Lavender: Residents Demand Answers from Town Leadership

Town Leadersip's behavior disappoints, but dedicated citizens refuse to let Lavender incident be swept under the rug

Having just watched a replay of June 12 BOS meeting agenda item on the Lavender liquor violation (available on demand at SudburyTV.org), I was struck by the perceived disingenuousness of Board of Selectman member John Drobinski.

In words, Mr. Drobinski said he wanted to extend an olive branch and heal the Town’s divisiveness. But, in deeds, he would not provide a second for motions to schedule another meeting for further investigation of the Lavender incident; to reorganize the BOS chair; or to remove Larry O’Brien from the Liquor Licensing Authority, despite O’Brien’s admitted violations involving such.

Mr. Drobinski’s constant refrain was, “Where do you want to go with this?”  I wish someone had answered: Wherever the facts take us. 

Does Mr. Drobinski not realize that no one can precisely predict in advance where an investigation will lead when key facts remain hidden? Sudbury needed an open hearing with the principals involved present. Instead, the O’Brien & Valente devised agenda supplied a fixed, predetermined outcome with few answers and minimum transparency and disclosure. All this served to increase divisiveness, the very thing Mr. Drobinski said he wanted to avoid.

Also, there was controversy as to whether Mr. Drobinski ought to have recused himself from deliberations. Drobinski argued that he wasn’t at Lavenders at the time of the violation. 

But this dodge misses the bigger point. That is, Drobinski is a direct link in the chain of events. The police timeline: 

  • 1:18:42 a.m. — dispatch completed taking initial missing person information via phone (from Mrs. Drobinski)
  • 1:23:41 a.m. — officer off at missing person residence (Drobinski’s)
  • 1:26:01 a.m. — party (John Drobinski) returns home
  • 1:46:55 a.m. — supervisor arrives at Lavender with patrons remaining inside (including BOS Chair Larry O'Brien).

How can Mr. Drobinski credibly claim that he does not have a potential conflict of interest given the indisputable facts that he was at Lavenders “prior to the violation”. And that the police went from his house to Lavenders to break up an ongoing Liquor violation?   

There is no need to speculate on the more nefarious aspects of a suspect missing persons report diverting resources from the OUI; or whether O’Brien and all at Lavenders disregarded the police’s advance warning around 1.20 a.m. when an officer came looking for the “missing” Drobinski; or even whether the police were influenced by the knowledge of Obrien, Drobinski, and Valente’s presence at Lavenders. (The police said none of above had any affect.)

All in all, I was disappointed at most nearly every aspect of the meeting – from Mr. O’Brien’s expectation of impunity based on a prepared statement that answered no questions, to the town manager and Mr. Drobinski’s refusal to take responsibility and acknowledge the gravity of their conduct as Town leaders. 

The lone bright spots were Selectman Haarde’s efforts to shine light on the matter so as to attempt resolution and ultimately allow the Town to move on, as well as the dedicated citizens who stayed past midnight asking pointed questions, refusing to let O’Brien, Drobinski and Valente sweep it all under the rug.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Rob June 17, 2012 at 07:36 PM
We need a special meeting to force the town to outline a recall procedure.
susan kennedy June 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM
will there be another BOS meeting this week?
Rick Billig June 17, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Still have not figured out how to recall the people we elected and fire all the town employees. I had more faith in you folks. :-)
SueChap June 18, 2012 at 01:16 AM
We need a town meeting with 4 articles to my understanding. 1) 3-5 Selectmen 2) amend bylaws to all recall 3) no confidence vote in Selectman O'Brien 4) no confidence vote in Selectman Drobinski
SueChap June 25, 2012 at 01:00 AM
says it all. well put, Andrew
YON - Jan C. Hardenbergh June 26, 2012 at 04:47 PM
The key facts are, was this a Town sponsored event and was the Town buying liquor. If the answers to either of those is yes, then there are a lot of questions. If the answer to that is no, then there is only one question that is official Town business: how to reconstitute the Local Licensing Authority for any Lavender review. All other issues pertain to individuals and are the business of the Police.
Enuff June 26, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Yon, Three of the 4 persons that grant and enforce the liquor licenses in Sudbury were there after hours. You can call it whatever you like. The people of Sudbury deserve much better than this.
SkimThreePercent June 26, 2012 at 06:16 PM
Only two persons support Yon's limiting motion and his odd theory that all so-called facts can be reduced to a single question to be answered beforehand by himself alone. Everyone else go home and submit governance by proxy comprised of former Selectmen, their children and close friends. It's not going to happen. The Police work for the citizens of Sudbury, not O'Brien and his organization.
Bryan S June 27, 2012 at 12:17 AM
If you are attending tonights BOS meeting, it appears they are running 1:15 ahead of schedule. The discussion on Lavenders was supposed to occur at 2130, but they are moving forward now with the Chief at about 2020.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »