I think FinCom should be an elected position AND be given authority to reject or approve budgets. They only advise and they don't get into the meat and bones of the budgets. They don't verify.

That is an excellent point, Chris E. From other written reports on Sudbury Patch it was clear that Mr. O'Brien was speaking as a citizen of Sudbury and not as a member of the Board of Selectman. Mr. Stein has consistently prefaced has "opinions" by stating he is speaking as a citizen of Sudbury and not as a member of FinCom. Mr. Stein's pen in hand diahrrea is going beyond comical and approaching irrational. Is he worthy of such an important post for the Town of Sudbury? I think not.

I used to think FinCom was an important role until this past annual town meeting where we were handed million dollar changes to the budget seconds before entering the hall. In addition, there was confusion throughout the meeting about which numbers were the accurate numbers since all slides were based on a null and void budget that by the way, was what was sent to every household prior.
There should have been time for the town to analyze these changes prior to voting. My opinion of their ability to advise and inform for the benefit of the townspeople has become non existent.
They have no authority and apparently with that, no compunction for responsibility to the taxpayer.

I agree. Good chance to get rid of Jamie Gossels as well.

We should also elect our witches and tax their broom-sticks $1 per mile to help balance the budget.

Also, elect the Zoning Board. They've gone a bit-batty as well.

Happy Holidays!

By your reasoning, Siobhan, based on this poorly executed part of Town Meeting by the FinCom--which Mr. Stein is a member of--FinCom has lost all importance and really should either be dissolved or be an elected Committee. It already is an elected committee one or two steps removed.

The one or two steps removed does not constitute elected. I'm saying I should have the ability to DIRECTLY vote for a member (s). There is alot of work to do on this committee for only being an advisory entity. I just don't think any position of this nature should be appointed. That, in and of itself, creates an atmosphere ripe for the "buddy" system.
I mean who - of all the committees and boards - is looking out for the well being of the future of Sudbury? Who is putting together any future financial goals? Who is ensuring that our tax dollars are being used to the best of their ability? Who is overseeing the implementation of our tax dollars? No one is requiring financial impact studies on anything?
How long do you think we can support the growing budget before we become distasteful to new homebuyers?
We are on an unsustainable path.

I'm afraid I disagree with you. The BOS is our governing body and these members have been voted in by the citizens of the town. Part of sustainability is to cost cut operations and elections cost tax dollars. If the will of the majority of people is spoken through the voice of the entire, and let me emphasize ENTIRE BOS, then any and all appointments are the trusted decisions of the people. There is a member of the BOS up for re-election. The will of the people will decide this member's future and future ability to speak on their behalf. The citizens of Sudbury have created the current BOS. Working WITH the system our neighbors have created will go much farther than fighting that will. Elections allow for representational changes over a period of time. This is democracy. Democracy is organic and not a static entity.

Yes, I understand that - I was simply indicating my wish list - it's the season, you know ;-)

The governing body of the Town of Sudbury, the BOS, should have final say in all matters. All other committees, commissions, and boards and task forces report to the BOS. We the people vote for and thus speak with the voice of the BOS. Very simple.

Two members of the BOS have little or no numbers experience and the other is negated constantly. A geologist and a failed businessman are not the ones I want determining efficacy.

why won't the fooch answer? cuz everyone knows the answer

Have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with Larry O'Brien? You never get a straight answer- I believe even Kirsten can agree with that- he treated her horribly on many occasions

Yes ... I emailed him back asking when would be a good time to speak. That was last week. He has yet to respond.

Chris, I am not well versed regarding the schools and indeed did not reference them in what I said because of my lack of knowledge on the subject. You clarified for me what I could not for myself. Thanks!

Heal! Stay! LOL

shots fired

Are you related to Ironman? You act just like him. LOL

I was wondering when we were going to hear from Kirsten VanDijk"s alter ego. However I agree with SCtoo- we need to vote a whole new 5 member BOS and get to work!

Cyndy Lou Who,
When I speak it is with my name and a photo so there is no confusion or question. Perhaps you should do the same.

I agree- People may not like his delivery- but Bob always tells it like it is.
Is anyone really surprised that Larry lobbied against what the people voted on? He doesnt want change-

Skim three percent of WHAT?

OK so Larry O goes against what the overwhelming town vote was yet now we need to mend fences? You are kidding I hope. O'Brien, Drobinski, Valente and Kablack have really made this town a divided community.

These people are not representing me at all. It is time for big change in Sudbury.

Bob Stein, keep up the great work exposing these issues.

Kirsten, you need to open your eyes a little bit. The wheels are falling off the Sudbury political machine and Larry wants to keep accelerating. This town has gone through a series of embarassments this year with the latest being the Chairman going to the state house and basically asking to ignore the voters and do things his way. Sudbury is not a well run town like O'Brien and Drobinski keep saying and people are realizing how broken things really are.

Help! Two many Kirstens.

Mr. Troiano, Many of your fellow Sudbury citizens are pleased that the Legislature took action to ensure that something greater than a Facebook campaign will influence a future direction for Sudbury. In the end, the Legislators agreed with the people at the September Town Meeting who wanted an amendment to your article. They understood the divisiveness created by the refusal to support this measure going to a ballot vote.

I don't know what a "Facebook Campaign" is, "Chris E." We made our case to the voters - whether it was through facebook, e-mail, paper, or scrimshaw - and we won.

And we never refused a ballot vote. We indicated our openness to one immediately after the Town meeting, and the BOS had the authority to hold one in the election happening as I write this. But they failed to.

Any guesses as to why that is... if that's REALLY the issue here, Chris?

No, Mr. Troiano. The Chairman of the Board of Selectman did not speak on behalf of the BOS at the hearing. A Sudbury citizen named Larry O'Brien spoke. Your need to treat everything as if it were a game makes your agenda less than credible. You will soon see that a larger number than the Facebook group of yours will vote the will of the people.

Following the law as prescribed is not a game and it is what was done for the 3-5. Trying to confuse people with erroneous information base only on conversational fact gathering is. Trying to portray someone who follows the law as something other than upstanding is a game - perhaps if we had upstanding leadership, we would not be having this conversation. Perhaps we would be discussing enhancements and good will towards fellow citizens?
The game has always been with the current insider BFFs - I know first hand. Getting a call to pull an inquiry because "that's not how we do it in Sudbury" was appalling at best.

Siobhan,
Whether the letter of the law was followed is not under debate. There has been an ethical breach from the very beginning that cannot go ignored. The role of Facebook and the private group known as Lavendergate is also an element that has created a certain irregularity shall we say that has had a ripple effect throughout our town. Mr. Troiano is the self appointed leader of that group and the representative at Special Town Meeting who brought the article to warrant. You better believe scrutiny will fall at his feet.

I have no idea what conspiracy you've manufactured in your head, Kirsten. But if you'd like to accuse us or me of something, let's hear it. If not, please spare us the vaguely ominous insinuations, and try to focus on the question at hand.

It has been said here that the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen did not speak on behalf of the BOS at the hearing. While that is technically true, it is *only* technically true.

When a member of the BOS speaks, it is not realistic to expect him to be able to express one opinion as a member and another as a private citizen. Perhaps in an ideal world, *Mr.* O'Brien could speak against the measure while supporting it as *Chairman* O'Brien. However, this is not an ideal world; it is a world where human nature makes it impossible to separate roles like this. For example, would anyone really expect Mr. Obama to be able express an opinion and not be held accountable for it as President Obama, or Mr. Boehner to express an opinion and not be held accountable for it as Speaker Boehner?

