From My Corner: December 15, 2024

Finally, I got my answer!

For the past couple of weeks, I’ve been writing about the lack of information in the city the missing minutes on the website. City council and board meetings are not there, making it impossible for anyone to research the previous decisions of those groups.

That serious violation of the Open Meeting Law carries severe penalties for the city. The City Clerk’s responsibility is to accept the required postings for all public meetings to be posted and maintain the public meetings calendar. Meeting notices must be announced 48 hours before the scheduled date and time.

Under the Open Meeting Law, the public may attend meetings of public bodies, but they are excluded from an executive session called for a valid purpose listed in the law. While the public is permitted to attend an open meeting, an individual may only address the public body with the permission of the chair.

Public bodies are required to create and maintain accurate minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions. Minutes, along with all documents and exhibits used, are public records and part of the official record of the meeting.

The Attorney General’s Division of Open Government enforces the Open Meeting Law. The Attorney General has the authority to receive and investigate complaints, bring enforcement actions, issue advisory opinions, and promulgate regulations.

That issue was getting on my nerves because nobody responded to my questions, and I should have received a call from someone. Then, Mayor Brian DePeña contacted me on Sunday night; he had no idea that the minutes were not being posted on the city’s website and wanted to know more, so I gave him the latest details.

He later told me that he had spoken to City Clerk Eileen Bernal, and she said that she would work on posting the minutes. However, she had previously complained that her office needed extra help. I remember that the previous city clerk, Bill Maloney, said on several occasions that his office needed at least seven employees, and no one has tried to alleviate the situation through the years.

The city has been remiss on staffing for years in every department and the Clerk’s office should be #1 priority. They are the historic footprint and face of its people in all respects.

Perhaps the need for extra help is the result of having the people in the city clerk’s office perform wedding ceremonies instead of doing their daily work. My question is if they are justices of the peace, as the law requires them to perform ceremonies.

I requested the list of justices of the peace in Lawrence from the Secretary of State William Galvin, and this is what I received:

List of Justices of the 

Peace in Lawrence, MA.

I know that some of those names are no longer using their credentials for that purpose, and I don’t trust the accuracy of the State keeping that list up to date.

In the past (and probably currently) the Secretary of State required any City Clerk/Assistant City Clerk to complete the application and obtain Governor Council approval of the application as a Justice of the Peace BEFORE conducting marriages or acting as a Justice of the Peace in any capacity. The pitfall of that situation is that the marriage may not be recognized as legal since it was not performed under the rules and requirements of the Commonwealth.

 

Please give Wendy Luzón an alarm clock

She is always late for meetings, and last Tuesday, she arrived almost a half-hour after the Personnel Committee began. Soon after taking a seat, she asked a looney question that the committee discussed the previous week, but she was absent. Then, in a very harsh voice, Chair Stephany Infante told her it was dealt with last week and that she should’ve watched it. Well done, Stephany!

The councilors wanted to hear from CAFO Mark Ianello about the search for a police chief. He explained the reports he received from the consultants in Tampa, Florida. Then, Chair Infante asked about the role that the local citizens’ committee would play, only to hear from Mr. Ianello that there is no such committee. She insisted that the mayor had set it up to review the documents and interview the candidates.

There’s no communication between the CAFO and Mayor Brian DePeña. When I told him what I heard, he was adamant, saying that’s not what he wants to do with that process. Mayor DePeña is not on top of what his people are doing. It seems that they make the decisions in public, and he becomes aware of them when someone in the community tells him. There’s no written communications or reporting passing through his hands, as if by delegating, he can be sure things will be done according to his instructions.

 

Budget and Finance Committee

One tabled item on the agenda was the transfer of $400,000 which was allocated to the Hispanic Federation to be used for small businesses through the Lawrence Prospering Grant. There was plenty of discussion about the earlier giveaway to businesses. They were trying to clarify why the Federation members were not included and suggested getting a report on the best practices used in the selection of the winners.

In the end, Wendy and Stephany suggested asking the Federation president Sara Pérez to be present at the next Budget and Finance Committee. 

I recommend you read Sara’s letter to the council members on page 8.

 

Giving Diana DiZoglio a hard time

Members of the Legislature probably never thought that Auditor DiZoglio’s proposed ballot question wouldn’t go far. Oh, were they wrong! 

A document drafted by the Office of the Secretary of State William Galvin, says that a successful voter-approved ballot question shall take effect within 30 days (or December 5) but they are giving her a difficult time alleging that there was an error because the person who updated that rule should have said “30 days after approval by the Governor’s Council.

No big deal! Ms. DiZoglio will begin her audit on January 3, and we cannot wait for the results. It took her many years to get to this point and we helped.

The results of the November 5th election on Question #1 about auditing the Legislature were 72% YES and 28% NO.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply