you have quite detailed knowledge of the events that occurred that night. More than I've read in any public forum.

I guess it would reason, therefore, that you were there as well?!?

So are we to believe that this was not a Town event and that as a coincidence, 20 plus people all decided to go to Lavender independently an hour after it closed to the public. All 20 were just let in after the posted closing hours and they all happen to have come from the same Town Meeting. A lot of coincidences. Then after the police came the first time 10 people all lost track of time and didn't leave until 2:00am. The Chairman of the Board of Selectmen is there to meet the police.

It is hard to convince the public and a reasonable person that this is not a problem.

I had a refreshing and short conversation with Police Chief Richard Glavin this morning. I asked him if he would attend the Board of Selectman's meeting on Tuesday, June 26th 2012. He responded that he planned on attending. I then suggested it might be a good idea, given the heightened energy and frustration of those who might attend, that an officer should be present in case things get a bit out of hand. I was heartened by his response that ( I interpret here) he would not want to give the wrong impression. I look forward to the meeting on the 26th.

Then I asked for a paperclip to fix the visitor parking sign out front. Yankee thrift.