Elizabeth Rust to be Arraigned on OUI Charge on June 27

Clerk's office confirms incident from early morning hours of May 9.

Elizabeth Rust of the Sudbury Department of Planning and Community Development department will be arraigned on June 27 to face , according to the Framingham District Court Clerk's office.

Sudbury Patch received the information just after 12:30 p.m. on Monday.

A message left for Rust in her office seeking comment was not immediately returned. A person who answered the phone said she was out for the day.

The cited Rust for an OUI, her third, after allegedly driving over the island near Concord Road, striking two signs and colliding with a granite post the morning of May 9.

According to Lt. Scott Nix, the female driver and Sudbury resident, now identified as Rust by the court's clerk office, was taken to Emerson Hospital in Concord with non-life-threatening injuries.

Nix said an arrest was not made due to a lack of staffing that night.

"An arrest would have reduced staffing further for an unknown amount of time," he explained in a previous article. "The assessment was made by the supervising officer to take that route due to staffing. It was not a budget issue."

Nix also said the criminal driving history was not known until the accident was cleared.

ron darden June 11, 2012 at 08:30 PM
Lack of staffing for 3 time OUI? Something smells fishy. Why the softball handling? Police sent 3 cruisers to Drobinski's house to track him down due to missing person report, but this had no affect on no arrest decision? 3 crusisers for a person missing for 20 minutes and not enuf police staff to arrest? I dont get it??? Appears to be special treatment due to Town position or fact that operator was coming from Lavenders where Town Manager, Valente and BOS Drobinski and O'Brien and others were partying. Valente, Drobinsinski and O'Brien need to come clean with facts at next BOS meeting. No need for long and expensive investigation. Just tell the truth - either that or resign. Town Manager and BOS in charge of liquor licenses ought not to be in drinking establishments after closing. Friends/Employers/Selectmen do not let Friends/Employees drive drunk
Robert D. Abrams June 11, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Ms. Rust is entitled to the presumption of innocence afforded her by our Constitution and ought not to be tried in the press. Having said that, the undisputed facts relating to the activities of our elected and appointed Town Officials on the evening of May 8th and into the early morning of May 9th continue to grow. Selectman O'Brien was in an establishment subject to his licensing authority after hours, in violation of Sudbury's Rules and Regulations and in violation of State law. It is interesting to note that it was the establishment and not Mr. O'Brien that was cited for that violation. Ms. Rust was coming from that establishment prior to her collision. More facts will continue to unfold in time, however, it is time for our Town Officials to come forward and tell us exactly what transpired that evening so that the Town may address any issues resulting from that conduct. It is true that they do enjoy Constitutional protection against self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Hopefully their conduct will not require them to take the Fifth.
Kirsten Vandijk June 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Andrew MacEntee June 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Likewise, the police must not be tried in the press. It is important that they not be made scapegoats for Valente, O’Brien, and Drobinski’s behavior and subsequent refusal to come clean with the facts. Lt Nix has said that SPD stands behind the supervisor’s judgment call in issuing a citation versus arresting the 3 time OUI operator. It was based on a “lack of staffing”, which that night consisted of a dispatcher with 2 officers and a supervisor on patrol. Nix: “I can say the most recent similar decision I made was...when we had numerous officers working a fatality accident with Boston Post closed...where a second head on accident occurred...that ended up with charging the at fault operator who was transported to the hospital” Is it valid to compare an early morning single vehicle accident (DPW says $300 damage) with a head on fatality followed shortly by another head on? Still, I am curious as to the outcome - was the cited operator found guilty? A deliberate decision not to arrest means an operator retains driving privileges, is not obligated to take a breathalyzer or have blood drawn at the hospital. The latter may handicap the police in court due to a lack of evidence while the former presents a clear and present danger to citizens and kids. But speculation is not helpful. Ultimately the proof an OUI pudding is the conviction thereof. We must wait for the outcome of a fair trial before the police (in)actions can be fully evaluated
Edward Stark June 11, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Can this get any more disgusting and embarrassing for Sudbury? What the heck is going on around here? Stop acting like a bunch of drunkin teenagers and start acting like the leaders you were elected and hired to be. On another note isn't Larry O'Brien the annual speaker at Sudbury DARE graduations? Hey Larry being a selectman comes with responsibilities. You were clearly present at Lavender when Beth Rust left on her way to her THIRD OUI. Shouldn't you have stopped her? You should resign from the Board of Selectman immediately! Johnson Farm, Mrs. J, now this. Why would anyone want to move here anymore? Stop making a fool of our town!
Edward Stark June 11, 2012 at 11:27 PM
By the way hats off to Robert Fucci on all of this. If not for his stellar reporting who knows how much of this stuff we would know. Doesn't seem like Town Manager Maureen Valente or the rest of her staff as been very clear with the facts. Hats off to Robert! Where would Sudbury be without him right now?
noyes parent June 12, 2012 at 12:28 AM
Wow....“dont try people in tbe press“.....funny coming from this group that tried and convicted the noyes principal in short order!!!
susan kennedy June 12, 2012 at 12:56 AM
If the person driving the car was 18 or 19 years old, he/she would have been arrested toot sweet (and they should be!) I believe they-- O'Brien, Drobinski, Nix-- should all resign and be done with it
SkimThreePercent June 12, 2012 at 12:58 AM
No surprise. Although Mr. Fucci consistently took down posts which identified Rust, he allowed one key clue by a poster to stand unblocked over a week ago and I quickly figured it out (Town employee who lives next to a school and works next to a school -obviously was Rust as she lives directly across the street from Haynes School, works near Noyes, Town Employee, fits the profile perfectly). So the headline only breaks news for those who remain clueless about this terrible situation here in the Town. A real disgrace! Thanks Larry. But we have only scratched the surface. Were is the Frank Serpico (NYPD) in all of this? Why did the SPD fall for and become complicit in Drob's phony missing person diversion. Why has the local press (excluding Patch) buried this story? This case needs to be investigated by the AG. Oh, I almost forgot, Martha Coakley is the AG. How about a Special Prosecutor?
Thrice Rusty June 12, 2012 at 02:03 AM
Let's remember people that Beth Rust heads up the Regional Housing for Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, Sudbury, and Weston. This is all housed by Sudbury which means that if good old Beth gets plastered on the job and plows into somebody, no matter what town she is working in Sudbury is on the hook for any potential lawsuit. What a dangerous predicament we have put ourselves into with this agreement. Resignations should include Valente, O'Brien and Rust. Jody Kablack is Beth's boss so if it comes out thats he was at Lavender when Beth left she should be included in this list as well.
silly sally June 12, 2012 at 03:35 AM
Haha your kidding!! this soon shall pass amazing the internet HA
insider June 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Selectman O'Brien claimed no alcohol was served, so where did Rust get the booze?
SueChap June 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM
good point, rusty. have we had any litigation, settled or pending, as a result of these regional agreements? I would like to believe we would already know, yet unfortunately our administration has yet to come clean on the Lavenders situation. It would be good to know what risks were considered when we created these arrangements, especially in light of her criminal history. While many of these posts are ridiculous, there are some good posts.
Joshua Dupee June 12, 2012 at 01:14 PM
For your 3rd drunk driving conviction in the State of Massachusetts you will be fined between $1,000 and $15,000. You will also spend from 150 days to 2 1/2 years in prison and have your drivers license suspended for 8 years. The court may also order you to install an ignition interlock device on your vehicle at your own expense.
MeagenB June 12, 2012 at 03:40 PM
According to the state laws, if this is Ms. Rust's third offense, no matter the town - the POLICE OFFICERS were legally obligated to take possession of her driver's license and send it to the RMV. This is not an innocent until proven guilty. There is a presumption of past behaviour and the license is taken away to protect the public. Why wasn't her license taken away!!!
ron darden June 12, 2012 at 04:35 PM
josh only if guilty. police softballed Rust. lawyer will say no arrest, no breath, no evidence. good chance not guilty or gets continued with probation, but after probation charges are dropped like never happend. police covered up for town.
Enuff June 12, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Ron, I agree. Sudbury did a real disservice to everyone by botching every aspect of this. If it were you or I we wouldn't have a chance. Power corrupts.
Rob June 12, 2012 at 04:56 PM
A person in a position of public trust is expected to avoid not only impropriety, but even the appearance of it. Guess that is lost in our town.
