Sudbury, MA

The short version

• The Select Board voted 5-0 not to call a fall Town Meeting. Residents had written in opposition, concerned that a fall meeting could provide a venue to revisit the recall charter amendment Town Meeting approved 474-394 in May. That possibility had been identified in a legal memo obtained by the board, which described a “future Town Meeting warrant” as one route for proposed revisions or an alternative special act.
• A new Open Meeting Law complaint has been filed against the Select Board. The board is not scheduled to meet within the 14-business-day response period, so town counsel is seeking an extension until August 13. The complainant, the conduct challenged, and the alleged violation were not identified during the meeting.
• Member Dan Carty challenged the board’s enforcement of the town’s Code of Conduct after the Housing Authority chair reacted with “oh my god” and twice with “jesus christ” during a June 30 joint meeting. Carty said Chair Janie Dretler denied his request for an agenda item acknowledging a policy violation.

The Sudbury Select Board met remotely July 14, with all five members present and Dretler presiding.[1][2]

No Fall Town Meeting

The board declined to call a fall Town Meeting, the venue some residents had worried could be used to revisit the recall charter amendment. Sudbury’s bylaws require the board to address the question each year. Dretler read Section 68-3 into the record, which requires the board to hold a public hearing and vote by the end of July on whether a fall Town Meeting should occur.[3] The bylaw also directs the board to solicit written public input for one week before the hearing. (0:27:08)

Town Manager Andy Sheehan said there was no administrative reason to convene one. “We have no articles that have been submitted or suggested by town staff, and I’m not aware of any from town committees, so from our perspective there’s no burning need for a fall town meeting.” (0:29:01)

The public-input period[8] drew 16 written comments.[2] All but two opposed calling a fall meeting, and none asked for one. Ten warned specifically that a fall session could become the vehicle to revisit or undo Article 3, the recall charter amendment approved 474-394 in May.[4] Others cited the cost of holding a third Town Meeting this year or objected that the board’s legal guidance contemplated changes to a decision voters had already made. Most were written individually, though several followed a shared template.

Member Lisa Kouchakdjian responded to the letters. “People have been told that the Select Board wants to overturn the results of the special town meeting, which I think is unfortunate. That’s, again, misinformation and disinformation to the community,” she said. “I’m sorry if people were told that, but if they were told that, they were told that erroneously.” (0:29:50)

Kouchakdjian did not identify what statement she considered misinformation. The board did not discuss the concern actually raised in the letters: that a fall Town Meeting could provide a venue to revisit the recall. None of the letters was quoted or read aloud during the hearing, although at least eight writers had asked that their submissions be read into the record.[2] Dretler later confirmed that the letters were in the meeting packet. (1:03:53)

The possibility residents raised came from the board’s own record. The Select Board had opposed Article 3 by a vote of 4 to 1, Dretler had argued against it in a published opinion, and the board had attached its opposition to the article’s transmittal to the Legislature.[5] Its legal memo[6] described appointing a committee to prepare “revisions to the Petition, or an alternative special act” for inclusion on “a future Town Meeting warrant,” including possible changes to the signature requirement and the addition of a minimum-turnout requirement.

The July 14 packet added two related items. Draft minutes from May 20 record Dretler saying Articles 3 and 4 had “not been fully vetted” and required a “whole/holistic” review.[2] The board’s list of potential upcoming business included a “charter review discussion with KP Law,” the firm that prepared the recall memo, and “Town Meeting bylaw review and amendments.”[2]

None of that established that the board intended to use a fall Town Meeting to change the recall provision. It did mean that residents raising the possibility were relying on statements and options contained in the board’s own materials.

The board then voted unanimously, on Dretler’s motion, not to convene a fall Town Meeting. “Radha Gargeya, no. Charlie Russo, no. Dan Carty, no. Lisa Kouchakdjian, no. And Dretler, no,” Dretler said. “Okay, so that is a 5-0 vote to not hold a fall town meeting.” (0:34:58)

Open Meeting Law Complaint Filed

A new Open Meeting Law complaint has been filed against the Select Board. Dretler raised it while reviewing the board’s upcoming calendar.

“I did see that we got an OML come in. We’ve got 14 days to meet and discuss that. So do we have to call another meeting before August 11th?” (2:46:36)

Sheehan said town counsel would ask the Division of Open Government for an extension until August 13, two days after the board’s next scheduled meeting. He said counsel had advised that such extensions are commonly granted. (2:47:32)

The complainant, the conduct challenged, and the alleged violation were not identified on the record. A later discussion of amendments to the board’s May 20 minutes appeared to connect the complaint to statements made by board members about the recall articles and to a Town Meeting remark by member Charlie Russo. The full complaint was not presented, however, and its precise allegations could not be determined from the discussion.

The complaint is against the Select Board and is separate from the Open Meeting Law complaints involving the School Committee.

