How 1 Night at Lavender Changed Sudbury

May 8-9, 2012, will likely go into the history books as a major turning point in the history of Sudbury.

For decades, the town was governed by a Board of Selectmen composed of three members who diligently represented the town and its best interests. Three volunteers who would sit behind microphones and take both ridicule and praise.

But somewhere along the timeline, residents demanded change. They said they wanted a larger board. They wanted more representation. The town ultimately said 'no' on multiple occasions, because studies were needed to see how an increase would affect the town financially. No proof of a study was ever presented as the town continued with its charter.

But things began to change that night in 2012. Lavendergate was born, as was a new era in Sudbury.

More than just a violation

The 2012 Annual Town Meeting ended the night of May 8. Selectmen Larry O'Brien, John Drobinski, Town Manager Maureen Valente and other town representatives headed over to Lavender Asian Cuisine & Bar to celebrate.

But O'Brien, along with roughly a dozen others, stayed a little too late. As a member of the Board and its chairman, he was responsible for handing out the town's liquor licenses. This license stated the business had to stop serving patrons at 1 a.m. A Sudbury police officer drove by twice as a reminder to close up. The third time, at 1:45 a.m., forced the establishment to receive a liquor license violation.

O'Brien denied allegations that liquor was served after hours.

"The important thing is that this was not a liquor violation," O'Brien said. "A warning was issued because the restaurant was supposed to be vacated."

Selectman Bob Haarde said after Town Meeting concluded he went home, but received a voice message from O'Brien about the incident the following Sunday.

"Maureen advised him to tell me he was there, but he didn’t say the time he was there," Haarde said.

Haarde was upset the situation ever occurred.

"Maureen and John were not there at 1:30," O'Brien said. "They left many hours before and stayed for about 35 to 40 minutes. We lost track of time ... nothing more, nothing less."

But news of that night was about to get worse.

The reason the Sudbury police made a third stop at Lavender was because of a one-car accident that occured just minutes prior.

The operator of the car allegedly drove over the island near Concord Road, striking two signs and colliding with a granite post.

According to Lt. Scott Nix, the female driver and Sudbury resident, later identified as Elizabeth Rust of the the Sudbury Department of Planning and Development Department, was taken to Emerson Hospital in Concord with non-life-threatening injuries.

As a result of the investigation, she was cited with operating under the influence of alcohol (third offense) and a marked lanes violation. She told police she had come from Lavender.

Residents began calling for a deeper investigation. But the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission denied a request. It stated since the Sudbury Police Department had already conducted an investigation, state law says the ABCC cannot reinvestigate the matter.

Dodging the questions

The June 12 Board of Selectmen meeting was much anticipated. It was the first scheduled meeting since news of 'Lavendergate' broke and the first chance for residents to ask what really happened that night.

But under advice from Town Counsel Paul Kenny,

Drobinski declined to recuse himself, because he said he left Lavender earlier in the evening and was not present for any violation. Valente also declined to recuse herself, pending further discussions with attorneys.

and sharply criticized Valente for not arranging to have Police Chief Richard Glavin present at the meeting to discuss his recent letter to Lavender about the case.

"You're personally acting to preserve your own interests, and you cannot do that in your official capacity," Haarde said during one of several clashes with Drobinski. He noted that the town could face liability for Rust's case if the Lavender gathering is determined to have been an official town event.

"How many times do I have to state that I wasn't there (at the time of the violation)?" Drobinski asked, accusing Haarde of conducting "a witch hunt" on the issue.

Drobinski insisted the violation was a non-issue.

But residents snapped back in opposition.

"This is not going to go away," one resident told the Board as a nearby church rang 12 bells at midnight. "It's not going to go away in a week, it's not going to go away in a month."

"I'm doing this only because the powers-that-be don't want to be transparent," Stein said. "They don't want the public to know what took place."

Stein was hoping to create a balanced committee, including those who agree and disagree with his stance on Lavender. He envisioned having 10 to 12 residents from town, including two lawyers to provide legal advice and "six to eight lay people in town."

