Mr. Fee are you saying that just because people take a pledge that they never do anything wrong? I am confused. Your title should read local politicians take a pledge not "Sudbury is an Ethical Town". That is a tremendous leap to infer that because a pledge is taken that everyone in fact lives up to that pledge. There are certainly examples to the contrary. It is time for change in Sudbury.

I think Mr DePompei is right on the money! There have been far too many questionable activities going on in town- It is time for a change

Mr Fee, while I can appreciate that there is aCode of Conduct, can you honestly say that this post by a handicap playground volunteer referencing their experience is how business should be conducted in Sudbury? There are so many issues in this post, how can one put their support behind Mr O'Brien after reading it? Post was in the Town Crier:
Let me tell you about my experience with Larry O'Brien. Along with several others, I was part of the SMILE Sudbury group that built the accessible park at Haskell Field. While dealing with the Town Manager about a specific issue, she said that decisions on issues like ours needed to be resolved by the Selectmen. She said they had a meeting with the Water District Board and could meet with us immediately after in about two weeks time.

cont> One of our members worked non-stop creating a history of our work explaining why we needed a positive response on that issue as well as a Power Point presentation. The day the meeting was scheduled (for that evening), the Town Manager's Office called saying the Selectmen wouldn't be available as planned, but we could meet again with the Town Manager the next day where we could present our case. When we met, the Town Manger said that Mr. O'Brien would be stopping in but had been delayed. We started the presentation, but Mr. O'Brien arrived almost immediately. We told him that we'd just begun , but would be happy to restart. He told us not to bother, he and Bill Keller had discussed the issue after their Water District meeting and decided they were opposed. When asked who presented our case, he responded that it was the Town Manager. We said, respectfully, she's opposed to our issue so she wouldn't make the ideal advocate. Then I asked, since we had asked to meet with the full Board of Selectmen, wasn't what he and Keller did a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Ignoring my question, he said that it would be a waste of time to try to require a full meeting before the Selectmen because there were already two votes against us. When others tried to speak on the issue he was arrogant, and personally rude. Mr.

cont.
Mr. O'Brien has been a Selectman too long; it's time for a change and some fresh ideas.
David Mortimer

Read more: Letter: O’Brien has proven ability - Sudbury, MA - The Sudbury Town Crier http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/newsnow/x1644236528/Letter-O-Brien-has-proven-ability#ixzz1p7UvMxw1

Sudbury is no longer the "small town" it was when important decisions might have been made fireside with a brandy and cigar. Transparency is of the utmost importance looking to the future. The rules apply to everyone and everyone will benefit by following them in the long run.

I read David Mortimer's comments. ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING that a selectman acted in this manor. We need to vote this guy OUT.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/news/opinions/letters/x1644236528/Letter-O-Brien-has-proven-ability#axzz1p0V5AFPP

Vote him out. Larry and Drobinski keep saying what a well run town we have. Vote for Larry if you want more of the same. Personally, I am disgusted by the whole town politics. It is home boy, corrupt, insiders and not transparent at all.

Dan DePompei has my vote.

Mr. Fee.

Whether Sudbury is ethical or not isn't the point. It is perception. And I don't think the perception is a positive as you think. In fact, the more you write letters like this, the more I think the Mr. DePompei is on to something.

Three comments everyone should read:

This one by JonD999 with regards a high density 40B development on Old Lancaster (wicked local)

http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/news/x1612616284/Letter-Ethics-in-Sudbury#axzz1p8YLDKD6

And this one by a citizen named David M. about his attempts to build a handicap accessible playground (wicked local)

http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/news/opinions/letters/x1644236528/Letter-O-Brien-has-proven-ability#axzz1p8YLDKD6

Or finally, resident Kirsten V who comments on issues she has seen:

http://sudbury.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-where-are-our-ethics

Citizens shouldn't feel this way.

It's interesting Mr. Fee agreed to write this letter for Mr. O'Brien. I recall plenty of concerns about things he has done as well. How could either Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Fee not know this letter is basically throwing himself under the bus?

This entitlement one hears from folks such as Mr. Fee, Mr. Morley and Mr. O'Brien really has to go. Who appointed them above examination by the citizens of Sudbury?

Let's start fixing things by electing Pat Brown (with a bullet) and Dan De Pompei.

Let's bring in some folks with a bit more humility and earnestness to better serve the town versus to reap rewards from their service.

Call me old fashioned, but I reject the notion that reasonable political discourse can be undertaken anonymously. If you take issue with anything I have said, or done in my capacity as Planning Board Chairman, please feel free to contact me directly.

Michael Fee

Joe,
I agree. Let me add that the fact that Drobinski and O'brien now have essentially silenced public comment by forcing discussion to be in writing and submitted well prior to the meeting is absurd. Taxpayers should be able to express an opinion at all public meetings but our elected and appointed officials have taken that voice away from the public and continue to do what the minority wants. Whether it is a school committee meeting, board of selectmen meeting, planning board etc... the same trend continues. They refuse to let the public voice concerns and continue to work their own agendas. It is time for change and greater transparency in Sudbury.

Was anyone at the LS committee meeting the other night? I heard from a friend that somebody tried to ask a question about the $150,000 found hidden in the postage meter and Mark Collins just started yelling at the citizen and wouldn't let him talk.

I also heard that the LS school committee basically tried to silence anybody talking about any problems at the "special place" They believe the problem will just go away if it isn't discussed. Who is the board of selectmen liaison to the LS school committee? You guessed it, LARRY O'BRIEN!

Michael Fee: "Call me old fashioned, but I reject the notion that reasonable political discourse can be undertaken anonymously"

So, you would be opposed to the Federalist papers, written anonymously by our Founding Fathers to lobby for approval of the US Constitution?

Or perhaps you are opposed to "Common Sense", anonymously published in support of the Revolutionary War?

Unfortunately for you, this country was founded on the principles of anonymity to fight against tyranny and oppression. Of course, the tyrants would always be opposed to anonymity.

Best Regards,

Publius

Mr. Fee,

People use pseudonyms, and have throughout history, for one good and sound reason – to avoid retaliation from their governments. Particularly in a small town, you and other Town officials have tremendous power over the citizens (to decide to waive or not waive certain subdivision bylaws, for example). With that power should come some humility. Is that really asking so much?

Also, perhaps you are old fashioned and have therefore not noticed the power of social media (facebook, twitter, etc.) to create historic political change around the world. The liberations of Egypt and Libya, for example, were largely driven by ordinary citizens who were now able to freely collaborate and communicate their grievances - anonymously - without fear of retaliation (death in these cases).

We have legal protections for “whistleblowers” for similar reasons.

I hope you can see that anonymous postings do not preclude reasonable discourse but may even encourage a more open, transparent, free, fair and peaceful society. Certainly, there are disadvantages, including abusive language, ad hominem attacks, and many other types of inappropriate conduct, which I do not condone.

If you are still with us, the outstanding question remains unanswered, and is not a political one:

Did you consult with counsel before deciding that Planning Board member Chris Morely was not a conflicted party in the matter of the 40B project under consideration near his home, your decision being based on the fact that Mr. Morely lives two doors away from the project site, not one?

Bonus question: Was this your decision to make or should it have been Mr. Morely’s?

Wow this is all news to me. If this is true we need to vote Morely out and vote pat Brown in. It's time for some new blood in Sudbury. What do we have to lose? We are on the decline, its worth a shot.

I believe many people would like the answer to this question. There is no reason this cannot be made public in the interest of transparency and ethical government. This is a perfect example of the problems we currently have in Sudbury.

Mr. Fee, I appreciate the offer but I’ve probably said enough. My concern should be clear and is not frivolous.

I don’t want to expose my family to all of the various people who run the Town and the Schools so I won’t be able to contact you directly. My posts speak for themselves.

JON999 we call that getting Michelle MacDonald. After she does it Tom Conroy will reward her with an award at town meeting.

Mr. Fee,

We all know you are reading these messages and you are avoiding being TRANSPARENT to the public. Please answer the question.

