City Council
The City Attorney, Charles Boddy, left last week as a result of the mayor’s refusal to sign a new contract, the city council’s half-baked decision-making process – let me correct that, ignorance of what they are doing – and the fact that he has had it with the abuse and disrespect with which he has been treated by the council.
There has been no excuse or reason for not wanting to renew his contract and I want to explain why I believe that the councilors have not read their own parliamentary rules as a result, acting illegally. Let me prove it to you just by using the records on the city council minutes.
March 18, 2014 meeting
Council President Modesto Maldonado asked Chief of Staff Lisa Torrisi to read into the record a communication from the mayor listed on the agenda for the evening announcing that he will not be signing Mr. Boddy’s contract in order to renegotiate the terms. His contract requires that he receives notice 90 days prior to the termination of his contract on June 20, 2014 or it will be automatically renewed for another 5 years if no action is taken during that time. Torrisi stressed that the only matter concerning the council would be to issue notice to Attorney Boddy to avoid the automatic renewal provision.
Councilor Eileen Bernal suggested taking a vote to acknowledge the submission of the mayor’s request of non-renewal of the contract.
President Maldonado said it should be referred to the Personnel Committee.
Councilor Roger Twomey suggested hiring outside counsel to review Mr. Boddy’s contract to avoid conflict of interests.
Councilor Oneida Aquino stated that a special subcommittee of the council should be impaneled to oversee the review process.
Councilor Marc Laplante very wisely suggested that “the City Council is probably not the best suited to resolve the matter.” He also said that “clearly the issue tonight is one of notice.”
Councilor Estela Reyes presented a motion not to renew the contract of the City Attorney which was seconded by Councilor Aquino and approved unanimously (8-0) with Councilor Nilka Alvarez-Rodriguez being absent.
I want you to understand that all the discussion that took place, including the vote was done illegally because that subject was not on the agenda for the evening and a communication from the mayor is only supposed to be read into the record, not acted upon. Councilor Bernal was correct in asking to vote acknowledging the mayor’s submission only.
April 1, 2014, meeting
Council President Maldonado brought up this item which was not on the night’s agenda. Although it had been referred to the Personnel Committee, the required notification to City Attorney Boddy was not taken by the city council during the previous meeting of March 18, 2014. In fact, the Personnel Committee had it on the agenda since April but it was tabled and never discussed again.
Councilor Bernal discussed that the presence of Attorney Boddy at that meeting qualifies as “actual notice” to him. Then Mr. Twomey stated that “the letter sent by Mayor Rivera to the City Council as the basis of this item presented to the council is unlawful.” He stated the vote of the City Council called and recorded on March 18, 2014 not to renew the contract of the City Attorney is illegal.
Mr. Twomey insisted on the need for outside counsel as necessary to assure that any action taken by council is lawful. His motion failed for lack of a second endorsement.
Then, Councilor Nilka Alvarez-Rodriguez said that there was never a motion or order directing the City Clerk to send notice to Attorney Boddy of the vote not to renew the contract of employment.
Everybody scrambled looking for their notes on the previous meeting. President Maldonado, City Clerk Maloney and the Assistant Clerk looked at their notes and there was no directive from the council that a letter should be sent.
Councilor Alvarez-Rodriguez then presented a motion to direct the City Clerk to send the letter to Attorney Boddy informing him of the council’s vote not to renew his contract.
The vote was 6 Yes; Twomey, No; Vasquez and Almonte were absent.
Keep in mind that the previous vote not to renew the contract was illegal because it was taken based on the mayor’s letter and not an agenda item. Communications are just supposed to be read into the record – not acted upon.
The vote taken this evening was also illegal because this was not on the agenda, or even the communications from the mayor. They just brought it up!
You may check the above by reading the March 18, 2014 and April 1, 2014 minutes of the City Council meetings. I just copied from them.
With all this incompetence, I believe that the City Attorney’s employment contract has been automatically extended for another five years because nothing was done as required by law within the specified period of time.
This is not in defense of Mr. Boddy but to show you how “qualified” employees are treated when the decision-makers don’t know what they are doing. He left last week anyway, confident that his many years of experience dealing with municipal laws of all kinds will afford him something better.
