By Dalia Díaz
This is a formal complaint that I sent to the Attorney General’s office regarding a recent violation to the Open Meeting Law by the members of the City Council. While the requirements instructed me to send a copy to the City Clerk only, I forwarded a copy to all the city councilors, the mayor and the city attorney. I believe that the general public should be aware of the manipulation that goes by that body, either by malice or ignorance.
———————————–
There was a violation of the Open Meeting Law violation at the last City Council meeting of September 17, 2019. I didn’t notice that it happened but the problem was that the Council voted to bring up the issue of the easement to the building next to the parking lot on Common St.
This was scheduled for discussion at a future meeting, but the Council brought it back as an emergency item. I still don’t know why the Council considered it “an emergency” but they discussed the item and took a vote.
I am told that this document should not have been voted on or even discussed by the councilors without a public hearing. This is how the council plays tricks on its residents, and many of its residents don’t pay attention to these votes. However, even if Lawrencians would be totally involved in their local government’s decision, the increased public attention generally has been accompanied by confusion and occasional misunderstandings regarding the legality and appropriateness of various council and mayoral actions.
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, MGL. ch. 30A, §§ 18-25, and its accompanying regulations, 940 Code of Mass. Regs. 29.00, provide the public with a right of access to the meetings. Massachusetts law also gives you the ability to inspect and copy meeting minutes and imposes notice requirements on public bodies. The Open Meeting Law applies to public bodies. This includes nearly all boards, commissions, committees, and other multi-member bodies that carry out a government function at the state, county, district, city, region, or town level in Massachusetts.
I am amazed that Council President Kendrys Vasquez has allowed this council to an unworthy and corrupt use for the purpose and for the sake of personal and/or financial gains to some of its members. After all, it’s the Council President who has the final say on what documents he will allow on the agenda. A Council President should recognize his responsibility to protect and conserve local government property and resources, and to make an honest effort to use official time and government property only for official business. He should also ensure that the word, authority, and integrity of his council are protected at all times to ensure that its citizens trust the government. He has not done this. Actually, it’s the total opposite. He has allowed some council members (including himself) to be influenced by the mayor for items or approvals of personal wants or district decisions.
Robert’s Rules of Order was created and is the standard for facilitating discussions and group decision-making. These parliamentary procedures along with ethics rules and open meeting rules provide for the honest discussion and decision making of any council, board, commission or committee. Lawrence’s City Council is running more on Murphy’s rule of law in that “things will go wrong in any given situation, if you give them a chance,”
Many mayors, including the current mayor, see our recent system of government as incorporating practices of both spoils and merit systems, so dangling financial carrot at city council members for personal gains is just as dirty as what the current President of the US is doing.
