Troiano: More Will Get Accomplished With 2 Extra Selectmen
Resident Mike Troiano, who has spearheaded the movement to increase Sudbury's Board of Selectmen from three to five members, says issues threatening the town can be solved with two more seats.
Photos
It's not a fundamental change, nor is it a result of a "flash mob" looking to elect a "burgermeister or some other form of government."
Resident Mike Troiano explained the effort to increase the town's Board of Selectmen from three to five members Wednesday night in front of dozens of residents at Goodnow Library in the simplest of terms: more representatives equals more representation.
Despite an overwhelming vote at Special Town Meeting on Sept. 24 to pass the movement, State Legislature overturned the ruling and said residents had to take it to a ballot vote. That will happen on March 25 during Annual Town Election.
Since that decision, Troiano and others have feverishly spread the positive word on why Sudbury would benefit from adding two seats to its Board of Selectmen, from distributing fliers, to creating and posting yard signs, to forming a special Facebook page, and a letter-writing campaign.
"We're doing the best we can to get the word out," said the Lincoln Road resident and father of four, who was introduced by Madeleine Gelsinon of the Sudbury Republican Town Committee. "This is the only body in town to allow me to speak."
Troiano explained how an increased Board would result in more transparency and more accountability, something that clearly lacked last year during the "Lavendergate" episode.
"Too much power for too few for too long drives bad behavior," he said, eluding to Chairman Larry O'Brien's decision to stay inside Lavender with others past the allowed time stated on the liquor license he signed off on. When the public pressed for answers, O'Brien recused himself from the discussion, leaving John Drobinski and Bob Haarde. They disagreed to whether the incident should be investigated, leaving residents without answers.
None of the selectmen, nor Town Manager Maureen Valente, attended the lecture.
But the movement is more than the result of one person's action. In a slide show presentation, Troiano showed 135 Massachusetts towns have gone from three to five selectmen, yet none decreased from five to three. And with roughly 92 boards and committees in Sudbury that report to the Selectmen, the increase only makes sense to help spread the workload.
"If you ask (those boards and committees) when was the last time they talked with the Board of Selectmen, they'll say, 'We don't know, we can't remember the last time,'" Troiano said. "If these boards and committees were important to create, then they're important to provide them with attention. And it's not because the (Selectmen) are lazy. I respect all who serve the town, especially after what I have been subjected to the last few months, I respect them even more."
An increased Board would also help tackle issues that threaten the town, which include:
- Declining L-S teacher/student ratio;
- Rising property taxes;
- Stagnant home values.
"These will not keep us in the list of best places to live for families," Troiano said. "What we need is a liberative body at the top that can lead, define clear goals, specific goals ... a body the town can get behind. Three to five is a start toward a more positive direction for the town."
Should residents vote "yes" for a second time, Troiano said a petition will be signed to have it on the ballot for the Special Election should the selectmen not act.
"The Board of Selectmen has a golden opportunity to extend a hand to those involved with the movement and use the special election," he said. "The state will cover the cost. My sincere hope is the Board of Selectmen will do this. If not, then we'll create a petition and get the (required) signatures, and file it with the town clerk to piggy back the special election. We're prepared to do that."
When asked if he would run for one of the two seats, Troiano said he would be honored but does not have the time.
"I do want to serve the town," he said. "I hope to at some point in the future, but now is not a good time for me and my family."
Resident Bob Abrams pointed out Troiano's efforts the past nine months prove otherwise.
"He has provided an outstanding service to the town in bringing this forward, making sure it happens, and keeping the town informed. I for one am grateful for the service you have performed," he said, as the crowd applauded.
Gelsinon, who said the Sudbury Republican Town Committee had no political agenda in regards to Troiano's lecture, did give audience members who may have opposed the movement the chance to speak. No one raised their hands when asked if anyone did oppose it.
jane newton
6:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Thank you, Mike. You have served all of Sudbury with integrity and honest determination. Would not be in this position of potential for positive change without you! Jane Newton
Kirsten Vandijk
7:16 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
"Gelsinon, who said the Sudbury Town Committee had no political agenda in regards to Troiano's lecture, did give audience members who may have opposed the movement the chance to speak. No one raised their hands when asked if anyone did oppose it."
Could the Editor please clarify what the "Sudbury Town Committee" is? Are you referring to the Sudbury Town Committees in general or the Democratic or Republican Town Committee? According to Troiano, this committee was the "only body in town to allow (him) to speak". Why is that? Troiano's lack of integrity may be one reason. His divisive campaign has not only created a civil war in this town but his admission to receiving emails from Selectman Haarde and posting them under his online identity has taken Lavendergate from unsavory to outright unethical and immoral. Sudbury needs to heal. Troiano and Haarde owe the Town of Sudbury an apology for their conscious reckless behavior in order to manipulate our town governance. The "dozens" of people in attendance represent what is left of the credibility of an attempted coup that never had a chance because the process was flawed from the onset. Wake up.
JJoseph
8:05 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Here she goes again. Kirsten, do you even know what you are for? What you are against? You are all over the board. You just seem to want to be negative and critical about everything and everybody. You should try a different outlook on life. Your current disposition is not healthy. These are good people trying to make Sudbury a better town and you constantly have nothing good to say. You should be ashamed.
SSwen
9:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
KV - You claim "Sudbury needs to heal." Rather...I believe the real issue here is that YOU need to heal.
Dorothy G
7:59 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Kirsten is right about Haarde & Troiano. The proof is out there. Unfortunatly Fucci refuses to publish it.
