Selectmen Give the OK for Special Town Meeting for Sept. 24
Vote on senior tax plan eyed for December during Special Town Election.
Photos
Thanks to the efforts of one Framingham resident, the Sudbury Board of Selectmen agreed to call for a Special Town Meeting for Sept. 24, which will then be followed by a Special Town Election in December as voters will decide whether to let lawmakers file legislation to eliminate unfunded mandates from federal and state governments and better control use of chemical plant treatments by utility companies.
Framingham resident Steven Hakar presented 300 signatures on Tuesday at Town Hall. Only 200 were required and Town Clerk Rosemary Harvell told the Selectmen and Town Manager Maureen Valente those signatures had been verified.
"(Hakar) has a right to petition," Vice Chairman Bob Haarde said. "It would really better serve for him to come before us."
Haarde and fellow Board member John Drobinski suggested trying to have Hakar attend a future meeting to "ask some questions."
Valente said having Special Town Meeting on Sept. 24 made the most sense with the State Primary and November general election approaching.
A vote on the Sudbury senior tax plan is being penciled in for a special election in December.
Harvell squashed the idea of adding a separate ballot during the November election, citing voter confusion and time constraints to make it happen.
"It's not impossible, but it's very, very difficult," she said.
According to Drobinski, Special Town Meetings are "about $10,000 a pop." So to cut costs, the Board agreed to hold a second vote on Sept. 24 on the Nixon Elementary School roof project.
The Massachusetts School Building Authority OK'd the roughly $700,000 cost.
Sudbury Public Schools Committee, which was represented by Lisa Gutch Wednesday night, is the only group with the authority to submit an article on the project.
"We can prepare what needs to be prepared to let people what we need to do for Nixon," she said.
Among the agenda items that were voted on Wednesday night and unanimously approved:
8. Vote to approve the amended Regular Session minutes of July 10 and the Regular and Executive Session minutes of July 31, 2012.
9. Vote Acting as co-trustees of Town Trust Funds, vote to accept the unaudited FY12 fourth quarter statements for the Pooled Town Trust Funds for the period ended June 30, 2012, and vote to accept the Pooled Trust Fund expenditure limits for FY13 as submitted by the beneficiaries and requested by Andrea Treeless, Finance Director, on August 7, 2012.
10. Vote/Sign Vote to appoint Election Officers for a one-year term commencing August 15, 2012, and ending on August 14, 2013, as recommended by the Democratic and Republican Town Committee Chairmen and the Town Clerk.
11. Vote to approve the award by Town Manager of a contract with Patriot Properties, Inc. to provide contract services for DOR-mandated triennial revaluation services, and as reviewed by Town Counsel. NOTE: This vote confirms the award by Town Manager on August 2.
12. Vote/Sign Vote to approve the award by Town Manager of a contract with CBE Technologies, under State Contract, for telephone system upgrade for the DPW and Library and the Cisco
13. Vote to approve a special permit to Harold Cutler for the Colonial Fair and Muster of Fifes and Drums to be held on the Wayside Inn grounds from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, September 29, 2012, subject to conditions and permits required by the Fire and Police Departments and the Board of Health.
14. Vote to accept, on behalf of the Town, a $1,000 donation to the Memorial Day Committee from Frank’s Pie Company, LLC in appreciation for permission to use the Town Hall parking lot on Thursday, July 19th, said funds to be expended under the direction of the Town Manager.
and
15. Vote to approve the award by the Town Manager of a contract for property tax assessor services pursuant to a Request for Proposals dated August 7, 2012 and as approved by Town Counsel.
Pat Brown
2:35 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012
A Special Town Meeting costs about $10,000, so it makes sense for the Board of Selectmen to hold a second vote on the Nixon Elementary School roof project at that same meeting.
Other citizens wanting to submit articles for the Special Town Meeting (STM) must submit those articles to the Selectmen's office within ten days of the announcement of the meeting by the Board of Selectmen, which allows time to produce and distribute the warrant. Since the STM was announced on August 15, this would normally mean August 25. However, since August 25 is a Saturday, articles will be accepted until 5:00 pm on Monday, August 27 by the Board of Selectmen's office.
Petition articles for a special town meeting require 100 certified signatures (with street addresses), and a prudent petitioner would gather extra signatures to meet that requirement even if some signatures are disqualified by the registrar. The process is described in
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter39/Section10
Enuff
3:24 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012
We need an article to expand the board of selectmen from 3 persons to 5. This will prevent Drobinski and O'Brien pulling another stunt like denying Mr. Haarde his Chair position. Let us not forget Lavendergate and the poor choices that two of our Selectmen seem to have made. Sudbury is in dire need of serious change.
joanne
3:47 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012
HEY! Lets spend more money we dont have!!!! Ask Dr Anne (Swifty) Wilson-
Karoles
9:42 am on Friday, August 17, 2012
Mr. Hakar just forced our town to hold a special election. He isn't from here, he didnt' care it was going to cost the town money to hold the election. We need to put down this type of hijacking of our local dollars. Republicans, this is exactly what you have been complaining about. This fellow should be chastised by the Board of Selectmen. Sudbury has enough issues without some politically motivated candidate forcing towns to hold a forum for his agenda, shame on him! Let him pay the cost!
