Never a dull moment in Lawrence
Some people are all shaken up by the announcement of Chief Roy Vasque’s retirement. The media has reported it based on the super brief press release sent by the mayor’s office stating: “Mayor Brian A. DePeña would like to announce the early retirement of Lawrence Police Chief Roy Vasque effective June 30th, 2023. Mayor DePeña would like to thank Chief Vasque for his years of service and dedication to our community and wishes him a prosperous and healthy retirement.”
The local newspapers and radio and television stations have not said much more although The Eagle-Tribune elaborated a little more and explained that they have requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents about to the different investigations that took place on the chief and the total paid out to him.
As the local newspaper, all they had to do was find previous information published about him and his department to give us an overview. But, when it comes to the negotiations or what’s behind all of that, they know just as much as anybody else.
I also requested those documents under a FOIA and received the same response that I will get them by July 20th.
They were taken by surprise because they should have expected an avalanche of FOIA requests.
None of that information has been made public. I asked some of the city councilors and some are quite furious saying that they should have been consulted or advised before making the final decision. That’s their opinion, not mine.
The fact that the information has not been revealed has not stopped people from writing opinions on social media. I am not competent to judge if Chief Vasque should have been fired or allowed to retire because I have nothing on which to base my judgment.
If there’s one criticism I have of this whole ordeal is that the mayor didn’t handle it himself. I’m told that Octavien Spanner and Estela Reyes held the meetings with Chief Vasque to plan it out and Brian was at the last meeting only. I say this at the risk of being wrong but that’s what I’ve been told by some people at City Hall.
I do have one question: What was the role of State Representative Estela Reyes in this? While she is still a city councilor, she kept it to herself and did not share it with the rest of them.
Monkey business in Lawrence?
No way! Or, so I thought.
The City Council approved a list of 51 organizations requesting funding and while many were granted less than requested, others received nothing. What made it interesting was that during the council meeting, Octavien Spanner pulled two of them from consideration.
One was #45, My Lifeline Program requesting $50,000, and #46, International Veterans Care Services, Inc. (IVCS) which had asked for $500,000. These funds came from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) money that the city has.
I learned this information when I listened to En Contraste last Saturday when the host Altagracia Mayí explained the reason for pulling them from the council meeting. I had no idea of what she was talking about and upon sending me the list, I set off to complete the information. Sadly, I didn’t go far.
I was told that IVCS was not included in the grants because the administration considered that to be a conflict of interest. CEO Kelly Birchall Frazier is employed by the city as Homeless Coordinator and requested an opinion from the Ethics Commission.
Altagracia said in her broadcast that this was a non-existent organization because she could not find it among the organizations listed with the State. But, she was wrong about that because I found it listed among the State’s non-profits.
The reason for being pulled was that they knew that the proper procedure was not followed and the funds were left pending verification that everything was done in compliance with the law and approved by the Secretary of State’s office. (See the complete list on page 9.)
The four individuals behind this action were Belgica (Linette) Perez, Rosanna Delrosario, as well as Laura and Francheska Montas.
Linette is the CEO of My Lifeline Inc. and she works for the police department handling cases of abuse and this is where we should question the connection. She also has two relatives who are city employees: Her husband is a carpenter at DPW and her son works at the Public Library.
Rosanna works as Director of the Recycling Department and is married to a city councilor. You could consider that a conflict of interest.
Laura and Francheska Montas have their father and two brothers working in the Police Department.
They were supposed to make that known in their application to the city for funding.
The mayor sent these applications to (IVCS and My Lifeline, Inc) to the Ethics Commission for these and other inaccuracies and I was told that they were approved. Nevertheless, Mayor DePeña sent a letter to My Lifeline, Inc. letting her know they were rejected.
In a conversation con Rosanna Delrosario, she explained her disappointment with her friend Linette who never consulted with her either to form the non-profit or request funds from the city. She wrote a letter to the City Attorney explaining the whole situation to clear her name.
The plan was to serve women and children suffering from abuse, which is her line of work. If the police department is to contract with a non-profit organization to serve that population, shouldn’t that be part of the police department’s budget?
Mayor DePeña is doing a remarkable job in this city with building projects, cleanliness, etc. but I believe that he is delegating too many things that he should be keeping his eyes on. I’m certain that he wouldn’t have let the My Lifeline Program go through had he been the one responsible for reading them.
He’ll be better off paying more attention to what goes on in his office instead of visiting businesses or showing us what a good job DPW is doing paving the streets. We see it; we all know that the city is looking good and they are doing a great job. He is running the risk that someone may sneak in something to embarrass him like it happened with this last issue.
What’s bidding?
Recently, I wrote about the condo the city was selling on E. Haverhill St. and the controversy in the city council over allowing the highest bidder to purchase it. You can find it in the June 15th edition.
I was listening to a radio program where that was being discussed and there was someone who didn’t know how the bidding process works. Like many people who talk on the radio without any knowledge of the subject or having done any research on the matter, he was screaming that the councilors did the right thing by giving it to the second-highest bidder. His reasoning was because always the person with money will end up winning.
First of all, the city is not in the real estate business. Sometimes Lawrence gets stuck with a property (buildings or land) for lack of tax payments and they must put it back on the tax rolls to start producing again with a new owner. So, they put it up for auction and set a minimum starting bid and whoever bids more, will own it.
Usually, these homes need repairs and the participants must make sure how high they can go without having to spend more money than the property is worth.
There are also regulations; for example, the bidder must be a Lawrence resident, must commit to living in the property for five years, cannot be purchased for another family member to live in, etc. That was the case with one of the applicants who was buying it for her son. The paperwork also has requirements and the person who offered the most money forgot to sign it. He was disqualified and the second person who fulfilled the requirements was chosen.
This person on the radio program was adamant to understand the system claiming that the rich get richer as if this is another dirty trick to favor the wealthy. Councilor Jeovanny Rodriguez fought hard not to favor one bidder but the right way to do things.
The problem with that is that the audience learns from what they hear on radio and television and it is our obligation to bring accurate information to them, instead of instilling more, doubts, anger, suspicions, and other behaviors that are detrimental to our growth and prosperity.
Be the first to comment