We believe you Kirsten! Keep it up
Kirsten Vandijk
8:04 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Thanks for your support, Dorothy. Editor Fucci read the Troiano blog "Scalable Intimacy in Politics" as well as the Lavendergate comment thread back in the summer when he came to my business. He responded that the group was just doing the same things that the current power hold was and has been supporting Lavendergate actively ever since--biased reporting and all. Fucci ignored the information in favor of allowing personal attacks on me and my business to be posted for months. More of the same!
siobhan hullinger
8:02 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Thanks Mike, great presentation and great questions. I respect, applaud and appreciate the work that has gone into bringing this topic to the community. Moderate yet positive tones in messaging can accomplish so much in bringing new faces, fresh ideas and inclusive productivity to the table with those who currently serve the town.
Well done!
Michael Troiano
8:03 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
I'm curious if you believe the recall of Mr. O'Brien that you were arguing for would have been less "divisive," Ms. VanDijk; if that would have avoided the "civil war" we've created by trying to make sure the different points of view in our town are represented on the board that makes decisions for it.
Regardless, thank you for continuing to demonstrate what the two sides of this debate look like. On the one you have a sincere effort on the part of busy people just trying to make this town a better place. On the other, a steady stream of personal attacks and ridiculous accusations from people who've never really been able to put forward an argument for why the change from 3-5 *doesn't* make sense.
I guess we'll both know soon enough which side was credible, and which wasn't.
Kirsten Vandijk
8:09 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
"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.
Read more: VanDijk: Group pushing expansion of BOS could do more harm than good - Sudbury, MA - The Sudbury Town Crier http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/topstories/x1522322396/Group-pushing-expansion-of-BOS-could-do-more-harm-than-good#ixzz2MxAhdb4o
Kirsten Vandijk
9:07 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Sheila,
This was never about me. This is and will remain being about honesty and ethics in politics. Lavendergate was born of a group with a sole mission to reveal "the truth" of what happened at Lavender Asian Cuisine after Town Meeting 2012, true? An undetermined number of Sudbury voters were members of Lavendergate, true? Selectman Haarde sent emails to Troiano and requested they be posted under Troiano's identity, true? Lavendergate became OneSudbury, true? OneSudbury became Open Up Sudbury, true? The Legislature scrutinized the article that passed at Special Town Meeting and found it lacking and amended it, true? And this entire process brought the Town of Sudbury together and we all learned from it, true? FALSE. The Town of Sudbury is disenfranchised. Individuals like yourself continue to try to avoid the facts in favor of suggesting I am somehow to blame for the mess we are in. Good people do not do that. People looking for a scapegoat do that. People with less than ethical and moral integrity do that. If you cannot recognize the real issues here than perhaps you should reconsider your suggestion that the tactics employed by the Lavendergate group were acceptable on any level. As you make painfully clear in your comment, this group is more dangerous than the current power hold ever has been. Thank you for sharing your opinion. That I do not agree with it should come to no surprise.
sudburyguy
9:07 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
I am nonplussed by KV's personal agenda of hatred. Let's stick to the issues of 3-5. Ultimately this is about how to govern the town of Sudbury. That's it. We should regard this as an issue divorced from the politics of personal attack. Let's work to build the future of Sudbury, a future where more voices are heard (even KV) and more positive work gets done. There are many things we need to fix in our beautiful town. Letting these issues be controlled by those motivated by anger will slow us down.
Kirsten Vandijk
9:28 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
My personal agenda of hatred? Really, Sudbury Guy? Try to focus on the issues instead of perpetuating Sudbury's latest sub-urban myth. This ENTIRE process began before Haarde was Selectman. Residents have tried to voice their opinions in different forums and some were less successful than others. Selectman Haarde's actions have made him as lacking as the actions of O'Brien and others. That is the only unifying fact on the table. 3-5 has it's merits and needs to be considered once this Town has had a chance to heal and the current BOS can learn to work together instead of undermine each other. It is my firm belief that Sudbury will see a 5 member BOS in the future. But the present atmosphere is not conducive to such disruption because the BOS as it stands has not demonstrated an ability to work together for the common good of the Town. Once the BOS is able to focus on the common goal of serving the entire town then I believe the BOS will be the authors of an article to move from 3-5. That is what I would love to see. Do you think that is a possibility? I do.
kdroop
9:11 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
I think the entire process has a flaw, in that it is difficult to be objective when you or your opponent for that matter have a personal stake in the game. It supports the appearance that the entire issue has a somewhat vendetta feel. Having said that, the people of Sudbury are intelligent enough to make an Educated decision, so I would encourage both 'sides' to do what is best for the town.
JJoseph
9:23 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Kdroop,
I read you post a few times and I don't understand it. Please explain who has a personal stake in the game. Also, what is the vendetta that you reference? What am I missing?
pmotw
10:03 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Interesting how the term "personal stake" is used. Unfortunately, one of the driving factors in this movement is about "personal stakes" of current Town officials. Certain members of the BOS believe their "personal" behavior is above the law. It sure sounds "personal" to me if certain members of the BOS need to recuse themselves so often from town issues they have been elected to solve. There are others who believe they are above the law and those who think they can spend the taxpayers money anyway they want with no to little input from the taxpayers. YOU KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE!
I'd like to order one of those free "personal steaks" with a side of dry noodles and a glass of water because I helped your business obtain permission for more seating.
Thank for bringing up the "personal stake" point of view.
kdroop
9:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
I am referring to the inference that this entire process was spawned from some kind of personal issues.
My only issue with the change is that I am still concerned about what if any additional operational costs there will be, as I am unconvinced that as it has been explored sufficiently. I have heard the assurance that, "nothing changes, no additional costs or policy changes must be made". However, if that is the case, then will these changes be made after the we increase the Board member number? How much will this cost? Making these type of changes retroactively is not good business practice or governing practice... If somebody could provide those answers it surely would've helpful.
