Millbury’s Closed Government In Plain Sight
On August 25, 2025, the Millbury Planning Board met to address a formal Open Meeting Law complaint—a matter that strikes at the core of democratic accountability. Yet before any discussion began, Chairperson Bruce DeVault announced that neither in-person attendees nor remote participants would be allowed to speak. The meeting agenda made no mention of public input being off-limits. This silencing of residents on such a crucial issue only deepened the growing frustration and sense of exclusion many in the community already feel.
That frustration has been growing for years. At the center of it is Town Manager Karyn E. Clark, whose leadership has come to represent a clear shift toward closed-door governance—defined by locked offices, appointment-only access, restricted public records, and mounting obstacles that keep residents at arm’s length and in the dark until decisions are already made behind the scenes.
Removing Access to Public Records—A Strategic Step Against Transparency
One of the clearest examples is the removal of hundreds of public records from the Town’s website—materials that were once readily accessible. According to Town Planner Conor McCormack, residents must now visit his office to request historical Planning Board public records. This is not just an inconvenience; it’s an unnecessary barrier. People have jobs. They have families. Forcing residents to take time out of their day just to see documents that were previously a click away is indefensible.
This is not open government. It’s obstruction through bureaucracy. And the message it sends is unmistakable: the public is being pushed to the sidelines.
Shifting Stories, Withheld Answers, and Troubling Admissions
You can often tell when someone isn’t being fully honest—their story keeps changing. That’s exactly what’s happening with Conor McCormack. His explanations shift from meeting to meeting, almost as if he’s throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. If you watch the meeting videos closely, it becomes clear how often he struggles to answer even the simplest questions—frequently sidestepping the issue, rewording the question, or carefully parsing his responses to avoid giving a direct answer.
Is he truly unsure of the facts, or is he carefully choosing his words to avoid crossing Town Manager Karyn E. Clark? Either way, something doesn’t add up—and the inconsistencies are becoming too obvious to ignore. Losing the public’s trust is easy—earning it back is far more difficult.
Notably, he admitted—perhaps unintentionally—that the Town’s website is controlled by Town Manager Karyn E. Clark and that her approval is required before anything is published. That admission says a lot.
Conor McCormack also acknowledged that most of the Planning Board’s records have already been scanned, yet they remain unavailable to the public online, which makes no sense. Despite this, according to Conor McCormack’s statements, Karyn E. Clark has made it clear she has no intention of changing course—only the final site plan and decision are allowed to be posted.
Misconduct at the Table—and a Lesson from the Courts
Chairperson Bruce DeVault once again showed he is unfit for the role. As his two fellow board members attempted to adjourn the meeting before the agenda was completed, Conor McCormack stepped in to defend him—appearing to assist in preventing any public comment. Eventually, Bruce DeVault allowed three residents to speak, but only on unrelated matters—not the issue that had brought so many people to the meeting.
Two of the speakers voiced clear disappointment with the board’s approach to public records. Rather than listen and respond thoughtfully, Bruce DeVault took the criticism personally, deflecting rather than engaging. Then, with no warning, he abruptly shut down public comment—signaling once again that he has no interest in actually listening to the public.
Bruce DeVault would do well to revisit Barron v. Kolenda (2023), where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down a municipal “civility” policy that limited public criticism during meetings. The ruling reaffirmed that elected officials cannot suppress public input simply because it makes them uncomfortable. Residents in Massachusetts have the constitutional right to speak out—even when their words are inconvenient to those in power.
The Public Is Paying Attention—and Not Backing Down
This isn’t over. Residents will not stand by while the Town Manager continues to block or delay access to public records and meeting materials or hides behind bureaucratic hurdles to avoid transparency. Karyn E. Clark has demonstrated a repeated unwillingness to listen to the people she serves—the very people who pay her salary.
Millbury residents are no longer willing to settle for vague answers, delayed access, or the appearance of compliance. The public expects more than the bare minimum. They expect a local government that not only meets the letter of the law but embraces its spirit—by fostering open dialogue, prioritizing access to information, and encouraging genuine public participation. Anything less is a disservice to the community.
A Better Way Forward: Accountability, Openness, and Community Trust
There is a better path—one grounded in accountability, transparency, and respect for the people of Millbury. Residents aren't asking for special treatment. They’re asking for the basics: access to public information, the ability to participate meaningfully in local decisions, and leadership that sees them as partners, not obstacles.
Trust can only be rebuilt by restoring full online access to all public records, inviting—not stifling—public input, and making decisions transparently and in full view of the community. The law sets the floor, not the ceiling. As a town, we must aim higher. We deserve a government that leads by example and rises to meet—not evade—its responsibilities.
Transparency Is Cheaper Than Damage Control
After the meeting, Chairperson Bruce DeVault lashed out at the complainant, blaming him for the legal costs tied to the Open Meeting Law complaint—and even going so far as to call him a “pain in the ass.” It was a moment of immaturity that revealed far more than frustration; it exposed the culture of defensiveness and deflection that has taken root among some town officials. Rather than take responsibility for the Town’s own choices—choices that triggered the complaint in the first place—Bruce DeVault chose to scapegoat a resident for daring to demand transparency and accountability.
Such behavior doesn’t just reflect poorly on him; it highlights a deeper problem. Outside the building, people laughed at the outburst—not because it was funny, but because it was embarrassingly predictable. Bruce DeVault has become a symbol of what so many residents have grown tired of: a local government that mocks concerned citizens, blames others for its own missteps, and deflects criticism instead of doing the hard work of listening, learning, and leading with integrity.
The truth is, any expenses tied to the complaint were entirely self-inflicted. Had the Town simply upheld transparency and honored the public’s right to participate, there would have been no complaint to respond to—no legal fees, no wasted time, and no taxpayer dollars spent shielding officials from their own missteps.
This outcome was not inevitable. It was a choice. If town officials and staff had taken the concerns raised eight months ago seriously—choosing honest conversation over dismissal—none of this would have happened. They could have listened instead of ignored, collaborated instead of controlled, and changed course instead of doubling down. But they didn’t. And now, the community is left to clean up the mess.
The real cost isn’t in responding to accountability—it’s in resisting it. Transparency isn’t some burdensome obligation; it’s a safeguard that protects everyone. When government is open, accessible, and responsive, problems are addressed before they escalate. Trust is built. Costs go down. Everyone wins.
This Isn’t Over: Public Response Still Unfolding
This matter is far from over. At least two Planning Board members expressed discomfort with how the meeting was handled, and many of the residents who attended—or have since learned what occurred—remain deeply dissatisfied. There is a growing consensus that silence, exclusion, and evasion are no longer acceptable.
Where are the Board of Selectmen—the officials directly responsible for overseeing the Town Manager—in all of this? Their absence from the conversation is both noticeable and concerning. When transparency is undermined, public trust erodes, and residents are openly demanding answers, silence is not a responsible option. Leadership requires more than just occupying a seat—it requires stepping up, asking hard questions, and holding those in power accountable. At a time when the community is calling for openness and reform, the Selectmen’s silence risks being seen not as neutrality, but as complicity.
People are paying attention, and they’re organizing. Residents are exploring their next steps, and while those steps are not being publicly disclosed at this time, one thing is clear: the push for accountability is not going away.
Karyn E. Clark, Conor McCormack, and Bruce DeVault have an opportunity to be part of the solution—if they choose to engage in good faith. The decision is theirs. But if they continue to ignore legitimate concerns, public scrutiny will only grow. The people of Millbury are not asking for miracles. They’re demanding respect, transparency, and a government that works for them—not around them.