Carty Challenges Enforcement of Conduct Policy

Carty returned to the board’s June 30 joint meeting with the Sudbury Housing Authority and pressed the board to enforce the town’s Code of Conduct. He read from the policy, which states that members “are expected to maintain and enforce respectful discourse” with other officials, town employees, volunteers, and members of the public. (0:10:58)

Carty then recounted the joint session, previously covered by the Monitor[7], at which the two boards voted to fill a vacant Housing Authority seat. “When I motioned for Alicia Carrillo as the possible Sudbury Housing Authority member, current SHA chair Tatiana Vitvitsky responded with an audible, quote, ‘oh my god,’” he said. (0:12:42)

Carty said Vitvitsky later interrupted Russo with “jesus christ” and interrupted him with “oh jesus christ.” (0:12:49) He also said Dretler denied his request to place the matter on the agenda. “I requested an agenda item for tonight that acknowledged that policy violation, but was denied that request by Chair Dretler,” he said. (0:13:15)

He argued that written policies have little value without enforcement. “Policies and handbooks should be more than just words on paper, but without action and follow-up, that’s exactly what they are,” he said. “I’m not sure why we waste our time writing handbooks and updating policies when we consciously do not take action on them when that action is warranted.” (0:13:59)

Carty disclosed that Vitvitsky had sent the board an apology about a week after the meeting, after his agenda request had been denied. He said she should also apologize to Carrillo. (0:14:21)

Dretler responded by pointing to a separate provision of the policy governing removal from appointed office. “I did not receive a request from any board member for removal of a member of any other committee,” she said. “If we’re going to hold people accountable, we also need to hold ourselves accountable as well.” (0:15:50)

Carty had not requested Vitvitsky’s removal. He said he had requested an agenda item acknowledging a violation of the policy.

Economic Development and the Tax Base

A discussion of the board’s goals turned to the purpose of economic development and Sudbury’s residential-heavy tax base. Gargeya proposed adding an economic-development goal, and Carty argued that the board should define the intended result numerically.

“I have to imagine it is to swing that split of the tax base from 91% residential, 9% other, to something other than 91-9,” he said. “Is it 90-10? Is it 80-20? There’s huge differences, huge, massive differences between those two things.” (1:38:28)

Carty also argued that additional housing would increase the residential share of the tax base rather than reduce it. Russo urged the board to seek Sheehan’s assessment before turning individual proposals into formal goals, warning that goals could become members’ “individual pet projects.” (1:32:19)

Manager Evaluation and “Debris”

The board reviewed Sheehan’s evaluation favorably and scheduled discussion of a composite score for August 11. During the discussion, Sheehan referred to the “debris that gets in the way of accomplishing our work.” (2:17:13)

“There are things that I think don’t deserve the amount of time that they’re given,” he said, naming Sewataro, the evaluation process itself, and the gun bylaw. The gun bylaw, he said, “took up an enormous amount of time, and was probably more, had more negative effects than positive effects.” (2:18:06)

Sewataro Survey in Development

The board also received an update from the Liberty Ledge and Sewataro advisory committee. At its June 24 public-input session, continued camp operations received a weighted score of 156, compared with 23 for the next-highest option. (0:53:04) Management analyst James Goudie-Murray said the committee is using the results to prepare a town-wide survey. (0:55:37)

Town Meeting rejected Article 19, which proposed a study of the property, by a vote of 200-75. The advisory committee’s report is due October 31.[9] The Monitor will publish a separate recap of the committee’s meeting.

Other Business

The board approved a $7.7 million short-term note sale to Piper Sandler & Co. at a 3.75 percent coupon. The borrowing will finance the Atkinson pool project and roof replacements at the Haynes and Nixon schools, all of which the finance director said were coming in under budget.

The board also adopted updated policies concerning citations and proclamations, collective bargaining, and public comment, and approved amended minutes from May 20.

Sources

1. Sudbury Select Board meeting, July 14, 2026 – SudburyTV/Castus recording. SudburyTV recording ↩
2. Town of Sudbury, Select Board meeting agenda and packet, July 14, 2026 – the 16 written public comments appear at packet pages 22-39; the draft May 20 minutes at 112-113; the upcoming-business list at 115. meeting page, full packet (PDF) ↩
3. Sudbury General Bylaws, Section 68-3 (calling a Town Meeting). town bylaws ↩
4. Town of Sudbury, 2026 Special Town Meeting results – Article 3 recall, 474 to 394 (certified Town Clerk count). results ↩
5. Sudbury Monitor, “Sudbury Voters Passed a Recall. The Board That Opposed It Holds the Levers,” July 1, 2026 (the board’s 4-1 opposition, the chair’s published op-ed, and the legal memo). Sudbury Monitor ↩
6. 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). memo (PDF) ↩
7. Sudbury Monitor, “Select Board Update: June 30, 2026” (the joint Select Board / Housing Authority meeting). Sudbury Monitor ↩
8. Town of Sudbury, “Select Board Seeks Input on STM Fall 2026,” posted June 3, 2026. town notice ↩
9. Sudbury Monitor, Sewataro File (Article 19 study defeated 200-75; advisory committee report due Oct. 31, 2026). Sewataro File ↩