The Sudbury Monitor

633 Pieces of “News,” Zero Opinions: Inside the Sudbury Weekly

Editor

The Sudbury Monitor

[Editor’s Note: See our new “Records” Page for direct access to the records cited in this article.]

For seventy-one years, Sudbury had a newspaper. The Town Crier was founded in 1951 and did what local papers do: it staffed a newsroom, sent reporters to meetings they found boring, ran corrections when it got things wrong, and kept an editor between every writer and the town. It was not always good. It did not need to be. It needed to be separate, from the boards it covered, from the factions it quoted, from the outcomes it reported. On May 5, 2022, Gannett printed the Crier’s last paper edition and folded it into a digital shell, the same month it did the same to a dozen other Massachusetts weeklies. Nobody replaced the newsroom.

What replaced it was blogs. Fourteen weeks later, on August 12, 2022, a new site called the Sudbury Weekly published its first article. It has since become the closest thing the town has to a paper of record – and for the past year its dominant subject has been the Sudbury Public Schools committee, through a superintendent’s negotiated exit, a recall petition, a no-confidence vote, and a Special Town Meeting.

A newspaper’s value was never that its writers had no opinions. It was that the institution had a structure for keeping opinions labeled, edited, and answerable. The Sudbury Weekly presents itself as that kind of institution. It runs a News section and an Opinion section. It publishes a written content policy with rules. It looks like a paper. It is not one. Here is what its own archive shows.

One byline, zero opinions

More than half of everything the Sudbury Weekly has ever published was written by one person: its operator, Kevin LaHaise. He wrote 74 percent of everything the site has ever labeled “News.” (The rest of the masthead is thin and mostly civic: a League of Women Voters partnership account runs voter guides and election logistics; a handful of residents contribute a piece or two each.)

The Weekly also has an Opinion section, including 206 pieces from more than a hundred different residents, by far the most byline-diverse part of the site. LaHaise has published zero of them. In nearly four years, the author of three-quarters of the town’s “News” has never once filed under his own site’s Opinion label.

Where, then, do his opinions appear?

What “News” contains

They appear in the News. The Weekly’s signature move is a piece that opens as a routine recap and, somewhere past the midpoint, turns into the author’s own argument. Read these – all filed as News, all his:

  • “After-School Care Changes Or Options Could Be Coming To Sudbury” (March 2, 2026) opens on what it calls “a fairly routine endeavor” – the district’s after-school contract going out to bid – and escalates into the author’s own, unattributed reading of the state procurement statute: the incumbent provider’s effort to rally parents to a School Committee meeting is a “potentially risky endeavor” that “could be perceived as… anticompetitive,” and the district “may need to proceed with extreme caution.” It published the morning of the very meeting the provider had asked its supporters to attend. Three days later, the district’s law firm sent that provider a cease-and-desist letter – copying Chair Jones.
  • Inaccurate Petition Barrels Into SPS Public Comments (March 3, 2026) is a point-by-point prosecution of a residents’ petition, in the author’s own words: “egregious false assertions,” “desperate,” “comical falsehoods,” language that “defies common sense and arithmetic.” It is the single most opinion-dense piece of “News” anywhere on the site. Note the headline’s premise – a petition “barreling into SPS public comments.” Yet the public comment at that March 2 meeting ran heavily the other way: of the roughly thirteen residents who spoke, every one spoke in support of the superintendent or the after-school provider – the side the petition was on – and not one defended the committee. The committee’s own rebuttal lived in its meeting packet and in the Weekly, not at the microphone.

We are not the first to notice the Weekly editorializes. What the records now let us show is the part that was hidden: where the “news” in these pieces actually comes from.

The chair writes the first draft

Take the “Inaccurate Petition” story. The petition it demolishes turned on whether the schools faced a roughly $9 million override. Here is how the Weekly came to “report” that it did not:

  • March 1 – Chair Karyn Jones emails the town manager and the assistant town manager: “I am hoping you can provide insight if [the petition] is correct on the $9 million override. Please advise.”
  • March 2, 2:11 PM – Assistant Town Manager Victor Garofalo replies: “There is no factual basis for a $9M projected override requirement… not supported by the data presented at the public meetings.”
  • March 2, 2:22 PM – eleven minutes later, Jones forwards Garofalo’s reply to the Sudbury Weekly. The body of her email is blank.

The next day, the Weekly’s “Inaccurate Petition” story ran the override “fact-check” against the residents’ petition. Two weeks later it went further: “Memo Debunks “$9M Override” Disinformation” quoted Garofalo’s conclusion word for word – the figure was “not supported by the data presented at the public meetings” – and credited it to the committee’s March 16 meeting packet, never telling readers the chair had forwarded that same rebuttal to the Weekly a fortnight earlier. The chair solicited the correction, received it, and routed it to the outlet; readers were told only that the petition’s math was “inaccurate” and “debunked,” never that the rebuttal had been requested by, and came from, the official the petition was aimed at.

She did it again days later. On March 4, Jones sent LaHaise a committee member’s Open Meeting Law complaint – the one alleging the chair had mishandled the superintendent’s exit – already framed as filed “in her individual capacity.” On March 6 she sent him counsel’s response to it. The Weekly built its story, “SPS Committee Member May Have Leaked Content Of Recent Executive Sessions,” around both, embedding counsel’s response thirteen days before its own records request for the same document was answered. The complaint, the framing, and the rebuttal all arrived from the official they concerned – and the member he put under that headline had used the public records process; the chair feeding him the coverage never had to.

This pattern – the chair supplies, the Weekly prints – is not the exception. The data shows what it produces at scale.

The inversion

A graph depicting the change in article coverage by the Weekly before and after the March 31, 2025 election, showing a shift from 7 critical and 0 aligned articles to 0 critical and 24 aligned articles.

The 2025 election handed control of the School Committee to Karyn Jones and the members who vote with her. Since then, not one piece of “News” has scrutinized the committee. Not one. The count, both eras:

  • Before the 2025 election: 7 pieces critical of the then-sitting committee, 0 aligned with it.
  • After the 2025 election: 0 pieces critical of the sitting committee, 24 aligned with it.

The coverage did not mellow, and it did not sharpen. It switched sides, completely, in both directions, on the same date.

This is not because the Weekly cannot do adversarial work. It demonstrably can: “SPS School Committee: Do As We Say, Not As We Do” (September 2023), “SPS Discusses Not Discussing Things They Might Want to Discuss” (November 2024), a 2,800-word “School Committee Implodes” investigation (February 2025): hard-edged, receipt-laden coverage, every bit of it aimed at the committee that preceded the current one. The fact-checks, the loaded headlines, the gotcha sidebars – none of it went away after the election. Only the target changed.

A chart displaying 24 colored squares representing article coverage, categorized by subjects such as critics, administration, and committee dissenters, with annotations indicating the count for each category.

We identified 24 School Committee “News” pieces in the current era that take the committee’s side in its own fights – against its critics, against the administration, against its own dissenting members. (Links to all of these are provided below.) Four Open Meeting Law complaints become a “deluge” being “swatted down” – by the committee’s own paid counsel, whose “the Committee did not violate the Law” is presented as the final word while the actual authority, the Attorney General’s office, had not yet ruled. A petition expressing a lack of confidence in the committee is rebutted in the author’s own voice – it “does not offer evidence.” One reflex runs through all of it: when a critic pushes, the coverage produces the lawyers.

Some of these pieces are temperate, even dull, sentence by sentence. Linguistic neutrality is not the issue. The issue is that across all of its “News,” over four years, every architectural choice that points anywhere – the headline, the premise, which claims get fact-checked, which get the last word – has pointed the same way since the current committee was seated. Measured sentence by sentence, that tilt is only undercounted: what a piece does in a headline, a premise, or an omission is a floor on the editorializing, not a ceiling.

Committee authority

On January 20, 2026, the Weekly ran a News headline declaring that the “Administration Disregards Committee Authority.” The administration, the piece said, “will do what it wants to do.” The committee’s frame was printed as fact.

Committee authority. What the town actually saw was a chair who negotiated a superintendent’s exit with no public deliberation and no recorded vote of the full committee – the very charge the residents’ petition had made, the one the Weekly branded “inaccurate.” The committee was “Bypassing District leadership,” it said, and had handled the contract “without formal agenda items, public deliberation, or a recorded vote of the full Committee.” The one actor the records show exercising authority outside the committee was the chair the coverage never scrutinized.

The week of the vote

That “inaccurate” petition did not go away. By April, the no-confidence drive – more than 400 residents had signed on – had been certified as a citizen’s petition and forced a Special Town Meeting for May 20. In the days before that meeting, the Weekly received its news.

Two of those hand-offs ran as exclusives, and neither said where it came from. The Weekly knows how to credit a source; “The press release is below,” it wrote on a routine January story – it simply chose not to on the stories that mattered.

Then the Weekly suspended its own rules. Its About page promises it stops publishing letters about Town Meeting articles one week before a Town Meeting. On May 13 and 14 – inside that blackout – it published fifteen letters on the meeting’s articles. Fourteen took the committee’s side; seven carried near-identical titles, the signature of an organized campaign. Across the full meeting window, the opinion the Weekly ran came to roughly 28 supportive to 1 critical. The town did not agree: on May 20 it voted no confidence in the committee, 452–295. The letters page and the ballot box pointed in opposite directions.

An outlet is entitled to its own rules. This one suspended them, in one direction, in the week it mattered.

The author, in his own emails

The same lean runs through LaHaise’s own emails. He is combative with the committee’s critics: he disparages the district’s records officer as “an unreliable or difficult resource” who “regularly bungles the record request process,” and he presses the dissenting member who filed the OML complaint to let him print that she hadn’t responded – reminding her that she had shared records with him back when she chaired the committee. With the chair’s side he is something else: so enmeshed with it that the district’s own records officer has to ask him to “kindly stop copying SPS Legal Counsel on your messages.” Combative with critics, deferential to power – the same inversion the data shows, in one man’s inbox.

And it is not only the chair he carries. When the town manager needed to account for public money spent on pro-solar Town Meeting signs, he handed the Weekly his own memo recasting the misuse as an “unintentional misunderstanding” – and the paper ran that framing, twice, as news.

What the town gets

Roughly a third of everything the Sudbury Weekly published, every month from November 2025 through May 2026, was School Committee–related. In May 2026 – recall and no-confidence month – it was 66 percent. For many residents this is not “a blog’s take.” It is the news, and there is no Crier left to check it against.

The Weekly does real things for this town. It shows up to meetings nobody else covers; its League of Women Voters partnership has produced over a hundred genuinely useful pieces of civic logistics; its restaurant openings and rail-trail updates are a public service. The honest description is not that the Weekly is propaganda. It is that the Weekly is two things wearing one masthead: a civic bulletin board, and a one-man editorial operation that has functioned as the chair’s outlet, written by the one person in town who produces most of its “News” and none of its labeled opinion.

The Town Crier had opinions too. What it had that the Weekly does not is a wall: between the person writing the front page and the person running the meeting on it. Sudbury didn’t lose its newspaper in 2022. It lost the wall.

Sources

Public records (full documents on The Records):

Town of Sudbury:

The seven pieces critical of the committee before the 2025 election:

The twenty-four pieces aligned with the committee after the 2025 election:

Other Sudbury Weekly items cited:

Discover more from The Sudbury Monitor

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading