Police Chief search
Nobody talked about it and we didn’t even know where it was advertised but it’s done.
On April 6, I received an email from the mayor listing the members of the Police Chief Applicant Review Committee as well as the job posting. Interestingly enough, the job posting showed a deadline of April 5 to apply for the job. I guess he didn’t want the word to get out and have some undesirable character apply.
Upon looking at it, it was tailor-made for Roy Vasque(s) since the job description was probably taken from his resume. For example, Chief Cole and Chief Romero had not passed the FBI Academy when they were hired, however, it is now required. That automatically eliminated anyone who may have intended to go for it.
I don’t know the man but someone who changes his name to deny his ethnic heritage doesn’t belong in a city like Lawrence. My biggest objection to his hiring permanently is how the process was followed. Preventing people from applying for the position instead of looking high and low for the best and brightest candidate is not a democratic way of serving this city.
The committee members are listed below:
1. Councilor David Abdoo, Lawrence City Councilor
54 Stevens St. Lawrence, MA
2. Pedro Torres, Chair of the Licensing Board
51 West St. Lawrence, MA
3. Ana Luz Garcia, Towerhill Neighborhood Assoc. Member
46 Cypress St. Lawrence, MA
4. Atty. Zoila Gomez, Immigration Attorney
84 E Haverhill St, Lawrence, MA
5. Cpt. Scott McNamara, President, Superior Officers Union
90 Lowell St. Lawrence, MA
The committee will select two applicants and submit the names to the Mayor, who will make the last decision and send it to the City Council for confirmation in May but we don’t even have a City Council we can count on to refuse approving his choice and demand the mayor to widen the search.
Surveillance cameras
Please turn your attention to a Public Hearing Notice on page 23 announcing that the City Council will be meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2018 to discuss and approve the $150,000 expense for 28 surveillance cameras for the Police Department.
My column last week explained how this will be just the beginning of the creation of an entire department for the mayor to hire more friends and contributors. Ask any member of the City Council how much research they have done on this. What cities using these cameras they have visited to find the details I am referring to regarding personnel and cost. Yes, $150,000 is peanuts but, will they really control crime in this city? I just want them to ask questions and educate themselves before they jump into the unknown.
I’ve done enough reading on the pros and cons and besides what the Fourth Amendments of the Constitution and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has demonstrated that surveillance cameras don’t accomplish what we are looking for to prevent crime: they just move crime to other areas. The following was taken from a document from the ACLU that I can send by email to anyone requesting it.
Video surveillance will have a chilling effect on public life.
The growing presence of public cameras will bring subtle but profound changes to the character of our public spaces. When citizens are being watched by the authorities – or aware they might be watched at any time – they are more self-conscious and less free-wheeling. As syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum has pointed out, “knowing that you are being watched by armed government agents tends to put a damper on things. You don’t want to offend them or otherwise call attention to yourself.” Eventually, he warns, “people may learn to be careful about the books and periodicals they read in public, avoiding titles that might alarm unseen observers. They may also put more thought into how they dress, lest they look like terrorists, gang members, druggies or hookers.” Indeed, the studies of cameras in Britain found that people deemed to be “out of time and place” with the surroundings were subjected to prolonged surveillance.
The bottom line: a lack of proportion between benefits and risks.
Like any intrusive technology, the benefits of deploying public video cameras must be balanced against the costs and dangers. This technology (a) has the potential change the core experience of going out in public in America because of its chilling effect on citizens, (b) carries very real dangers of abuse and “mission creep,” and (c) would not significantly protect us against terrorism. Given that, its benefits – preventing at most a few street crimes, and probably none – are disproportionately small.
