The Sudbury Monitor

In May, Sudbury voters passed a citizen petition to create a recall process for elected town officials, over the Select Board’s opposition.[1] Within two weeks, the board released a legal memo laying out how it might respond – including appointing a committee to draft “revisions to the Petition, or an alternative special act” that “could be included on a future Town Meeting warrant.”[2] The board is now weighing whether to hold that fall Town Meeting, with a public hearing set for July 14 – one week before the Legislature takes up the recall bill itself.

Here is what the public record shows, in order.

• May 20 – At the Special Town Meeting, voters passed the Article 3 recall petition, 474 to 394 (certified Town Clerk count).[1] The Select Board had opposed the measure, 4 to 1.
• May 30 – The town’s law firm, KP Law, sent Town Manager Andrew Sheehan a memo titled “Next Steps for Recall Special Act.” It advised that Town Meeting cannot compel the board to act, that the board or any resident may forward the certified vote to the Legislature, and that the board could appoint a committee to consider “revisions to the Petition, or an alternative special act” that “could be included on a future Town Meeting warrant.”[2]
• June 2 – The board voted to release that memo and to forward the certified results to Sudbury’s legislative delegation. For the recall article, it attached its own statement opposing the measure to the transmittal letter; the letters for the other two state articles were sent without a comparable statement.[3]
• June 3 – The letters went to Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Carmine Gentile, copying town counsel. Rep. Gentile replied that the recall petition would be “processed in the normal course” once it reached him by mail.[4]
• June 22 – Rep. Gentile and Sen. Eldridge filed the petition at the State House as House Bill 5521, “An Act providing for recall elections in the town of Sudbury.” The House referred it to the Joint Committee on Election Laws; the Senate concurred on June 25.[5]
• July 14 – Under Chapter 68, Section 3 of the town bylaws,[6] the Select Board holds a public hearing on whether to call a fall Town Meeting, and must decide by the end of July. Written input is due by noon July 6.[7]
• July 21 – The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Election Laws holds a public hearing on H.5521 – one week after the town’s fall-meeting hearing.[8]

The memo did more than answer the question. The board asked its law firm, KP Law, a narrow question: the Select Board’s “obligations, if any” toward the recall voters had just passed. The short answer was that it had none – nothing in state law requires the board to act, and Town Meeting “cannot compel” it. But the memo did not stop there. Under “next steps to consider,” it set out how the board could push back on a measure it opposed: attach a cover letter registering its position to the filing, which the board did, and, if it “wishes to further examine the concept of recall,” appoint a committee to draft “revisions to the Petition, or an alternative special act” for “a future Town Meeting warrant.” That committee, the memo noted, could revisit the very terms the voters had set – “how many signatures should be required,” “whether to include a minimum turnout requirement” – and “could be appointed even if the Petition is filed with the General Court.”[2] The May 30 memo capped roughly six weeks of legal work: the town’s bills show KP Law researching the recall, and other Massachusetts towns’ recall acts, from mid-April on – before Article 3 even passed.[12] For a memo answering a basic question – what must we do? – it reads less like a neutral opinion than a roadmap for unwinding a vote the board had lost.

What happens next. The board has not announced what a fall meeting would take up. In June, town officials described a fall Special Town Meeting as “nothing that we’re planning, but it is out there,” and no committee has brought forward warrant articles for one. But a fall Town Meeting is exactly the venue where a committee’s “future Town Meeting warrant” would land.

That puts several levers within reach before the recall becomes law. A fall Town Meeting could revise or replace it, along the path the board’s own memo named. At the July 21 hearing, the Joint Committee on Election Laws can report H.5521 favorably, amend it, or send it “to study” – the last of which effectively shelves it for the session, and is the outcome opponents can ask for in testimony.[8] The order of the dates sharpens that option: the board decides whether to reopen the recall locally on July 14, a week before the hearing, so it can face the committee with the town already moving to revise the measure. And timing works against speed: the Legislature’s formal sessions typically wind down at the end of July, so a bill first heard on July 21 is unlikely to be enacted quickly, and home-rule petitions that carry local approval often pass later, in the fall informal sessions, where a single objection can stall one.

The version voters approved was not loose drafting. Recall is common in Massachusetts – dozens of communities have adopted it – and Sudbury’s 10 percent signature threshold, about 1,435 certified signatures in 28 days, is the most common bar among the towns that have it; some require as little as 5 percent, others 20 percent or more.[9] Town Meeting turned down an amendment to double Sudbury’s to 20 percent. Leaving out specific grounds was a choice too: under the petition, voters, not a board or town counsel, decide whether an official’s conduct warrants removal.[10] These were deliberate choices, not loose ends for a committee to tidy up.

The board opposed this recall before the vote – it went on record against it 4 to 1, and Select Board member Janie Dretler argued against Article 3 in a published op-ed[11] – and lost. In the weeks since, it has positioned itself to revise that result: it clipped its own opposing statement to the recall transmittal and not the other two articles, released a memo naming a “future Town Meeting warrant” as the route to rewrite the petition, and set its fall-meeting hearing for the week before the Legislature takes up the bill. The board that lost this vote now holds the levers that could revise or delay it, and a head start on using them.

Both dates are open to the public, and both turn partly on who shows up. The fall-meeting decision on July 14 and the committee hearing on July 21 each take resident input – here is how to be heard on each, and by when.

How to weigh in on the fall meeting. The board is accepting written comments through noon on Monday, July 6, to be considered at its July 14 meeting (7 p.m.). Email SBadmin@sudbury.ma.us with “Fall 2026 Special Town Meeting” in the subject line, or mail the Select Board’s Office at 278 Old Sudbury Road – include your name, address, and whether you think the town should hold a fall meeting.[7]

How to testify on the bill. The Election Laws Committee’s July 21 hearing on H.5521 is a hybrid hearing and can be watched live on the Legislature’s website. To speak, sign up to testify orally by 5 p.m. Monday, July 20. Written testimony is accepted until noon Tuesday, July 28 – by email to Emerson.Gagnon@masenate.gov and Karen.Rooney@mahouse.gov, or by mail to the Joint Committee on Election Laws, 24 Beacon Street, Room 413-F, Boston, MA 02133.[8]

Sources

1. Town of Sudbury, 2026 Special Town Meeting results – Article 3 recall, 474 to 394 (certified Town Clerk count). results ↩
2. KP Law memorandum to Town Manager Andrew Sheehan, “Next Steps for Recall Special Act,” May 30, 2026 (released in the June 2, 2026 Select Board packet, pp. 76-78). memo (PDF) ↩
3. Select Board meeting of June 2, 2026 – vote to release the memo and transmit the certified results, with the board’s opposing statement attached to the recall letter but not to the other two articles. SudburyTV recording ↩
4. June 3, 2026 transmittal letters to Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Rep. Carmine Gentile, and Rep. Gentile’s reply, obtained through a public records request. correspondence (PDF) ↩
5. Massachusetts Legislature, House Bill 5521 (194th General Court), “An Act providing for recall elections in the town of Sudbury” – filed June 22, 2026; referred to the Joint Committee on Election Laws; Senate concurred June 25. malegislature.gov ↩
6. Sudbury General Bylaws, Chapter 68, Section 3 (calling a Town Meeting), quoted in the town’s June 2026 Select Board packet. town bylaws ↩
7. Town of Sudbury, “Select Board Seeks Input on STM Fall 2026,” posted June 3, 2026 – written comment due noon July 6, to be considered at the July 14 meeting. town notice; see also Jessie Castellano, “Sudbury Select Board Seeks Input On Fall Town Meeting,” Patch, June 4, 2026. ↩
8. Massachusetts Legislature, Joint Committee on Election Laws, public hearing July 21, 2026 (Hearing 5735), 1-4 p.m., Room A-1 – H.5521 on the agenda; oral testimony sign-up by 5 p.m. July 20, written testimony by noon July 28. hearing detail ↩
9. Massachusetts has no general recall statute; municipalities adopt recall by home-rule charter or special act, and terms vary widely. On prevalence and thresholds: Massachusetts Municipal Association / Rappaport Institute, “Dispelling the Myth of Home Rule” (2004); Ballotpedia, “Laws governing recall in Massachusetts”; Town of Andover, peer recall-threshold survey (2021). MMA – Ballotpedia – Andover survey (PDF) ↩
10. 2026 Special Town Meeting warrant, Article 3, “An Act Providing for Recall Elections in the Town of Sudbury” – 10 percent signature threshold; no enumerated grounds. warrant (PDF) ↩
11. Janie Dretler, “May 20 Special Town Meeting Vote: Getting Recall Right for Sudbury,” Sudbury Weekly, May 8, 2026 (opposing Article 3). archived copy ↩
12. KP Law, P.C. invoice 159372, professional services through May 31, 2026, to Town Manager Andrew Sheehan – recall research and memorandum entries dated April 15 to May 30, 2026; town legal bills obtained through a public records request. invoice excerpt (PDF) ↩