Similarly, O'Brien's opposition to the measure carries the weight of his Chairmanship whether he is speaking as Mr. or Chairman. Therefore it was his duty to speak either in favor of the measure or not at all.

siobhan hullinger
1:01 pm on Monday, November 12, 2012
Just because someone sits on a committee, either appointed or elected, doesn't negate their voice as a taxpayer or resident. I would prefer if more of our "officials" engaged. I would also like to see more post under their given names instead of their chosen moniker such as yourself.

Is there some reason you are copying my posts and then posting them under your name sudburycitizentoo?

So much respect. So little time.

No. Mike Fee and I talked before the meeting, in hopes of avoiding this whole fiasco. He suggested a ballot, and I told him we were open to it as long as it was an addition to rather than a replacement for the vote we were about to have at town meeting, and that it happened at the next election - THIS election, in December. The amendment he put forward was neither, so we opposed it.

Again... There is a VERY big difference between a ballot vote to confirm the will of the town, and a stall tactic intended to either derail the article or make it's implementation before 2014 impossible. We have been open to the former from the beginning, and fighting the latter for just as long.

Those are the facts, Chris. You may ask Mike Fee if you wish.

Mike T --

You should have referenced your posting from just after town meeting where you called for town wide election on December 4. Specifically, you said:

"As proof of our stated values, and a gesture of goodwill to our friends and neighbors on the “other side,” we will support the holding of a ballot vote on Dec. 4 to further express the will of the people to change from 3-5 Selectmen"

http://sudbury.patch.com/articles/letter-to-the-editor-time-for-sudbury-to-work-together

Of course that was ignored by the selectmen, and Selectman O'Brien showed up at the state house last week asking for the same failed committee of 9 to delay and stall the vote.

Actually Chris I was speaking with Mike Fee AFTER the Special Town Meeting when Mr. Troiano interrupted and expressed his desire to see this go to ballot in December. I had said we needed to maintain the momentum. There was another fellow there whose name I do not know. I think Mr. Troiano has remembered erroneously.

Interesting that you should suggest that, Bryan. It was just that quote that I posted on the Lavendergate page that made Mr. Troiano eject me from the group.

@ Kirsten VD- You were removed from One Sudbury due to your aggressive remarks- and for dominating the site. When anyone disagreed with one of your MANY statements, you went on the attack.

I agree with your first sentence. The rest makes no sense.

If the measure passed including the ballot in December, it would have waited until December to be sent to the state legislature. And the only reason seeing 3-5 on the ballot today would confuse anybody is that we already voted for it, and it passed.

And while you're entitled to your opinion, please don't presume to tell me what I supported, and what I didn't. I'd say my verifiable openness to a reasonably structured ballot BEFORE the meeting, and my *written* acceptance of one AFTER it should be sufficient evidence of what I supported when to anyone still open to the truth here.

I'm not sure why you are focusing on Mr Troiano here. He presented and article, it was debated, amendments were presented and we all voted. Why aren't you asking - what right does Michael Fee have to be so presumptuous in "making a deal"? Who exactly was he representing in this potential agreement and who gave him such authority? Why wasn't it one of the BOS?
Why aren't you asking the chair of the BOS why he didn't call a ballot vote?
Why aren't you asking why he asked the sub committee to negate the town meeting vote?
Why aren't you asking why so many people have awoken to want this to come to fruition?
Why aren't you asking to have a change in the charter to add a ballot vote to any changes?
Who exactly would a December vote be confusing to? Seems the Nixon roof isn't confusing to anyone.

Well said, Chris!

Chris,
Give it up. Change is coming to Sudbury. The series of events (Lavendergate, Mrs. J, OUI, Missing persons, Beacon Hill, Changing budgets) have all led us to this point. Our leadership needs to now get out of the way now.

EXACTLY!!! So very well said.

Well said Miles Finch,
I am amazed that the deflecting of the issues that goes on here. The issue that Mr. Stein was explaining was what happened at Beacon Hill yet people get side tracked in various directions. This is not about what technology was used, or small groups collaboarting. The Town voted just like we have done so many other times. Respect the vote and move on. Having the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen continue to fight the vote of the people on Beacon Hill is not productive or becoming of an elected official.

