Mr. Woodard and Mr. Simon: please reconsider the One Sudbury-sponsored debate

Chuck Woodard and Leonard Simon have declined to particpate in the debate being sponsored by One Sudbury on June 17.  Among their reasons, both cite the bias of organizer Mike Troiano and the partisanship of the One Sudbury group.  I am writing to urge them to reconsider.

Regarding Mr. Troiano, if it is true that he is involved in the campaign of Dan De Pompei and has signs for both Mr. De Pompei and Todj Gozdeck in his yard, then it is certainly inappropriate for him to moderate the debate.  In a posting on the One Sudbury group on June 10, Mr. Troiano stated that he has offered to remove himself as moderator if it will help bring Mr. Woodard and Mr. Simon to the debate.  I hope they will take him up on this offer.

Regarding the One Sudbury group itself, I have been a member of the group since its inception, and was a member of the Lavendergate group before that.  I also supported the 3-5 movement.  And while I can understand how some may see the group as partisan and homogeneous, I feel that that is a gross mischaracterization.

Both Mr. Woodard and Mr. Simon used the following quote from Mr. Troiano's announcement when he created the One Sudbury group:

"I’d ask those of you who are ready to get behind a specific slate of candidates focused on effecting change in the way this town is run to join those of us who are already there right now."

Here's the description of the One Sudbury group, taken directly from its Facebook page:

"This group is dedicated to restoring the culture of open and objective political decision-making that prevailed in Sudbury politics before the group currently in power changed things.

The current BOS closed off citizens' ability to speak openly in meetings, a long-standing tradition in the town. It's ignored the town forum requirement already on the books, and repeatedly delivered significant budgetary changes at the last minute, denying our citizen legislators the time to review them appropriately. It's closed off committee participation to insiders, and too often deferred complex questions to narrow groups aligned with their own point of view. Parents feel ignored by the schools they support and entrust their children to. Plain conflicts of interests are too common, and accountability is too rare. Occasional bad judgment points to a culture of entitlement and privilege.

When our citizen's overwhelmingly sought a change from 3-5 Selectman, our Chairman went to Beacon Hill to testify AGAINST the will of the voters. Even now citizen calls to comply with standing bylaws that require capital decisions to be made in context of other capital demands, and for the town to solicit competitive bids for services on which the town spends millions, are being resisted. Any reasonable fiduciary would support these policies, required or not. Instead we get opposition, legal opinions, stall tactics, and more opposition.

This group is not about personal attack, or vendetta. We value facts over innuendo, and work to treat all who've served the town with respect.

But we have had enough of the way things have been run. And we mean to change them.

If you agree... join us."

Read those quotes carefully.  What I see is a call for open and objective town government - an expansion from a town run by a small number of insiders who often ignore the voice of the people to a town governed by leaders who will listen to that voice.  That is not partisanship; it is a bias toward openness.  The "specific slate of candidates" supported by One Sudbury is "any candidate who wants to be more open and listen to the people more".

Are there people in One Sudbury who have loudly and perhaps rancorously stood united against specific plans, articles, and proposals in the past (recent and not-so-recent)?  Absolutely.  And I am sure that is where the perception of bias comes from.

However, the large majority of One Sudbury members are people like me.  People who are either new to town or new to town politics.  People who started paying attention in the last year or so, and don't like how unempowered they feel and how decisions don't take them into account.  We have a diversity of opinion on various issues, we've had disagreements among ourselves (and the "oldtimers" in One Sudbury"), and we didn't all vote as a block in the Town Meeting.

Some of us have already decided who we're going to vote for, and some have not.  Of those who have decided, some may vote for Mr. Woodard and/or Mr. Simon, and some may vote for Mr. De Pompeii, Mr. Gozdeck or Mr. Poch.

Personally, I know that after reading the articles about the LWV debate, I still am undecided in a couple of areas.  I was looking forward to a chance to hear more at the debate on June 17.  For example, I'm told that Mr. Simon is pro-RailTrail, and that he is opposed to anonymous, vitriolic internet comments.  So am I, but I would like to get more details on where he stands on some other issues.  If he doesn't come on the 17th, this reduces my chances to learn more.

To sum up, I think both Mr. Woodard and Mr. Simon are doing themselves and the town a disservice with their mischaracterization of the One Sudbury group and the upcoming event.  If they can see the group for what it is, accept Mr. Troiano's offer to step down as moderator, and join in the debate, I believe they and the town will benefit greatly.

Rob Freundlich

43 Saxony Drive