Questions and Answers
Click here to ASK ME ANYTHING, and I'll answer your questions below.
Can you comment on your Finance Committee service?
I have received some good questions from folks about my service on FinCom prior to running and being elected to the Parks and Recreation Commission, on which I currently serve as Chairman. I was appointed to a one-year term on FinCom and essentially was not appointed to another term. This is actually something I am rather proud of, because I stood my ground on principles and did not buckle to the pressure of peers even if it was going to cost me an appointment. I believe the reasons I was not appointed to another term on the FinCom at that time, which is largely different in membership from the Fincom today, had to do with my lack of support for meetings that appeared to be violations of the open meeting law.
In 2008 I was appointed to a 1-year term at the FinCom, and asked to participate in the "Budget Working Group" meetings. (These meetings are referenced in the minutes of the FinCom back in 2009.) These meetings were private, though they were attended by town and school officials including at least one meeting when Larry O'Brien, John Drobinski, and Bill Keller - all three Selectmen, attended the same meeting. The main topic of these meetings was the "override" - the special permission that must be obtained from the voters in order to raise taxes more than 2.5% in any given year.
I objected to these private meetings since they were not posted as public meetings in accordance with the open meeting law, believing strongly that the public should have access to what were clearly some of the most important financial discussions of the year. After objecting, I was removed from the Budget Working Group, and asked to resign from the FinCom. My term was almost up anyway, and it was clear the real problem was with the BOS itself, I pulled papers to run for Selectman against Larry O'Brien. who was running unopposed at the time.
The FinCom leadership approached me at that time and asked that I not turn in my selectman nomination papers, suggesting that if I complied, I might be reappointed to a 3 year term and given a chance to improve things from there. I agreed, never submitted the election papers, and waited for the 3 year appointment.
It never came. The Chair of FinCom instead told me that the public does not want to see us "make the sausage," and that was the end of it. The next year I ran for Parks and Recreation instead, where I eventually became the chairman.
Sometimes you have to take a step back to go forward in the right direction. I am glad it worked out this way. The Budget Working Group is long gone and meetings like that are no longer permitted by FinCom as part of the annual budget deliberations.
Transparency and full disclosure need to be hallmarks of our town government. If elected, I will continue to push to uphold these values.
In 2008 I was appointed to a 1-year term at the FinCom, and asked to participate in the "Budget Working Group" meetings. (These meetings are referenced in the minutes of the FinCom back in 2009.) These meetings were private, though they were attended by town and school officials including at least one meeting when Larry O'Brien, John Drobinski, and Bill Keller - all three Selectmen, attended the same meeting. The main topic of these meetings was the "override" - the special permission that must be obtained from the voters in order to raise taxes more than 2.5% in any given year.
I objected to these private meetings since they were not posted as public meetings in accordance with the open meeting law, believing strongly that the public should have access to what were clearly some of the most important financial discussions of the year. After objecting, I was removed from the Budget Working Group, and asked to resign from the FinCom. My term was almost up anyway, and it was clear the real problem was with the BOS itself, I pulled papers to run for Selectman against Larry O'Brien. who was running unopposed at the time.
The FinCom leadership approached me at that time and asked that I not turn in my selectman nomination papers, suggesting that if I complied, I might be reappointed to a 3 year term and given a chance to improve things from there. I agreed, never submitted the election papers, and waited for the 3 year appointment.
It never came. The Chair of FinCom instead told me that the public does not want to see us "make the sausage," and that was the end of it. The next year I ran for Parks and Recreation instead, where I eventually became the chairman.
Sometimes you have to take a step back to go forward in the right direction. I am glad it worked out this way. The Budget Working Group is long gone and meetings like that are no longer permitted by FinCom as part of the annual budget deliberations.
Transparency and full disclosure need to be hallmarks of our town government. If elected, I will continue to push to uphold these values.
6/21/2013
Is it true that you are the only one of the five candidates that will have kids in Sudbury Public Schools?
Yes.
6/13/2013
How do you feel about consolidation of school systems?
Consolidation of our School Administrations would be an important step toward achieving long-term academic excellence, and restoring the confidence of our voters and taxpayers. If we were to consolidate the Administrations, L-S could have a dedicated HeadMaster who could focus on the school: the teachers, the students and the parents. A K-12 Superintendent would enable the funding to follow the students, instead of staying in the budget centers for which it's initially appropriated. All too often it seems L-S and SPS are playing a shell game for budget dollars, concealing appropriated but unspent funds in a tangle of independent costs centers and sub-cost centers. It would also help us overcome the practical challenge of an L-S Superintendent/Principal position that is very difficult for one person to handle. We have had people in that role who were great Principals (Headmaster) and others who were great Superintendents. We now know from experience it is difficult to be a School Principal and a District Superintendent at the same time. L-S deserves a full-time Headmaster to focus on the school and a full-time Superintendent to plan for long-term sustainable excellence.