Freedom of speech means also being able to refrain from speaking without being bullied into a conversation that is not in his or her best interest. Let Mr. Fee be and time will tell. There is no need to pressure anyone into conversation. Let this "debate" of sorts be done in a gentleman or gentlewoman -ly manner.

Folks, last post for me on this thread. I don't question anyone's right to blog anonymously. Have at it. But if you want me to respond to something, you should contact me directly or identify yourself. I don't think it's unreasonable to know who is asking the question.

Dear Michael,
The ones asking the question are the general public, you remember, the group that you took an oath to serve. Remember. What do you have to hide? Where is the transparency? Where are the ethics?

Mr Fee, I am not anonymous and I said I was interested in the answer as well. By all means, I am not pressuring for an answer but you have put parameters on who you would reply to and I believe I have satisfied those. Now, I guess I have an additional question(s) - why the parameters? And why is it so difficult to explain the allowance of Mr Morely's vote? This diatribe is symbolic of how hard it is to get explanations from any committee - even in the conventional way. If a decision was made, it should be easy to explain. You seem to be more interested in knowing a poster's identity than answering the question.

The planning board does a great job posting their meeting minutes. A quick google search shows Mr. Morley's participation in the meetings surrounding the development in his neighborhood.

From the minutes of 5/23/2007...

"Mr. Morely announced that although he is not a direct abutter, he is a neighbor in the area, but does not believe that constitutes recusing himself from these discussions. Chairman Fee asked if anyone opposed Mr. Morely's participation. No objections were voiced. "

I haven't had time to research the Old Lancaster project. From these minutes, it appears to be a regular development, yet in June 2010, I found this article where it looks to be a 40B:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/news/x1722581509/Sudbury-residents-raise-concerns-about-40B-project-on-Old-Lancaster-Road?zc_p=0#axzz1pTAbeLvQ

This article is especially humorous to read with all the "We are no against 40B, but..." statements coming from the neighbors.

Now, I ** believe ** this is back to being a McMansion development with no 40B.

Love the comment from yet another "insider" Doug Barth. He thinks 11 homes on 7+ acres is too much? That's more than a half acre per house! Not too shabby. I am sure Mr Barth is perfectly fine with 150 units on Landham Road (along with the other 2 developments already approved for that area) though seeing that it's nowhere near his house. Morely doesn't have a leg to stand on with this one. He should have recused himself Point Blank. We can't complain anymore Sudbury unless we do something about it. Vote Morely and O'Brien out. Vote in the new DePompei and Brown. I don't know much about Eric Poch but I haven't heard of any shady dealings from him so he has my vote as well.

Eric Poch was the one who used private info from school directories to send out email blasts, when Drobinski was up for re-election.

Thanks Joanne, I had forgotten about that. I guess it's a moral vs. an ethics issue. If using those lists was illegal then Michelle MacDonald would have been put in jail long ago. Instead her buddy Tom Conroy gave her an award. Go figure. I guess I won't vote for either Morely or Poch now. The sad thing is that one is going to win no matter what.

@ Lets open our eyes- I would like to point out that my email address listed in the directory was, and still is incorrect. However the main office has the correct one. So someone would have to get my email from the main office or the school data base.
The following is one the first page of the directory: The information contained in this directory is provided solely for the personal use of the student, parent, and staff community. Any other use is unauthorized and strictly prohibited, Directory information is specifically NOT to be used for solicitation of any kind, nor distributed in any manner for commercial, advertising,or marketing purposes. Violators will be subject to all liabilities and penalties of law. When I contacted the Town mgr's office and the school superintendent's office about said emails, I was told in fact, that the in
information provided in the directories was not to be used for political reasons.

Slander is a dangerous game when there is a lack of fact.

As I stated above, my email was obtained from the front office or school database- you are not allowed to enter the school database in order to obtain email addresses for political reasons- I am not and never would slander anyone! I am sure the sender had his reasons for sending the email, my point is, the way he went about getting them was wrong-

I must say though- although I didnt personally approve of how my email was obtained, I will still vote for Mr Poch. I truly believe he has done a good job.