I respect Bob Stein for bringing this issue up in public. People need to know how people we elected are behaving.

Actually Scott, having followed many of the comment trails of various avatar posters I must agree with SudburyCitizenToo who opined that it is the message given that is of import rather than the voice and face--bias can altar objectivity to be subjectivity.

There are two Kirstens. More double teaming!

Ah, Siobhan, as with all things in Sudbury--there is always the possible unethical activity that you are not aware of.

Siobhan, I have set no stage. I am not a producer nor an actor. I am a real resident of Sudbury who has suffered these past few months because of a division brought about with quite possibly good intentions. I care deeply about Sudbury and having studied it's history and fought a fight for historic preservation and town character I do not need to look far to realize it is not the decisions of the past 10 or 15 years that have led us here today. Look way back to the 50's and 60's and there you will see the roots of our dilemma. When Sudbury stopped farming crops and started farming students the book was written. We are just the epilogue.

Then you also must have come upon the revolution of sorts, becuase of that group of BFFs and their selling out of the town for several decades, by the taxpayers of Sudbury who sued the town opening the door for what is now referred to as Prop 2 1/2.

You have the energy of a Titan, Siobhan! It has been fun debating and seeing you today. I have much paperwork to finish before heading home. Les Adieux

If you have hard copies then post them. When you "defined" someone on a facebook page, all the comments go as well.
Personally, I found a progression in your tone which I don't much care about but you most certainly did not stay on theme - the 3-5. You also created confusion, used the page as a personal muse and made it difficult for the large group to remain focused.
I thought, originally, you were a seeker of information but given your commentary lately, I believe that you either have an alterior motive rooted in destruction of a good thing bringing people together or you are being manipulated unknowingly.
Either way, it is unbecoming and not in the spirit of uniting townspeople.

That would take some effort, Kirsten. You actually made 64 comments in your 7 days on the site. It was not unusual for you to comment, then comment on your comment. On several occasions you commented, commented on your comment, then commented on the comment to your comment.

Our group was never about debating the need for change. It was about effecting change, and it still is. Your constant distraction from that mission made you a nuisance to the people using the group for it's intended purpose, and that's why you are the only person I've ever removed from it.

To make me the bad guy, though, you've again accused me of an unspecified ethical breach in this public forum. And now - without saying what that is - of some sinister coverup. I'll say it again... if you have an accusation to make, and proof of that accusation, make it. If not, please stop this delusional slander.

Get thee to the Town Hall! The ---- is going to hit the fan!

YOU made the statements, Kirsten. I find it particularly immoral and unethical to elude to an unethical breach by someone else and then not back it up with the facts. You have a blog - use it to provide proof. Otherwise you are creating the exact same circle you created in the group.
Like I said earlier, you seem h+++bent on creating an illusion that the page is more than uniting townspeople which in and of itself is unbecoming.
Why don't you try to focus on easing the divisiveness?

South Pole Elf--go back to the South Pole and CHILL!

All advertising is good advertising SC.

I say we all boycott her shop : My Passion Flower and do your business at Frugal Flower. Fresher, cheaper, and they support Sudbury. Kirsten and her shop are just the opposite.

I'm hungry for nuts.

Robert G. Stein--go play with yourself in your big red barn.

It looks to me as though there may be a spam-bot chiming in here. A spam-bot is a non-human participant who has the ability to respond to posts using key-words that it searches for and then automatically replying in ways that appear to be from a real person.

If true, the tension exhibited here is magnified to an even greater level than before.

These bots are the reason that often times you will be asked to verify that you are human by reading and typing into a box the image text of a word.

If this is the case some but not all of the recent escalation was made worse by the bot.

The possibility that a human posed as the bot just to get people going here.

Check it out.