Hundreds of Sudbury voters overwhelmingly approved a vote of no confidence in the Sudbury School Committee at a special Town Meeting Wednesday night, following more than a year of controversies, including the superintendent’s unexpected resignation.
The no-confidence measure garnered 452 votes in favor and 295 votes in opposition during a packed meeting in the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School gymnasium that stretched past midnight.
In casting the affirmative vote, attendees agreed with the basis of the warrant article: The School Committee has ”eroded public trust, destabilized district leadership, and placed the interests of the individual Committee members above the educational welfare of Sudbury students.”
The vote capped off wide-ranging heated debates over a variety of issues, including how best to expand supports for LGBTQ+ students, potential changes to afterschool programs that never materialized, and its long-term Superintendent Brad Crozier’s decision to leave in June after months of speculation about his future.
The no-confidence vote is nonbinding, which means the five-person School Committee doesn’t need to take any formal action. But it could apply public pressure on members to address the concerns raised in the warrant article, which faulted the board for allegedly lacking the level of transparency, integrity, and ethical governance that Sudbury residents expect.
Jessica McCready, the committee’s newly appointed chair, said in a statement the board will remain focused on improving the quality of education, noting members respect the right of residents to participate in Town Meetings.
“This committee has worked hard to protect class sizes, support students, expand transparency, improve budget oversight, and advance a long-term vision rooted in academic excellence and equity,” she said. “That work does not stop because of a nonbinding vote. Our commitment remains to Sudbury students and the future of our schools.”
She said the board takes all feedback seriously and community input is considered during the board’s goal-setting process, which begins in June.
Critics have faulted School Committee members for failing to follow proper protocols and lacking transparency, prompting some to file open meeting law complaints. School Committee supporters accuse opponents of obstruction either because they don’t like the proposed changes or the people in power.
The School Committee has said little about Crozier’s departure, citing privacy laws, and hasn’t disclosed the full cost of buying out his contract. Crozier had good performance reviews, and the district was recognized by the state last fall for raising its math MCAS scores to prepandemic levels, a feat that has eluded most other districts across the state.
It appears, however, Crozier was forced out, according to an open meeting law complaint filed earlier this year by a former board member, Nicole Burnard, whose term expired this month.
In her complaint, she alleged the board’s former chair, Karyn Jones, wrongfully approached Crozier in January about ending his contract without the School Committee’s authorization. The school district’s legal counsel contends no open meeting law violations occurred. Jones remains on the board.
Tyler Steffey, who served on the School Committee about four years ago, said a major problem with the School Committee members, whom he described as hardworking, is that they prioritize judgment calls over protocols, and they need to function with both in order to maintain transparency and public trust.
A case in point, he said, is the secrecy around the reasons for the superintendent’s departure.
“To me it feels very important to understand why Sudbury Public Schools separated from Superintendent Crozier when he is an exceptional superintendent both on paper and in practice,” said Steffey, who voted in favor of the no-confidence vote, in an interview Thursday. “We don’t feel we have a full understanding of the protocols that were followed to get to that very impactful decision.”
He emphasized that many residents agree with the School Committee members’ politics but disagree with their lack of protocol in pursuing changes.
Holding a special town meeting to take a vote of no-confidence in a school committee is a rarity for Massachusetts, according to the state’s school committee association.
The special Town Meeting drew 938 voters, about 6.5 percent of all registered voters. The turnout was notably higher than Sudbury’s annual Town Meeting, which was held two weeks earlier over the course of three nights. Attendance ranged between 225 and 375 voters on the various nights.
The volume of voters for the special Town Meeting resulted in long check-in lines that delayed the start of the meeting by more than an hour. The proceedings, which included four business items, didn’t adjourn until after midnight.
By the time the no-confidence measure was decided, turnout had dwindled by nearly 200 voters.
In a related matter, voters approved an article that will begin a lengthy legal process to allow for recall elections of the town’s local boards, including the School Committee, by a margin of 474 in favor and 394 in opposition. Enacting the ability to hold recall elections will require approval from the state Legislature through special legislation.
James Vaznis can be reached at james.vaznis@globe.com. Follow him @globevaznis. Travis Andersen can be reached at travis.andersen@globe.com.