"We'll elect a chairman, have an agenda, and meet at (Goodnow Library) or Town Hall or the big red barn (on my property)," he said. "We're going to investigate and report it back to the media and the town through a posting somewhere, or if we're granted time, on the agenda for the Board of Selectmen."

Stein said Haarde had already agreed to be on the committee, and that he invited Glavin or any member of the police department to be part of the committee, too.

On the social media front, resident Michael Troiano told those in attendance that night to join a special Facebook page to share their feelings and concerns if they felt town officials were not hearing them.

"There are plenty of opinions to go around about the fair consequences of that night's universally acknowledged bad judgement," Troiano said. "All Selectman Haarde asked for (Tuesday) night was a forum to get all the facts on the table, and a discussion to inform our opinions. But Chairman O'Brien and Selectman Drobinski closed ranks to refuse that request, as they have so often done with Mr. Haarde. In doing so they decided that the only opinions that mattered were their own. They may be good men, and I respect their longtime service to our town. But they have no right to place themselves above the judgement of the people they serve. Enough of us are mad enough about that to do something about it, and the Facebook group gives us a platform to coordinate and focus our efforts toward the best outcome for Sudbury."

Haarde met with Glavin to ask questions related to the Lavender incident and left the meeting convinced the officers who worked that night did everything 'by the book.'

"The Chief gave all details, and I've been confident all along they did the right thing," Haarde said. "I've always had the utmost confidence in the Sudbury Police Department and I never questioned their actions or decisions. My frustration is that the people of Sudbury don’t know all the facts and that is causing many to question what happened."

Trying to be transparent

Chief Glavin appeared at June 26 Selectmen's meeting to discuss the warning letter he sent to Lavender.

After O'Brien again recused himself, the meeting was in Haarde's hands.

"The penalty phase is over," Haarde said, referring to the written warning that was issued to Lavender's shortly after the violation. "We have now moved into the resolution phase."

"We need to move on as a community. We are all in this together," said Drobinski.

Rust's accident had been the subject of concern among residents, who asked why town officials whom they suspect of having known that she allegedly had too much to drink did not prevent her from driving.

"I try to stay consistent with what we have done in the past. I didn't want to overdo it, I didn't want to underdo it," Glavin said, regarding the warning letter he sent to Lavender's, which he said was the same as would have been received by any other business accused of the same violation. He said liquor license violations occur infrequently in Sudbury, and in cases where businesses have received warning letters regarding a violation, they corrected the situation without a second incident.

"This is Sudbury," Haarde agreed.  "We don't want to live in a police state, where someone is getting handcuffs slapped on them for being a few minutes late."

"We had the early crowd come in to watch the Red Sox, and many stayed to watch the basketball playoff games," said Fong, who said that his understanding was that he was allowed to serve alcohol until 1 a.m. that night. He said Lavender normally closes at 10 p.m., but is allowed to stay open until 1 a.m. during special events, which include sports games, such as the basketball playoffs.

He described the time-line of events, which he said included a last call at 12:45 a.m. He said by 1:10, staff members were still finalizing bills for customers.

"I lost track of time," Fong said, describing several interruptions by various people, including two police officers who arrived at about 1:10 a.m. "It turned out that time was moving faster than I realized."

He said earlier that evening, he turned down a woman's request to be served because it was clear that she had already had too much to drink and should not consume additional alcohol. He said he learned from the officers that a woman, later identified as Rust, who had been at Lavender's was involved in an alleged OUI accident a short time later.

"It was a private party but it was open to the public," Fong said, in response to a question about whether the gathering in his business on May 9 constituted a private party. His attorney said Fong did tell the intoxicated woman "this is a private party" as an excuse to get her to leave.

Fong described a scene in which patrons were taking their time in leaving as the restaurant was ready to close for the night.

"I didn't want to be rude about it, and say, 'Hey, get up,'" Fong said, as he described several polite attempts encouraging patrons to move along a little faster. He said as a business, Lavender couldn’t afford to be discourteous to customers.

Grande objected to the meeting being open to questions and comments from the public, noting that it would be unusual for a business owner to be subject to public interrogation at an official meeting.