Pat Brown
1:46 pm on Friday, August 17, 2012
Mr. Hakar collected 200 valid signatures from Sudbury residents to force the town to hold a Special Town Meeting (STM)--not a special election. Per MGL Chapter 39 Section 10, the STM must be held within 45 days of receipt of the valid petition--signed by Sudbury citizens--to hold the meeting. The Board of Selectmen has added a warrant article to this STM to consider the Noyes roof repair, for which it would have required an STM even if Mr. Hakar had not presented his articles. The Selectmen may well have timed the STM differently, but they very definitely would have called for one.
The problem with berating Mr. Hakar for 'forcing' Sudbury to hold a Special Town Meeting is that he didn't. There are 200 certified valid signatures from Sudbury residents which force the STM. Mr. Hakar provided the petition, but he didn't force anyone to sign it. Sudbury citizens want these issues considered in a Town Meeting.
The Special Town Meeting will be held on September 24.
Pat Brown
1:47 pm on Friday, August 17, 2012
Mr. Hakar didn't ask for--nor did he get--a Special Election. The Special Election is required 1) by the terms of the potential state grant for the Noyes roof repair and 2) by the need to approve (or not) the Sudbury Senior Tax legislation at the ballot box. The Town could have held this special election on the same day as the 2012 Presidential election, but it did not for all the reasons outlined by Town Clerk Rosemary Harvell in this article.
The Board of Selectmen have determined the Special Election will be held on December 6.
Let's Open our eyes
11:08 am on Friday, August 17, 2012
Why can't the Special Elections be combined, both in either September or December?
Kirsten Vandijk
8:36 am on Sunday, August 19, 2012
This upcoming STM should include articles to increase the BOS from 3 to 5 members, allow for a Recall Provision, and an article that sets Term Limitations for elected and/or appointed Town Officials. The power has now been provided by a diligent Framingham resident who has shown us exemplary behaviour. Pat Brown has done the same. 1 plus 2 equals 3.
kdroop
10:12 am on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Kirsten, I differ in opinion. I doubt the people signing had any idea this would force a special town meeting and cost the town money it, (by your admission along with others,) does not have to spend. My question is, why should the town celebrate and congratulate someone who has very little idea about how things work? He, may have some good intentions, but he has added chaos to a very busy time (primary,national election etc), cost untold man hours to the staff, and pressures others who may have wanted to bring articles to the annual town meeting, to do so now, as the opportunity is there, yet information gathering will be rushed and quite probably inaccurate? I think residents were taken advantage of. I cannot support this type of action and am surprised you would.
Enuff
11:02 am on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Kdroop,
Things are so chaotic yet the town workers are able to work 4 days per week in the summer. Go figure. You have to realize that people in Sudbury have had enough of being taken advantage of by a few elected and appointed that have gone too far. 5 Selectmen instead of 3 will stop the MOBRINSKI power play from happening in the future.
kdroop
2:24 pm on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
I am saying we should not be forced to hold a special town meeting. I am willing to bet quite a few people who signed the petition were not aware it would trigger this, thereby costing us money.
I doubt they even knew this person is running a campaign against Conroy, and is getting a good amount of free press.
This could have waited until the annual, as can any other petitions so that the 'transparency' mantra would not be considered bogus. If a small group of residents go to a special (considering it is a busy time for returning students and the attendant requirements of parents), the same people who are talking about open government and thorough vetting of an article that changes the way we govern are essentially trying to press an agenda without consideration of residents who may want to thoroughly discuss this at annual town meeting in May. While I believe a discussion of the three to five is merited, I do not think it is the right time to bring it forward now. I believe the petitioner/s are smart and care about the town as a whole not to bring this forward until the Annual. Let's not get caught up in decision making without consideration of people who live here, and give them a chance to hear deliberate, well thought out positions. Doing anything in haste means mistakes will be made, mistakes that could have been avoided. Thank you.
JJoseph
2:36 pm on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
kdroop,
I differ in opinion. We should be forced to hold a special town meeting. The people of Sudbury are fed up with the way things are handled. It is time for MOBRINSKI to get out of the way. Stop by the senior center some day and ask how the seniors are feeling about things in town. Stop by the school committees, the board of selectmen meetings, the Sudbury housing trust, the 40B fiasco. People have had enough and should not have to wait for the annual meeting.
See you at Lavenders afterward.
Kirsten Vandijk
4:40 pm on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Now that a Special Town Meeting has been called, it is in the best interest of the Town to "get the biggest bang for our buck" by submitting as many possible and likely to pass articles as we can. Waiting until May to address the three necessary articles I previously mentioned would only serve to dilute the fresh memories of our unsavory recent past. Due diligence has had it's turn. Now let democracy have a chance. The people wish to speak. This special town meeting is the proverbial soapbox.
kdroop
12:06 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Again Kirsten, Who exactly are those people? Do you think the town as a whole will be represented? I don't see the logic, just emotions. Those have no place in making decisions that impact everybody. Don't be fooled, most people in town are not involved, but that does not mean they should be taken advantage of because they haven't paid attention. It is the job of the Town leaders to make sure everyone is represented in these proceedings, and I am not seeing it. Still love your flowers though. ps. J. Joseph, grow up.
JJoseph
4:11 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Kdroop,
The "people" are the ones who elected the officials. That is exactly the problem!!
You and the rest of the Sudbury elected and appointed forget about the "people"...
You are extremely arrogant in saying the "people" haven't paid attention. Which ones are you referring to. I have paid attention. Why don't you provide the names of the people that have not paid attention. What an arrogant statement. You should apologize to all the Sudbury residents you just insulted.
You are the one who should really grow up.
Let's Open our eyes
5:50 pm on Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Town Meeting is a joke, and a "Special" TM is even more of a joke. We'll have none of the people who signed the petition show up because they thought it was a done deal. We'll be luck to get a quorum! All this does is cater to the special interest that called the meeting. Do away with it all and go straight to ONE election, that best represents the entire community! And while we're at it, we should have an elected Mayor as well, and go to a town council - then ALL the top, executive Town positions could be voted in or recalled out!!
Kirsten Vandijk
3:55 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
From previously posted Town Government news the inevitability of a Special Town Meeting already existed prior to the Framingham resident's petition. The fact that a date has now been set simply serves to make official what was before pending. Whether a meeting is held in May during Basketball playoffs or September during the Election year is, really, a mute point. Town Meeting is the mechanism we have for change and not every citizen is ever represented whatever the calendar says. The town of Sudbury has a bad habit of slowing down due process. I remember trying to resign from the Sudbury Historical Commission and being asked by a then serving Selectman/woman and the Town Manager to wait a bit before being so quick to action. It was suggested by them that they would address my concerns and reasons for wanting to resign if I would be patient. Time past, no one ever called me for follow up, and I received a "Thank You for serving" letter that outlined my term was now complete according t the Town By Laws.... Waiting is not in the best interest of the many concerned citizens in this Town. This is both based on my experience and opinion.
SkimThreePercent
4:51 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
At Gettysburg Lincoln worried and wrote that "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people" might perish from the earth.
It looks like the Sudbury insiders are well on the way toward these ends.
Isn't this guy's petition having to do with fighting back against big government and the likes of Tom Conroy and his unfunded mandates?
Why is anyone surprised that KDroop would be against sharing power with people other than her Lavender pals?
See also Marbury vs. Madison and read about the mid-night judges and other shading dealings at the Federal level.
No, let the people be involved in their governance.
Sudburytoo
8:58 pm on Thursday, August 23, 2012
Kdroop once again defending the Lavender gang. How appropriate. Water and Noodles for all! Long live Lavendergate!!!!!
The Sudbury insiders have been exposed.
kdroop
11:43 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
Jjoseph, I am far from arrogant, I believe in inclusive governance. Your actions and comments only solidify your, skim, and sudburytoo'z position that the only opinions that truly matter are yours. My comment about people who 'don't pay attention' is aimed towards people who are busy, raising families, making a living, and don't particularly have an interest in government. There are many people like that, and I do not fault them for not being up on all aspects of the minutia in town government. I have always and will always freely speak my opinion here. You can try to bully me by using the old "Lavender" insult, I really don't care. I have no guilty conscience. I also have not ever been considered an insider. It is your arrogance to insinuate I have any ability to protect people, I just really care about Sudbury and the people in it. I have always been an advocate of education, open space and community. So, if that does not meet with your approval, so be it.
Kirsten, how unfortunate you have such a bad tasted in your mouth about Sudbury, I always thought you had a lot to share, just never really understood the issues were so untenable. Thank you.
Pat Brown
11:48 am on Sunday, August 26, 2012
Oops.
My comments from August 17 referred to the 'Noyes' roof repair. As was stated in the article and in my August 16 post, it's actually the Nixon roof repair.
Where I said Noyes, please replace with Nixon, and sorry for the error.