Now, let me think… how many lawyers worked on Rivera’s campaign? HUMMM…
And, here I go with our cable system…
This past weekend, I watched the most disgusting video ever presented by Lawrence Community Access Television (LCAT). Benny and Mory Espaillat were honored by the Lawrence History Center with the 2014 Eartha Dengler History Award. The beautiful ceremony took place at the Lawrence Family Development Charter School with a select group of guests.
Jim Ross was the cameraman in charge and I wonder if he has trouble distinguishing colors or needs eyeglasses. First of all, the video was in black and white, the picture was out of focus, the audio was typical of Jim Ross and the constant flashing on the edges of the entire video, made me feel that the tape was going to self-destruct at any second.
Jim Ross has taken control of the station pretending to be the all-mighty and the saddest part is that no one dares to complain or demand that he allows people more knowledgeable than him cover Lawrence news and events. Who’s going to tell him that this is not his personal company and we are paying those salaries through our cable bill.
Are Lawrence residents so ignorant that they can’t tell between a black and white and full color video so they accept it? Remember: This is not a free service; we are paying for it!
What could have been a wonderful tribute to the Espaillats and a great keepsake for the Lawrence History Center, turned into an insult to all of us.
And, while I am at it, why do we have to watch Marie Gosselin’s 12-year-old Santa Parade in South Lawrence and Michael Amante concerts of many years ago? If they need fillers, I have a library of beautiful shows (in color) from my days when I was allowed to produce.
Schools and government channels
I have complained many times about the quality of the broadcasts on the government channel but I had to stop because people have gotten used to it and I seem to be alone in my criticisms.
I had no interest in watching the school department channel and out of curiosity I saw some of the graduation exercises. I was appalled! The picture was grainy, out of focus, trembling on the screen and the audio… well, they still have not learned to run a microphone to the podium.
With the money they get, modern equipment and knowledgeable staff they have, they should be embarrassed to deprive students of a good quality video of their graduation. Do they live in Lawrence? Maybe not. Do parents ever call to say that what the students in the video production class make are clearer and better?
I contacted David Pekarski at the school department and his answer was that, “For the past year Comcast has been replacing lines and amps that connect our station to Comcast. Most other cities are fiber optic. I called about the signal last week- it got better for a few days but I’ll have to call again.”
Now, the mayor is calling for a public forum on July 8th at 6 PM at Lawrence Senior Center to discuss a 10 year license agreement with Comcast Cable that allows Comcast to offer services in Lawrence. During the meeting, residents will be asked to weigh in on the license agreement and past performance based on the current license that is set to expire November, 2014. Residents are also asked to consider their future needs and interests regarding Comcast service.
My response to that is that the average person in the community knows nothing about the contract, television broadcasts, or even what rights they can claim.
This process should take over a year going over the contract and updating it in the technical aspect as well by a committee of people who understand what’s at stake. I suspect that it is to keep things as they are: the same disgusting quality of broadcast and limited local information in all three channels.
All that, while most other cities are fiber optic.
It has been proven that this administration will not do anything about it. I tried and the mayor said no. How long the public is going to put up with it?
I stand by what I said long ago: This is a concerted effort to keep our community ignorant. By not creating a habit of watching local programs for education or entertainment purposes, we forget that this wealth of information exists and it is for us to use.
Officer Green’s back to work
What has been happening to Officer William Green is very confusing. He was arrested on June 20th only to send him home because they made a mistake and the right person had been caught.
A termination hearing was scheduled on Tuesday the 24th, which I was planning to attend because I want to find out under what grounds he was being dismissed, but it was canceled. Instead, they met at the mayor’s office and the officer was given a document to sign with many requirements in order to get back to work. Of course, he refused and the last he heard was that they would be proceeding with the termination.
The next day, he received a letter from Chief James Fitzpatrick telling him to report to work on Friday – no conditions.
What changed? Did they realize they had no case? I requested a copy of his arrest in writing to Chief Fitzpatrick twice and he ignored it.
His wife called my radio show on Saturday and I was able to ask her what this ordeal has done to her family and her emotional well-being.
I thought things had changed in the police department. I thought Chief Fitzpatrick was different but if this happened to another officer, what could happen to any of us?