Also, please detail any by law changes, as I actually am unaware that this has been discussed. If it has, please publicize what those changes will be, as Town Meeting would then have to vote for those changes, again, retroactively.
I think after this vote, a concerted effort must be made to regain our sense of community and mend fences. we are all temporary visitors to Sudbury(historically speaking), lets leave our legacy as one where division created opportunity, and we continued our great tradition of building consensus, and welcoming differences. Thank you. K. Roopenian
siobhan hullinger
10:07 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
It is unfortunate that you did not attend this session because your questions are good questions. The issue of additional costs was brought up by a member of the audience and addressed. As I'm sure you are aware, the BOS is a pure volunteer position and costs incurred are on the annual budget. There currently is a secretary and the added costs would be nominal which is the cost to copy only 2 additional packets for each meeting every other week.
You could host an event by reaching out to Mr Troiano for scheduling.
Bryan S
10:57 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Hello Kirsten -
The town, the BOS, Stan K and everyone else that is opposed to 3-5 has had three years to study and come up with credible reasons why this should not take place. Opponents could have started in 2010 when first proposed.
Amount of opposition study done?
Zero.
The same crew could have done this when it was first talked about before the board in June? Amount of opposition study done?
Zero.
Ditto for when it was brought before town meeting by the "Flash Mob" in the Fall? Amount of opposition study done?
Zero.
Ditto for the before the state house.
Ditto now just before the town wide vote.
Read Stan Kaplan's argument against 3-5 in the warrant. It is the same argument that could have been made 3 weeks ago, 3 months ago 3 years ago essentially - " We need more study".
Unfortunately, the opposition team just never seems to get around to doing the study.
The only people who seem to be studying the issue of town wide governance and trying to make a difference are the petitioners. They studied the matter, and made a good choice to implement 3-5 instead of recall (I originally supported recall).
Enough of the study argument.
Study has been done.
It is just not the answer the opponents like.
The study says go to five selectmen.
Sudburytoo
11:03 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Kirsten,
How many more years should our BOS study this issue?
Take a look at the public forum article that was voted by everyone at Town Meeting and yet our Selectmen want to "study" some more.
How long have we been "studying" the Rail Trail, the Sewer Project etc... It is time for the current regime to get out of the way so progress may be made. The only progess seems to be in early contract negotiations, late night parties and not stating town objectives. Sudbury is a poorly run town.
John B
9:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
I think I get what KDROOP means. She is referring to Chairman Larry O'Brien going to the Statehouse to testify against 3-5, even though the people of Sudbury overwhelmingly approved it, so he could maintain his personal stake as the undisputed ruler of Sudbury and Lavender.
Kirsten Vandijk
10:33 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Or perhaps she is referring to Selectman Haarde using Troiano's identity to make a stand. Wake up.
JON999
11:25 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
You don't know this to be factually true. Perhaps, and probably most likely, is that Mike T copied some technical and information rich text from a private email from Bob and posted it not realizing that it contained some first person articles which are fueling your conspiracy theory, which is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Also, your efforts at healing are quite befuddling.
Kirsten Vandijk
11:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
JON999,
Do you really want to go down that road again? You and Troiano and Faber all remind me of my son when he was a toddler. When he made a mistake he would cover his eyes--he thought no one could see him. This isn't preschool. Part of healing is identifying the source of the wound and determining the best method of treatment. That usually does NOT include blaming the wound on someone else to make it go away.
kdroop
10:15 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
S-couldn't make it, or I would have. Thanks.
siobhan hullinger
10:21 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
I think Sudbury TV has it posted so you can see it online or check the schedule and view it on channel 8.
Kirsten Vandijk
10:19 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Timing is everything in life. This is not the time for 3-5. This is the time for healing and until that happens, the Town will not be able to move forward, sideways, or backward. It is up to the current BOS to demonstrate a willingness to work TOGETHER to set the example that the townspeople are in need of. Apologies are in order. Accepting responsibility for one's actions are intrinsic in the healing process and will allow for a more open discussion in the future. This applies to ALL members of the BOS. The flawed process of Lavendergate is an example of what NOT to do when you want to engender a spirit of goodwill and community. Sudbury's future lies in the hands of those willing to follow a clean path to effect any necessary changes to make Sudbury thrive.
Keep Calm & Carry On
11:54 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
This is all very confusing. Kirsten is taking an unfair bashing. The way the Lavendergate investigation was done didn't sit right with many of us - and people recusing themselves was wrong too. On the other hand, I disagree with Kirsten and support 3-5 completely (and applaud Troiano's efforts). But she is right that the whole tone is not what it should be. I hope we will soon see ALL new people on the BOS. There is too much bitterness and baggage with all three current members. I know that isn't a popular view with the committee to canonize Haarde for sainthood. Oh well.
John Baranowsky
11:54 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Time to fish or cut bait. Kaplin study is not going to happen. FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) won't work. When is Kaplin's forum to take place? That's what I thought (crickets).
Kirsten Vandijk
12:55 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
No can do, RGS. Make that 9 times. Odd isn't it?
Kirsten Vandijk
1:17 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
That you are able to count is reassuring given your position on Fincom. This conversation is over. Healing takes time. Which is why I do not support the Lavendergate initiative that was influenced by a standing elected official--Haarde--hiding behind the identity of a common voting citizen. I will support a future BOS initiative calling for an increase of the BOS when such an initiative is realized. I believe it is a closer reality than many of you think. Lavendergate and the division it both incited and denied is a part of Sudbury History that no person should take pride in.
John B
1:51 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
Kirsten, you are the only one who needs to heal. The rest of us were not cutoff at town meeting and removed from lavendergate. You were all too happy with Haarde as your standing elected official when you thought he was your man to lead the charge with recalling Larry O'Brien. But now that recall is dead and 3-5 is alive you are out for more blood, not just Larry's. You are an opportunistic hypocrite.
Kirsten Vandijk
3:22 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
You make me laugh, John B. Join your gang of misfit politicians and realize that immoral and unethical actions are not tolerated by the voters. Because in the end, it is our vote that speaks volumes. Clearly by the continued onslaughts you fear that my opinion carries much weight in this community. Thank you for validating my importance in these matters. The more you make this about me instead of what it really is about, the more power you give me--wanted or not. Again, thank you.
JT
4:50 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
I totally agree with Bryan at 10:57. Kristen's opinion that this is not the time for 3-5 is just ridiculous. In fact, whenever I see that face on a comment, I no longer bother to read the comment because we all know it's just the same old tired vitriol from KV.
Concerned Sudbury Parent
5:17 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
The time couldn't be more right! Assuming the measure passes by an overwhelming majority, is there any way to petition for a special election so this is not delayed further?
Robert Fucci
5:23 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
Should residents vote "yes" for a second time, Troiano said a petition will be signed to have it on the ballot for the Special Election should the selectmen not act.
"The Board of Selectmen has a golden opportunity to extend a hand to those involved with the movement and use the special election," he said. "The state will cover the cost. My sincere hope is the Board of Selectmen will do this. If not, then we'll create a petition and get the (required) signatures, and file it with the town clerk to piggy back the special election. We're prepared to do that."
Erich Waible
7:32 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
I've seen dogs like you Kristin, behind a locked car door and window, they act like a pitbull, but get them out of the car and they are so scared they urinate on themselves. You are the most annoying person on this blog. You hate Fucci and Troiano because they won't cave to your wants. You ramble on about the same rhetoric, unfounded, and no one cares. Stop pushing the same load of crap on us, you are the last person that would ever influence my opinion. It's Sudbury people like you that make me dislike this town. Choke on the hate you feebleminded pansy.
Erich Waible
7:49 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
No, I'm tired of the malarky. You're a politician, it's your job to please everyone. I am an individual, I get to think on my own and say what I want. I don't feel the need to avoid others feelings. I believe in team captains, wins and losses, keeping score, having a spine, and speaking my mind. It's only an opinion and we're all allowed ours. You don't like it? Keep your dumpster diving opinions on what I should to yourself before you yourself raise my ire. Keep being politically correct and coddling peoples feelings, I know I can look myself in the mirror and be ok with it.
JT
8:23 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
Way to go Erich. Many of us agree with you.
Jason Ackerson
10:18 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
I'm a new resident to Sudbury and this isn't what I signed up for. I came to Sudbury expecting greater intellect and rational human beings. 40+ comments on this in one day? Really? Skimming over this reminds me of Washington. Too many personal attacks, too many hidden agendas, too much fluff. Come on people. Imagine if you put this much energy into solving real problems? At the end of the day, it's all about 3-5. Forget about the people involved. Does 5 BOS make sense or not? I personally think it does.
JON999
8:16 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Jason, Welcome to town. The 3 to 5 effort is largely (not entirely) driven by relatively newer residents who only recently became aware of some the inadequacies in our governance. I'm confident we will make this right and the families you will meet in town are great. Also, Patch tends to foster some excessive aggrandizement which you should ignore of course. Pls vote on march 25 for 3 to 5. Thx
Kirsten Vandijk
8:38 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
That is a very important point of information--"...driven by newer residents who only recently became aware...". These are "...busy people just trying to make this town a better place."
Sudbury101-- learn about Sudbury and take the time necessary to make informed decisions. Facebook may be handy for those too busy to actually attend meetings and serve on committees and volunteer for the Town, but it is NO SUBSTITUTE for working with the system to effect change. Lavendergate is just another Sudbury embarrrassment that has been driven by vendetta. Selectman Haarde 's utter lack of moral and ethical integrity is seconded only to Troiano's complicity in it. This Lavendergate fiasco is an attempt to force feed an agenda down the throats of the easy to manipulate. It is quite revealing that a large number of Lavendergate members NEVER HAD ATTENDED A TOWN MEETING before the Special Town Meeting in September. This meeting was rancorous and the flash mob that arrived late to stack the upper hall admitted to having no patience because, why? They had children at home and babysitters waiting. These are "busy" people in Sudbury. Too busy to work with the Town and the system in order to democratically effect changes they may want. Facebook is not a Democracy. "Likes" and "Shares" and "Friends" have no bearing on town governance and no matter how many times someone like Troiano will tell you otherwise, the take no prisoners Halo philosophy will not work in the Town of Sudbury.
Jason Ackerson
9:22 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Thanks JON999. I appreciate the welcome. I'm looking forward to getting involved...and voting on 3/25. Stated another way 3-2-5. Interesting.
Erin
9:08 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
It is not just "newer" resident who support the move from 3-5 many many long time residents support this and have for a long time! I come from a large family that has lived here for generations and most of the "townies" I know are in full support of the move from 3-5. I think what Mike T. has done a great service in getting it together to establish this change no need for any more study it is time for a change and it has been for a long time.
JT
9:28 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
It definitely ISN'T just new residents who support 3-5. My wife and I have lived here for more than 25 years and have 2 children who went through the Sudbury schools. And I have become totally fed up with what has been going on with the current BOS. Vote for 3-5!
JON999
9:36 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Yes, it is a broad coalition of new and old, all very reasonable, very many involved already, supporting this. Mike T made a lot of newer folks aware was my only point.
I like that date karma observation. Jason is contributing already!
Kirsten Vandijk
10:10 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
So the fact that Troiano has admitted he has absolutely no idea how many actual Sudbury voters make up the Lavendergate group and the fact that his referenced 900+ members cannot be verified as town voting citizens means absolutely nothing? That Haarde and Troiano still do not answer to the immoral and unethical actions they both took part in means nothing because really, it's all about a group of busy people fed up with the immoral and unethical actions of the entrenched and we have had enough! That Lavendergate was a vendetta disguised as a selfless cause and has been exposed as such means nothing. Because we are tired of being manipulated and deceived and not allowed to speak our opinions, right? Where do I sign up?
Erin
10:52 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
I was at town meeting that night...more than 900 people showed up I am assuming they are registered voters. Some of those people dont belong to the facebook page. Some of the people who support the move 3-5 dont even have computer access such as my mother and many of her neighbors who support the move from 3-5. They are long time Sudbury resident who have lived here paid their taxes and put their children through the school system. I dont see why you keep harping on lavendergate and vendetta which is just BS. It is time for a change that has been coming for some time now. This town is large enough to warrant 5 selectman at this point I dont care as many others dont really care about your beef with Mr. Troiano which is pretty clear from what you post. I think youre full of sour grapes because you were so obnoxious on the lavendergate page. I agree with some of the others you need to heal yourself. I felt bad that you got shut down at town meeting but it was a bit much. I dont look at it as being manipulated nor deceived as much as having just 3 selectman is not enough for the work that needs to get done in this town. This has been along time coming and its about time....
siobhan hullinger
10:51 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
I would like to see Ms Vandijk make SOME proposal that would bridge the divide as opposed to the continuous escalation of negativity and vitriol. It's become nothing more than an obvious personal issue that gets played out over and over and over again.
Put your efforts into positivity and take a cue from Thom Kenney's local voices blog. THAT would be a productive AND useful avenue to pursue at this juncture.
Kirsten Vandijk
11:27 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Siobhan--you have some nerve. You come into my business and read the lavendergate threads and claim you were not aware--and you were clearly in the comments thread. Positivity starts with you and the small group of vitriolic temper tantrum holding residents that have not gotten their way in the past to answer to the disgraceful way you have torn this town apart with constant hypocrisy and lies and illusion. In the past week I have seen the best and worst of people and I believe you know where you fit into those two categories. Lavendergate has no credibility nor do the voices like yours who try to distract others with a holier than thou attitude and many many many have seen through it by reading the shameful words of Troiano/Haarde.
My proposal to bridge the divide is to work WITH THE TOWN and not against it. That has NEVER changed. What has changed is the name and goal of your group. That has had more changes than a toddlers diapers. When I was a member of Lavendergate in the fall I proposed that the group ask to get on the BOS to suggest the formation of a group to address the transitional process of 3-5--that was shot down by Troiano and a select others. Why? When you can honestly answer these and other important questions without the need to distract and defame perhaps people will listen.
siobhan hullinger
11:41 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Yes, Kirsten, I have been a past client of My Passion Flower and I did read the items you provided me. I have commented on many things on that page and elsewhere. I also supported your suggestion for other avenues but I did not and do not have the time to put into them. You could have pursued those on your own and chose not to. Holier than thou?? Never thought I gave that impression but if so, my apologies. I am a 20+ year resident who has children in 3 schools and plan on staying long past my youngest's graduation. I volunteer for many many things - far too many to list and would like to see decisions made for the current and future generations to be enhancements through thoughtful consideration with input from all stakeholders in this town. I have not seen that over the past decade and a half.
I have NEVER defamed you - I have been a paying customer and I have come to your defense many many times in the past. Everyone has a right to their opinions.
Again, I ask you to take a cue on Thom Kenney's local voices blog on civility.
Kirsten Vandijk
11:48 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Again Siobhan, your nerve and hypocrisy are most unacceptable. And your allusion to support is an illusion. You need to think long and hard about your actions, words, and contributions to the Lavendergate fiasco. "Reactionary" is one word that describes them. Certainly not civil and studied. Our conversation ended months ago.
siobhan hullinger
11:53 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
We agree on this point, Kirsten. Our conversation did end. I wish you the best and I'm sad your shop is closing. I think you have a talent and have said so. Enjoy the beautiful weather.
John Baranowsky
11:19 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Just for the record, the "flash mob" attribute now widely quoted throughout Town stems from testimony given to the Joint Committee for Election Reform at the State House by Mr. Arthur Gutch. As a thirty-seven year resident of Sudbury, co-founder of the K-5 elementary school configuration group, Clerk of the Route 20 Sewer CAC and long standing activist for positive change I was greatly offended by his and Mrs. Offner's comments. Representative Tom Conroy liked my remarks and I've got the email to prove it. This week alone I attended three meetings, got to talk to the candidates, meet some old friends and have a good time knowing that there is some hope for the future of Sudbury should this thing pass. The FUDsters have made no compelling arguments of any kind for maintaining the status quo. Please vote for the change and let's all move forward.
Kirsten Vandijk
11:35 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
"Flash Mob" did not originate from some testimony. It was witnessed by the attendees. It was a fact, not a quote. Keep trying, you get a B+ for effort.
siobhan hullinger
11:44 am on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Had you been at the hearing, Kirsten, you would indeed know that it is a quote.
Kirsten Vandijk
12:07 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Having been at the Special Town Meeting I witnessed it for myself. A flash mob arrived late to the meeting, banged repeatedly on the doors of the upper hall, and the meeting was forced to pause to allow the late arrivals time to find seats. They were the very rancorous members who did not follow Roberts Rules of Order or or seem to have any idea of what they are. The flash mob made their appearance in September. The hearing was in November.
Concerned Sudbury Parent
12:46 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
I am a relatively new resident to Sudbury. We moved here specifically for the benefit of our kids, believing Sudbury offered the best schools and environment available in the Metrowest area. I was shocked to find how corrupt and incompetent the BOS, SPSC, and town management are in this town. It is unfortunate the town charter does not have a recall provision which would most certainly be deserving for Mssrs. Drobinski and O'Brien. Nonetheless, 3-5 is the next best thing. Five selectmen make sense, even without regard to the disgraceful behavior of these individuals. It should never be possible for two individuals to hold the town hostage as has been the case.
Those opposed to 3-5 seem to believe this is some great right wing conspiracy represented by the "Lavendergate" Facebook crowd. I am proud to declare that I am a committed Democrat and have never been on Facebook in my life. I too was at the Special Town Meeting (my first). To call that a "flash mob" is a pathetic misrepresentation. What I observed was a capacity crowd of people like myself who are disgusted with the way Sudbury is currently managed. I have no doubt the 3-5 measure will pass with an overwhelming majority when it comes to a ballot on March 25.
Songs About Sudbury
12:51 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Art Gutch knows what is best for us.
Kirsten Vandijk
2:07 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
There seem to be quite a number of new residents with young children that have moved here and suddenly believe that Sudbury is not what they expected. Perhaps some due diligence before moving here and changing everything is in order. Or perhaps these new residents should talk to more than just one source, get a bigger picture instead of the tunnel vision that Lavendergate offers. One thing that comes to mind is to be much more open minded about how and why the town is where it is. Without good candidates to run for office this town will continue to rely on the sound judgement of the vote. This new approach of defame and blame is far from civil or educational. Look at the demographics of this town and you will find many answers. As Troiano pointed out himself, the new residents are too busy and not fully educated about matters of town governance. It took the sensationalist production of Lavendergate and the unethical and immoral activities of this group to bring the flash mob to STM. I do not believe at this time the ends justify the means. Sudbury and the BOS need to learn how to work together and bring any town governance changes forward. Let Haarde show the people that he has a willingness to work WITH the BOS to effect change instead hiding behind a sensationalist group's identity to make a stand. Let Haarde speak for himself without the Facebook group to rely on for support. Let Sudbury heal.
Let's Open our eyes
10:41 pm on Saturday, March 9, 2013
Kirsten, I was in the balcony and I was "late", but not becasue I was part of any "flash mob" - which by the way is a ridiculous mis-use of a pop culture, social meida term. Anyway, that lateness was caused by the unfortunatley slow people minding the tables to issue voting cards to residents. There was no "banging at the door", it was a police officer and custodian unlocking the balcony to let in the throngs of people who came on their own accors (not dragged on a leash by Messsrs. Haarde or Troiano as you apparently would love to insinuate.
Your hyperbole is factually incorrect, your motives are suspect and your fervor to expose some none existent bogey man has left you frothing at the mane. Time to let other adults behave as such. I'd suggest you take your antics to another forum, maybe one on Kindergarten, since it's a very Romper Room kinda spiel.
Kirsten Vandijk
8:03 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Feel free to keep closing your eyes--we still see you. Rewriting history may work in other governments but last time I checked Sudbury still follows a democratic process. Trying to manipulate that process will only get you into trouble. Focus on the issues and the unfortunate actions instead of defaming those who observe them. Defame and blame = Lavendergate. A standing elected Selectman used a common citizen's online identity to push an agenda. THAT IS A FACT. You confuse determination with fervor. I am determined and supported by facts. Lavendergate has fervorously and recklessly carried on for months changing it's mission and goals throughout. My unwavering determination has never changed. That a major flaw and ethical/moral breach was revealed to the vTownspeople has been a major blow for Lavendergate. No one is surprised that your group has changed it's focus yet again, this time in an embarrassing attempt to kill the messenger. Carry on with your eyes wide shut.
Sheila
8:29 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
KV
May we hear your opinion on what went on at Lavenders and the drunk driving incident from Lavenders? It surprises me that you are so focused on the Lavendergate facebook ect ect page and not what led to its birth. I believe those issues are much more relevant and dangerous. It's perplexing to me that your focus is where it is. Do you have children that drive at night in town? This is what keeps me up at night. Town employees paryting up on a weeknight then getting in their cars and driving away. I believe that is much more relevant to clog up a comment feed than the politics.
Kirsten Vandijk
8:44 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sheila,
"Lavenders" was all about politics. I do not believe those individuals that remained well past the allowed closing time behaved properly. Please understand that my determination is founded on my moral/ethical code of conduct and what I consider appropriate of Town Officials as well as those I consider my responsibility i.e. myself and my children. I do not condone a defame and blame campaign in order to effect change. That is not a respectable course of action and has succeeded in taking away from any merit it may have pretended to be born of. I believe the group leading this effort is more dangerous than the current standing regime for the simple reason that ethics, morals, respect, and selfless drive are not motivating factors--personal gain is. The divisive tactics employed by Lavendergate are being lauded as somehow heroic. I will never look the other way to get what I want. I will do it honorably, openly, and collaboratively so that in the future I will always look back and have a positive feeling about not only what took place but HOW. And that is a lesson that I have always taught my children. It's not who wins but how you play the game. Lavendergate has been playing disgracefully.
Kirsten Vandijk
6:58 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
Sheila,
Is there a reason why your first comment on this thread was DELETED BY THE EDITOR? My response to it remains--
Jason Ackerson
10:15 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Kirsten, with all due respect, I'm not sure you answered Sheila's question. While I expect a greater sense of responsibility from elected officials, I also know that people make mistakes. To err is human. Is Obama perfect, no. Was Bush perfect, no. I have a child as well so it's concerning but it feels like this whole Lavender thing has been blown WAY out of proportion...compared to the matter at hand, 3-5. It seems as though it has gotten personal. By the way, I am new to Sudbury and I did my due diligence. Had I known about Lavendar-water-spy-gate, I still would have moved here. I still think Sudbury is a wonderful place and the people I've met are wonderful. I'm happy I was able to move here and look forward to settling down and sending my children through the great school system.
Kirsten Vandijk
12:13 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Jason,
If you read the second sentence in my response to Sheila you will see that her direct question was directly addressed and answered. I am genuinely happy to hear that you find Sudbury a wonderful place. Lavendergate by it's own self-definition was personal. The person who hid behind another's identity to make a stand reinforced the very "personal" nature of this. Don't be fooled by the select few members of Lavendergate who are trying to suggest that my reasons for my determination are any less than what my actions prove them to be. I have lived in Sudbury for nearly 20 years and in those 20 years I have never seen such outright foul play--by all members of the BOS--as I have in the past few months. So where does that leave us citizens? With a BOS made up of less than ideal members. And we are to believe now is the time to increase the BOS to 5 members? I do not believe the timing is right. Sudbury has to heal from the damage done by the Lavendergate campaign. The current BOS has to learn how to keep the best interest of the town instead of their individual selves at the forefront. Once that happens addressing 3-5 will be a collaborative effort instead of a force fed dose of vendetta. I'd rather wait. Sudbury deserves better.
Concerned Sudbury Parent
10:50 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Ms. Vandijk - please spare us the ethical and moral outrage and declaratations of an undemocratic process. Sudbury has a town meeting form of government and the overwhelming vote for 3-5 at the special town meeting should have been sufficient. It was the self-interested actions of Drobinski and O'Brien that forced a state review and subsequent town vote. No matter - there will be an overwhelming majority who vote in favor of 3-5 on March 25 that will put the lie to you and the other conspiracy theorists. Then you will have to find another "cause" to feed your self-important, attention-seeking diatribes.
Michael Schwarz
10:53 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
I'm disappointed that we are spending time & energy debating Kirsten Vandijk. I'd rather spend our time debating the merits of the 3-to-5. Can we return to the focus of the article and the intent of the article rather than letting this spiral out of control?
I ask everyone (including Kristin if she wishes) after this post to return to the primary issue of 3-5 and move away from a pointless personal debate.
Regardless of everyone's different perceptions for the driver of the motion, or the history of the issue - I support 3-5. I think looking at it from the perspective simply of more representation which many other towns have done, and also the sheer number of boards and committees in our town - I don't see why people are opposed the motion.
Present a valid argument and I'm willing to listen. Right now, this is a no-brainer to me based on the facts presented.
Kirsten Vandijk
12:24 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Rational and thorough debate is not typically considered pointless, personal, or spiraling out of control. Debate is part of the very important vetting process and the very part that isn't enabled by the constraints of a special town meeting. Debate is what open minded people do to become informed and educated regarding alternative perspectives. Debate and discussion is a healthy element of the Democratic process. To consider debate clogging up the comment threads is more a statement about the person who considers it "clogging..." and not about what is being debated. Simply because you think this is a "no-brainer" does not make it so. It means you have a fixed opinion. Nothing more.
arbly
1:15 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Three to five let our town thrive. Continue with three and your with Kirsten V.???
Michael Troiano
4:01 pm on Sunday, March 10, 2013
SudburyTV just posted the full video of this presentation, and the Q&A that followed it. A few of you mentioned you weren't able to attend, here's the link to see for yourself what was said. Thanks. http://sudburytv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=a6eac58c87d12959bde6288a9fd00edc
Dorothy G
8:11 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
I have to just say , I intend to vote yes on 3-5. I think its good for everyone. It should have been done a long time ago. Its impossible for 3 selectmen to oversee so many committees and boards. I wont even bring up Lavendergate, except to say I was disgusted by the whole situation.
In defense of Kirsten, I do agree with her in regards to Bob Haarde. He uses people for his own agenda. He has been for a very long time. I for one am glad Kirsten is calling him out.
Thom Kenney
8:46 am on Monday, March 11, 2013
@Michael Schwarz - I am in favor for two reasons. Greater representation of ideas to solve our complex issues facing Sudbury, and greater leadership participation in key committees and boards.
It is my opinion that a greater number of ideas fosters more creative solutions for difficult problems. With two additional selectpersons, Sudbury has the potential to expand its board's experiential knowledge and skills. The board will also gain the potential to better task organize when multiple priorities tap the limited resources of our neighbors who devote a significant amount of their personal time serving on the board.
Leadership presence is crucial in a town like ours that is facing difficult budget decisions, balancing the needs of the different constituencies and the ever present question of how to evolve as a community. Additional selectpersons should mean a more active presence on key boards and committees, a presence of leadership that may help the town work collectively towards a unified vision that balances the benefits and impacts for all residents.
I agree that study and reflection are important aspects of developing a course of action. I hear and understand the concerns of those that would be against the change. However, it's my opinion that this change is well supported and evidenced by personal experience and the significant number of our peer communities whom have already made the change to a larger board. I'll be voting for this measure.
Sudbury Family
2:33 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Kirsten, I joined this thread late, but are you suggesting that Bob Haarde is the mastermind manipulator of Mike Troiano? I'm pretty sure Mike Trioano is driving this agenda as he believes it is in the best interests of the town rather than because Bob Haarde told him to do so. I, for one, wouldn't be the messenger for someone else and be subjected to such abuse as has been levelled here.
Kirsten Vandijk
6:12 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Kirsten Vandijk
8:09 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
"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.