Publius June 12, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Robert, it would be interesting to find out how many other incidents like this occurred where the driver was either arrested, let go, or brought to the hospital. According to Nix: "An arrest would have reduced staffing further for an unknown amount of time," he explained in a previous article. "The assessment was made by the supervising officer to take that route due to staffing. It was not a budget issue." Are there other incidents with similar staffing in which the police did make the arrest, especially during daylight hours when the likelihood of a second incident is greater. If so, that would point towards a police "free pass."
SkimThreePercent June 12, 2012 at 05:48 PM
An internal investigation needs to be made within SPD. If the Chief is afraid for his job, bring in outside help. Remember, the folks who are responsible for the liquor license aer the same ones granting the Chief his Contract.
Andrew MacEntee June 12, 2012 at 08:48 PM
Everyone must stop blaming police. Blame game distracts from behavior of Valente, Obrien, and Drobinski. What’s done cannot be undone. What counts now is the quality of the police support for the prosecutor’s case. Once the trial concludes reviews can be made. (Imagine an internal review b4 the trial, which finds police botched; defense would be entitled to. So, yes, an independent review after trial, especially if operator gets off with slap on the wrist. Meantime, Town leaders must stop their Sgt Shultz – know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing act. They need to come clean and be held accountable for their behavior.
Disgusted June 12, 2012 at 09:37 PM
The Director of Planning has been well aware of unethical and inappropriate behaviors of her staff. It had been brought to her attention time and time again to which no action was taken. Reports of abuse of position were then made to the assistant town manager, who in turn, did nothing. The ego on the involved members at Lavender as well as the supervisor of Ms. Rust is somehow tolerated and accepted to the point they do with their time on the clock of the taxpayers, whatever they chose, personal business or not. It is apphauling and it is wrong.
Rob June 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM
The police do need to be supported. However an independent investigation is called for to ensure no pressure was made to softball this case. The credibility of the Police needs to be upheld and given the facts in evisence, I see no other way.
SueChap June 12, 2012 at 11:21 PM
apparently this is the case unless you know someone or get caught when a sudbury selectman stays out past curfew.
concerned member of community June 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM
obviously none of you know beth as she is an amazing mother not to mention a highly respected member of our community and one of the nicest people i know it is none of anyone's business and by writing mean comments on this article isn't helping anyone
ron darden June 17, 2012 at 06:24 AM
None of the community's biz? MADD would say otherwise. A 3 time drunk driver is still on the road. Dont you understand it does not matter how nice she is? And, whatever respect she had is gone - it has been replaced by fear that such behavior if continued unchecked endangers our children and all members of the community.
joanne June 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM
@ concerned member of community- You are correct, I do not know Beth Rust personally. I do know however that she is someone with 2 prior DUI's. I do know she got into her vehicle once again, after the "post town mtg celebration", intoxicated! I do know she is very lucky that she did not kill herself, or some innocent person. As for her being an amazing mother, I dont know. Her selfish actions brought this upon herself and her family. Did she consider her family when she got into her car 5/8? Did she stop and consider how it would impact her fa,ily if they had to plan her funeral? Or knowing that their Mom/wife caused the death of an innocent person and destroyed a family? She has a problem- and she needs help. I for one would have a lot of respect for a person, who can stand up, admit they made a mistake, accept the consequenses, and get professional help. And if you are truly her friend- then you need to help her!
Thrice Rusty June 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Sorry "Concerned Member" you do the crime you do the time. I'm sure she is a wonderful mother (when she's not drinking and driving) but a good decision maker she is not. I am a father of 3 and every single time I go out with friends I think of my children and the impact that my actions will have on them. You can't really argue against 3 OUI's. She could have killed somebody or multiple people on 3 different occasions (that we know of). She either needs to quit drinking, quit driving or both!
Rob June 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM
3x loser enough said.


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