"They're not addressing any questions to Mr. Fong, they're addressing them to me," said Haarde, who took over as chairman after O'Brien recused himself and left the room. "I'll give him the option of answering questions, but he can decline."

Fong answered a question from a resident about whether he had spoken with O'Brien "to get their stories straight" by saying he had not. He said that since Lavender is public, O'Brien could go there anytime he chooses.

"I've had people come to me and say they saw Fong and O'Brien talking in the parking lot the next day," said Stein.

"In the 50 years I've lived in Sudbury I've never seen anything as contentious as this," said resident Susan Bistany. "There are people screaming for resignations, while other people are saying let's just forget the whole thing. At this point, I don't see where we are going from here."

Push for 3 to 5 begins

As questions from residents continued to flood the Selectmen's meetings,

Troiano started petitioning for a Special Town Meeting to seek changes on the Board of Selectmen and holding sitting officials accountable for their actions.

"What made me angry at first, though, and what's compelled me to stay involved since then, was their eagerness to just make this whole issue go away, and the ease with which they seemed able to," Troiano said. "The events of May 9 angered enough residents that 20 of us showed up for a (Board of Selectmen) meeting, and stayed till 11:30 to see what was going on. Then O'Brien recused himself, and Drobinski refused Haarde's request to pursue the issue further. Seriously? Like we were all going to go home like sad sheep, and that would be the end of it? I don't think so."

Troiano proposed four articles for review for a Special Town Meeting:

1. Censure - Giving the town an official means to censure sitting officials;
2. Recall - Giving the town a means to expel sitting officials;
3. Board of Selectmen expansion - From three sitting members to five, to avoid a situation similar to the Lavender violation where a single recusal keeps the decision-making body from making decisions;
4. Term Limits - Capping the total number of years someone can sit on the Board of Selectmen to four.

"To be honest, I don't have a personal beef with Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Drobinski. I assume they're good enough guys, and that they've done their best running the town for a long time now," Troiano said. "I sincerely respect their willingness to serve the community I'm raising my family in, and I mean that."

Haarde said he would be in favor of the Board expanding to five members.

"'Lavendergate' was the spark that set this off where the town was effectively paralyzed by the recusal of one selectman and the presence of two others who don’t agree," said Troiano. "I think that caused some acute pain for some people. And frankly I think there have been other issues. Everything from the whole Johnson Farm thing, to the ongoing questions about the sewer, and even the Mrs. J situation … I think people are hungry for more voices in the decisions being made by the town, and that’s a big part of the drive to go from three to five. More representatives will give us more representation, and I think it’s hard to argue with that."

Troiano spent days refining the message that he and others in town wanted to share in why the increase is important.

"We’re trying to make sure we’re delivering our message in the same way and in different places we need to deliver it to rally our constituents and get them to the meeting," he said. "That’s what it really comes down to. It’s less of an argument about the folks that are there and more about our ability to tell all the folks who want to make this happen to go to (Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School) on (Sept. 24) to make it (happen)."

Troiano said he expected those who have been in office for some time would make it hard for this change to happen.

"I think we’ll encounter resistance from people whose power will be diluted by this change," he said. "I believe that will be our biggest obstacle because there’s precedence on past occasions when this has been brought up and each time it’s been reprimanded against and it’s been defeated."

The last time an increase was attempted was in 2010. Troiano thinks the challenges that were met then would be handled better this time.

"With all do respect to those who drove the initiative then, I think a lot of this comes down to execution of the campaign," he said. "With the addition of social media we have new tools to spread information more quickly. I think the environment of the town has changed. It’s more positive. From my standpoint, more people are open to a new approach to adding some new voices to the debate."

Another issue of concern was voter turnout. In 2011, there were 2,967 votes cast, representing 25 percent of the town's 11,807 registered voters. In 2012, there were 3,387 votes cast, representing approximately 29 percent of the town's 11,843 registered voters.

Troiano knew getting more residents to vote could have been the deciding factor.

"We’re in the process of doing that right now through a whole bunch of channels trying to get the word out," he said. "This really started like a grassroots effort by a couple of folks who were in that initial meeting and then out of that came this 'Lavendergate' idea. And now we have a constituency of folks who feel there is a need for some kind of change in town. We’ve broken off into smaller groups and are tackling individual pieces of the puzzle. There was a group that pitched in to get the petitions done. (We got) 264 names in a little less than 72 hours without a whole lot of difficulty. Part of it now is getting another group of folks to formulate the message about going from three to five selectmen. Now we’re in the process of developing the materials and rallying the troupes."

3 to 5 Passes: Part I

with Article 4, voting whether to increase the Board by two, in the spotlight. Residents were so captivated by Lavendergate, the auditorium at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School overflowed into two other rooms across the hall. Those who objected to movement would later call this a "flash mob."

Troiano began by discussing the benefits of having a larger board.

Despite what had been said in past Selectmen meetings, both Drobinski and O'Brien voted against the measure due to its process, while Haarde voted in favor.

Resident Stan Kaplan offered an amendment to Article 4, stating he didn't like the process of the increase and that the vote should go to annual town meeting.

Resident Bob Abrams countered Kaplan's argument, saying the amendment was a bad idea because of inaccurate facts.

The vote on the amendment failed, allowing the town to vote on the main motion, which passed overwhelmingly.

But the movement didn't end there.

in the Massachusetts legislature Sudbury's Special Act to increase the number of selectmen in town from three to five. The bill was  assigned H4471. The House Clerk was expected to assign the bill to the House Rules Committee for review and evaluation, and then to the House Steering and Policy Committee for assignment to a substantive committee, most likely the Joint Committee on Election Laws.

"This was passed by town meeting, and it's the obligation of the legislators to file and work as hard as possible to pass the bill, and that's what I’m doing now."

State Sen. Susan Fargo planned to be cooperative with the bill, but admitted she had questions about its language.

"The revised bill requires a ballot vote in Sudbury on whether to increase the board of selectmen from three members to five at the next regular annual town election, which will occur in March 2013," Conroy said. "According to the revised bill, if a majority of voters favor the increase, an election for two additional selectmen must occur no later than the subsequent annual town election, which will occur in March 2014.  The language of the bill allows for a special election during 2013, initiated either by citizen petition with the requisite number of signatures, or by vote of the selectmen."

3 to 5 Passes: Part II

The vote passed overwhelmingly for a second time, 1,936-625, with 120 blanks.

“I'm incredibly pleased the people of Sudbury chose to make this important change, that they again expressed their desire for more representation, and again called for more transparency and accountability in the decisions made on their behalf,” said Troiano. “Too many citizens to name were involved in the effort to bring about this change, but I'd specifically like to recognize Pat Brown, Joel and Carrie Malo, Chris and Shanti Skiffington, Dan DePompei, John Kohler, Sarah Troiano, Bryan Semple, Bob Haarde, Bob Abrams, Larry Jobson, Scott Nassa, Molly and Steve Logan, Doreen Neale, Siobhan Hullinger, Art and Mara Huston, Joanne and Mark Minassian, Markian Pawluk, Marianne Reardon, Bob Stein, Pepper and Krista Riley, Renata Pomponi and our 900 or so neighbors on the One Sudbury Facebook Group for standing behind this effort from the beginning.”

“It was an overwhelming response,” Haarde said. “Some call it a flash mob, others call it democracy. I hope it’s the beginning of a new era for Sudbury, with transparency and inclusion.”

Holding the local and state election (Massachusetts residents will vote to fill John Kerry's U.S. Senate seat) on the same day will require more work for Town Clerk Rosemary Harvell.

Her office will need to hire more poll workers, but she said she expects to use the same number of police officers and vote-counting machines, which would make it a cheaper option than scheduling the local election on another day.

"It's just two elections happening at the same time," she said.

Voters can expect to see separate voting ballots and voting booths at each of the polling locations.

Additional ballot questions will be allowed depending on what articles are passed at Annual Town Meeting on May 6, Harvell said.

Of the two new Board members, one seat will have a term of two years while the other three years.

"We’ve had long discussions over the last year," Drobinski said. "Everything has been discussed, I say move forward."

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Ann Kenda contributed to this report.)