Continuity of education, student transition, and curriculum planning are just some of the additional educational benefits which would result from a K-12 system. The synergies and budget oversight would allow the investment of more money in the classroom and improve our ability to manage year to year fluctuations in spending and funding. Since the vast majority of the Commonwealth and nation utilize a K-12 Administrative model (including Concord-Carlisle, Acton-Boxborough, Dover-Sherborn and Northborough-Southborough...) it would be hard to imagine that it would not be successful here. Hiring for a K-12 Superintendent for the first time since the 1960's would also open up a broad new market of high-caliber candidates to whom we have not had access in recent searches for the K-8 and 9-12 partial districts for which we currently hire. Although some may argue that this needs to be studied forever like the rail trail, I see many educational benefits in this widely used K-12 model which also achieves economies of scale to allow for more investment in sustainable excellence. This is a winner.
Continuity of education, student transition, and curriculum planning are just some of the additional educational benefits which would result from a K-12 system. The synergies and budget oversight would allow the investment of more money in the classroom and improve our ability to manage year to year fluctuations in spending and funding. Since the vast majority of the Commonwealth and nation utilize a K-12 Administrative model (including Concord-Carlisle, Acton-Boxborough, Dover-Sherborn and Northborough-Southborough...) it would be hard to imagine that it would not be successful here. Hiring for a K-12 Superintendent for the first time since the 1960's would also open up a broad new market of high-caliber candidates to whom we have not had access in recent searches for the K-8 and 9-12 partial districts for which we currently hire. Although some may argue that this needs to be studied forever like the rail trail, I see many educational benefits in this widely used K-12 model which also achieves economies of scale to allow for more investment in sustainable excellence. This is a winner.
via Sudbury Patch - 6/12/2013
With the large number of multi-unit 40b developments concentrated within 1/2 mile of Landham and Route 20, what would you do to further limit dense housing developments in this neighborhood and repeats in others so as to adhere to the town's Master Plan that states that the goals of the Master Plan should not put an undue hardship on any one neighborhood?
We need to do a better job of planning. We could have prevented the Landham Crossing development since Sudbury paid for the right-of-first-refusal on that property. That was the only 40B property which Sudbury had control over and we acquiesced to a high-density family 40B which does very little to help us achieve our goal of 10%. All the other 40Bs being planned for this section of town we cannot prevent. There are 5 new 40B developments for this congested section of town representing 261 units of housing. Quite Frankly, this is bad planning.
The only guaranteed way to prevent a 40B is to achieve 10% and adopt inclusionary zoning. We have had decades to do that and been somehow unable to make it happen. This is a real issue, rapidly changing the face of Sudbury. 40B impacts our residents, our neighborhoods, our roads, our schools, and our tax burden; and it makes it harder and harder for Sudbury to achieve long-term sustainable excellence in education and town services. Instead of a paper tiger plan which is not being followed, we need to take action and take back control of how-and-where housing is built in Sudbury. The issue here is not affordable housing, it's all the market-rate housing being built in Sudbury under the loophole of affordable housing. It's time to solve the problem. We need to focus on affordable housing, get to 10% and prevent builders and their lobbyists from using the 40B loophole to build market-rate housing under the veil of affordable housing.
The only guaranteed way to prevent a 40B is to achieve 10% and adopt inclusionary zoning. We have had decades to do that and been somehow unable to make it happen. This is a real issue, rapidly changing the face of Sudbury. 40B impacts our residents, our neighborhoods, our roads, our schools, and our tax burden; and it makes it harder and harder for Sudbury to achieve long-term sustainable excellence in education and town services. Instead of a paper tiger plan which is not being followed, we need to take action and take back control of how-and-where housing is built in Sudbury. The issue here is not affordable housing, it's all the market-rate housing being built in Sudbury under the loophole of affordable housing. It's time to solve the problem. We need to focus on affordable housing, get to 10% and prevent builders and their lobbyists from using the 40B loophole to build market-rate housing under the veil of affordable housing.
via Sudbury Patch - 6/12/2013
Do you favor automatic renewal, or giving 1-year notice and allowing the Town Manager to submit an application along side other interested parties?
All town contracts and all town contracted employees should be sent out for bid at the end of each contract term to ensure the people of Sudbury are getting the best service the market can provide.
via Sudbury Patch - 6/12/2013
Sudbury residents have overwhelmingly voted in support of the creation of the Bruce Freeman rail trail. How will you move it forward?
I would submit that the people of Sudbury voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bike path more or less on the railbed running north-south through Sudbury. A Bruce Freeman Rail Trail or a DOT-standard rail trail may be the sticking point. I do not want to spend the next 28 years arguing about a rail trail. If people are not willing to compromise on a design, then that is exactly what will happen for the next 28 years. Why have rail trails been built much more easily in other towns? The reality is that the railbed in Sudbury is different. Sudbury's rail-bed happens to run through some major farm properties. The remaining farms in Sudbury are treasures to be protected. We need a bike path design which uses as much of the railbed as possible without driving out local business owners and fostering more housing development. We need to consider the unintended consequences of building a DOT-Standard Bruce Freeman Rail Trail. The consequence of that option is that it just won't happen and will be debated for many more years. Since I, and many town residents, want a bike path in Sudbury, I am willing to compromise and help the parties involved understand that a compromise is the best and fastest path forward.
via Sudbury Patch - 6/12/2013
How can Sudbury best increase the town's affordable housing stock and avoid more 40B projects that are able to circumvent local zoning rules?
The best way to solve the problem is to encourage development of age-restricted single-bedroom housing, which would quickly increase affordable units in town without adding too much of a tax burden.
6/10/2013
Without additional study or delay, will you vote to accept the Friends of Bruce Freeman Rail Trail's June 27, 2011 offer to fundraise (~$50,000) and pay for the preliminary 25% design (to MassDOT standards for a shared-use path or rail trail) of the 0.5-mile northernmost section from the Concord/Sudbury town line south to and across Route 117 (North Road) which will bring the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail to the sidewalk along the south side of North Road?
Maybe. As a biking enthusiast who has biked more than 1,000 miles a year for the past decade, I would love to see a bike trail in Sudbury as fast as humanly possible. My family enjoys the Cape Cod bike path many times a year. (We rode on it this past Memorial Day weekend.) As a Selectman I need to consider all the town's interests. Since Sudbury lies at the end of this proposed rail trail, many travelers may be driving into Sudbury to find parking and then jumping on the trail from here. We need to carefully consider the potential unintended consequences such as crowded parking lots, 40B condo developments (as mentioned by large landowners in town), and/or crowded classrooms before we agree to accept money from an outside organization and become beholden to take action.
I would be disappointed to see the taxpayers of Sudbury pay to expand the Davis Field Parking Lot because the Town of Concord has not provided a parking lot for their end of the Rail Trail on Powder Mill Road.My children use Davis Field and I park there often. My concern is that the Town of Concord has not started to build or enhance a parking lot for their southern end of the rail trail and instead wants to use the Davis Field Parking Lot in Sudbury. Some may argue accepting money from the Bruce Freeman group makes us morally beholden to them. Before we accept money from anyone or any group we should make sure we understand the parking impacts on Davis Field and perhaps ask the Town of Concord to either build a similar parking lot or compensate the Town of Sudbury for providing the parking for this end of the Rail Trail so we can expand and improve the Davis Field Parking Lot.
I would be disappointed to see the taxpayers of Sudbury pay to expand the Davis Field Parking Lot because the Town of Concord has not provided a parking lot for their end of the Rail Trail on Powder Mill Road.My children use Davis Field and I park there often. My concern is that the Town of Concord has not started to build or enhance a parking lot for their southern end of the rail trail and instead wants to use the Davis Field Parking Lot in Sudbury. Some may argue accepting money from the Bruce Freeman group makes us morally beholden to them. Before we accept money from anyone or any group we should make sure we understand the parking impacts on Davis Field and perhaps ask the Town of Concord to either build a similar parking lot or compensate the Town of Sudbury for providing the parking for this end of the Rail Trail so we can expand and improve the Davis Field Parking Lot.
via Bruce Freeman Rail Trail - 6/10/2013
Do you support a request to the Community Preservation Committee for CPA funds to pay for the preliminary 25% design of the Bruce Freeman Rail Trail on the railroad right-of-way through the balance of Sudbury (Route 117 south to the where the CSX owned property begins at the Mass. Central crossing), to seek a design that adheres to MassDOT standards for shared-use paths and to place such a binding question before the voters at the May 2014 Town Meeting?
Maybe. Again, as a biking enthusiast I would love to see a bike path in Sudbury as fast as humanly possible but the key phrase here is: "MassDOT standards." I don't think most people in Sudbury know what that means. To some it means a bike trail to others it means a highway through the woods. I know Sudbury wants a bike trail but that could be a dirt path or greenway like the Minuteman path in Lincoln or it could mean a much wider and bigger paved trail with wide shoulders on each side.
Also, since Sudbury's rail-bed abuts major property owners, we need to consider the construction of a Rail Trail to DOT standards resulting in farms being developed into high density 40B condo developments as mentioned above.
I am all for bike paths but we need to fully understand the implication of what we are signing up for when we agree to standards from the Department of Transportation.
Also, since Sudbury's rail-bed abuts major property owners, we need to consider the construction of a Rail Trail to DOT standards resulting in farms being developed into high density 40B condo developments as mentioned above.
I am all for bike paths but we need to fully understand the implication of what we are signing up for when we agree to standards from the Department of Transportation.
via Bruce Freeman Rail Trail - 6/10/2013
Follow the campaign on Facebook