Read more: VanDijk: Group pushing expansion of BOS could do more harm than good - Sudbury, MA - The Sudbury Town Crier http://www.wickedlocal.com/sudbury/topstories/x1522322396/Group-pushing-expansion-of-BOS-could-do-more-harm-than-good#ixzz2MxAhdb4o
Miles Finch
5:56 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
In spite of an overly inflated ego, the reality is that Troiano has put a great deal of effort into spearheading this-that being the key. I was in attendance at the spring meeting when things began spiraling with the BOS and it was clear to me that Troiano was visibly upset by what was happening. Thus I am quite sure that he has not be manipulated by Haarde or anyone else. Furthermore, those people opposed to this measure should actually debate their position with facts actually opposing the measure not the messengers. It would go a long way in restoring your credibility and creating a debate worth listening to and reading about. Until you do, your efforts are simply wasted on the the electorate.
Kirsten Vandijk
6:23 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Unfortunately there is no denying Haarde was behind the Lavendergate group and Patch has not posted the proof after others besides myself have attempted to post it. You would be surprised at how many citizens have reached out to me to confirm with their experiences and their own eyes what I have also seen.
This vote is not an island. By voting in favor of the Lavendergate written article you will be sanctioning and supporting the unethical, immoral, and divisive campaign that brought it to you. Social conscience goes out the door. I'm not buying it. Because then when this group of citizens that have no concern for social conscience--product vs process--continue with these practices the Town of Sudbury will not be the draw it has been in the past.
Kirsten Vandijk
6:10 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
I consider this vote incredibly important for the Town of Sudbury and because of it's importance I will vote AGAINST 3-5 and this is why:
1. This vote does not exist in a void and out of context. Some wish to focus only on the Product. The product being the move from 3-5 Selectmen BOS. But this does not take under consideration the PROCESS. And the process has been flawed from the beginning because of the immoral, unethical, and downright divisive means by which it was brought to the people.
2. I believe a change in governance of this import should be originating from the BOS themselves in collaboration with various concerned citizens and members of pertinent committees that can bring the article to warrant CLEANLY, methodically, in a fully vetted and transparent manner so that is a stronger and more unifying move instead of what we are left with today.
Simply put, given the choice between a really fabulous pair of cowboy boots fabricated with questionable materials by child laborers at low cost vs an almost exact copy of the same boots made with fully sanctioned and sustainable materials by legally employed craftsmen that will require waiting a bit for delivery, well, I will spend my money where I believe the most benefit and morally comfortable choice lies. Because my purchase/vote will make the statement that the manufacturing process was legal and ethical and not in any way flawed. And I will feel good about it. I choose to wait.
Publius
9:59 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
But what if you've been told for decades that the cobbler is still studying the design for the boots, but he will get to it soon? How long would you wait for the boots?
nixonparent
12:11 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I was there from the beginning you poor, misguided soul & I know for a FACT that Haarde was not behind this. That having been said you can continue to live in Bizarro Sudbury, buy your overpriced cowboy boots and sit in front of your empty store and hold up your moral minority sign on principal to vote against this measure. However, but for your imaginary friends and Patch Pseudonyms you will be very much alone Kirsten...very much alone.
JON999
6:49 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Got it.
Anyone else have any reason for voting against expanding from 3 to 5?
Kirsten Vandijk
7:06 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
JON999,
I am one of the few of the moral majority that use Sudbury Patch as a forum for debate because they have been made repeatedly aware of the bias of the Editor. You are asking a question of people who do not read Patch. Unfortunate for AOL and Huffington Post but true nonetheless. Patch as a viable source of news is a soon to die idea. Community news thread will soon replace it.
Let's Open our eyes
2:29 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Kirsten, "one of the few of the moral majority" ?! Are you plagiarizing Carlin?
Yawn...
Sudbury Family
9:50 pm on Monday, March 11, 2013
Kirsten, I have an open mind and as yet undecided view on 3-5 but where is there any proof of Haarde actually running this?
Kirsten Vandijk
12:48 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
If the Lavendergate thread has not demonstrated to you that Haarde was using Troiano's online identity to manipulate our town governance then you will need to ask Haarde himself or hope that those with the actual emails from Haarde to Troiano will come forward. I doubt that will happen. And since Sudbury Patch has been biased in coverage, you will need to go back through all of the related comment threads pertaining to anything Lavendergate. I suggest you start with the Special Town meeting live blog by Patch and work your way through the maze of slander, libel, division, etc. that the group has used as a strategy for their campaign. It isn't pretty.
Let's Open our eyes
2:30 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
KV - Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Kirsten Vandijk
7:07 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Hi Sudbury Family,
I need to revise my suggestion that you look back to the Sudbury Patch Special Town Meeting live blog. The Editor has deleted quite a number of Lavendergate-related comments specifically those made by Bob Stein. I wonder why....
Concerned Sudbury Parent
1:57 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Kirsten - perhaps you should also check Bob Haarde's citizenship - I heard he was really born in Kenya.
Ralph Furley
2:58 pm on Tuesday, March 12, 2013
And Kirsten, I'm pretty sure his illegal alien aunt lives in the projects in Southie too.
nixonparent
8:02 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I was there from the beginning you poor, misguided soul & I know for a FACT that Haarde was not behind this. That having been said you can continue to live in Bizarro Sudbury, buy your overpriced cowboy boots and sit in front of your empty store and hold up your moral minority sign on principal to vote against this measure. However, but for your imaginary friends and Patch Pseudonyms you will be very much alone Kirsten...very much alone.
Debbie Umbach
11:11 am on Sunday, March 17, 2013
Mike Troiano is an upstanding citizen. I support him and agree that we must move from 3 to 5. I'm not sure where the need for healing comes from, but I've been in Sudbury for 8 years and have no wounds to show for it. I love this town and am all for more diversity. Plus, there is a huge amount of work to do, and to support all of these committees, we must have more Selectman. Also, I'm not sure where the negative comments about Bob Haarde are coming from; I have been impressed with him from Day 1 as a Selectman, a parent and fellow citizen.