The Committee on Selecting the New Police Chief
A Reflection on Integrity and Corruption
I was reluctant to participate in the Committee’s selection of the new police chief. As director of this publication, I should remain outside of anything political. However, Mayor Brian DePeña insisted and often begged me to join the Committee because he needed people of integrity to serve.
After a while, I decided that if I was to find out how honest the selection process was, I had to be in the middle of it, so I agreed. Oh, am I sorry I ever put my reputation at play! That was the most corrupt and dirty action I have ever participated in.
My initial hesitation stemmed from believing that my position demanded impartiality and a clear separation from political affairs. As a director, my duty lay in maintaining the integrity of our publication and ensuring that our reporting remained unbiased. Mayor DePeña’s persistence, however, wore down my resistance. His appeals to my sense of duty and integrity ultimately convinced me to participate in the selection process.
Once involved, I hoped to bring transparency and fairness to the proceedings. Yet, as the meetings progressed, it became painfully clear that the process was anything but honest. The level of corruption and manipulation I witnessed was astounding. Hidden agendas influenced decisions, favors were exchanged behind closed doors, and the actual merit of the candidates was overshadowed by political maneuvering.
Regret now shadows my every thought regarding this ordeal. My involvement, intended to uphold integrity, inadvertently embroiled me in a web of deceit. The experience has left an indelible mark on my perspective, reinforcing the importance of steadfastly adhering to one’s principles, even in the face of relentless persuasion.
In retrospect, this episode powerfully reminds us of the delicate balance between civic duty and personal integrity. It underscores the necessity of vigilance in safeguarding one’s reputation and the importance of transparency in all forms of governance.
This experience has profoundly shaped my understanding of the complexities inherent in political involvement and the imperative of unwavering commitment to ethical standards.
City Council Vice President Stephany Infante, Retired Police Lieutenant Michael Laird, Pastor Milagro Grullón, Businessman Rafael Guzman, DPW Worker Frankie Caraballo, and I formed the Committee. Two were added in case one of the seven could not attend one night: Filbert Ferreira and Susan Almonó.
During the first meeting of this Committee, it was agreed that everything should be confidential to avoid misunderstandings in the community and because the candidates’ information should remain private. From the beginning, things started leaking out.
We started with a list of 34 applicants from all over the country. Still, Jon Fehlman used his judgment to remove those who didn’t qualify, and we only received 16 names, including three from Lawrence: Maurice Aguiler, William Castro, and Michael McCarthy. We were not told what method he used or if each case had a background search.
Before the first meeting, there was an effort to eliminate William Castro. Mr. Felhman sent him an email with this request: “I need for you to confirm for me your continued interest in the Lawrence chief of police position. So, you are aware, Lawrence is requiring the candidate selected as chief of police move to Lawrence within one year of their hire date.”
Castro responded without hesitation: “I am still interested in the job position. Please allow me to review the job posting and description regarding relocation to the city. Last I checked, all law enforcement officials are allowed to live within a certain distance from the city and requiring me to live within the city could be discriminatory, since I learned that HR and City Council Vice President Stefany Infante, councilor Wendy Luzon, Sgt. Michael Simard, Lt. Rossi, and Lt. Raso have a collaborated effort to eliminate me from the hiring process.”
Since that didn’t work, Felhman suggested beginning the first meeting to discuss “the most recent chief the city has had.” The discussion was brief, and Castro was listed only because the mayor favored him. His name was removed from the list, and there was never a vote.
The committee in charge of selecting a police chief in Lawrence met twice, and the attendance was less than satisfactory. Out of the seven members assigned by the mayor, only Milagro Grullón, Michael Laird, and Stephany Infante participated.
Susan Almonó was appointed as an alternate in the event of individual scheduling conflicts, but she was not there even though Frankie Caraballo and Filbert Ferreira were absent. This session was meant to go over how we would discuss the candidates and narrow down the list for future interviews.
Daniel Guzmán, Michael Laird, and Stephany Infante attended the second meeting, and I attended both. Again, only four members were present, with Frankie Caraballo, Filbert Ferreira, and Susan Almonó absent. In my opinion, meeting attendance should be mandatory. This time, we decided on six candidates to come for interviews out of sixteen on the list based on their resumes.
This process was rigged from the beginning. I don’t understand why Mayor Brian DePeña chose people who were predisposed to go a sure way to serve on this committee. I was alone, and when I expressed my reasons for judging a candidate, Rafael Guzmán yelled at me, “That’s your opinion!” Yes, it is my opinion based on the truth and facts; it was my quick response.
After the meeting, I realized they were playing me like a chess piece, and I could not be part of that. Let them pick the one they came to support. I instead separated myself with my dignity rather than end up part of the corruption invading Lawrence resigning in writing.
On March 20, Caryl García, the interim personnel director, emailed the Committee members stating, “Per the Mayor he will not consider any recommendations unless at least five members are present. He would also like to remind everyone of the critical role this committee plays in the well-being of the community and the significant responsibility entrusted to its members. Each of you has been chosen to represent the interests of the City of Lawrence, and this position requires a commitment to honoring that responsibility.”
My response was immediate. “I must express my strong disagreement with that statement. The selection process was flawed from the beginning, and I will be nothing more than a mere token participant, especially when my name is at risk of being tarnished. After I provided my reasons for refusing to participate, Councilor Stephany Infante sent a letter alleging that I lied in my statements.”
Stephany told the council members I was angry because my favorite candidate was not chosen. There was never a vote for Castro, and I was not there for anyone.
I kept my word and did not attend the March 20 meeting. The next day, Mayor DePeña insisted again that he needed me there, so I returned for the March 24 interviews – this time, all seven members participated, including Filbert Ferreira and Susan Almonó for the first time. Suddenly, Stephany Infante made a motion that I should not be allowed to vote because I had missed the previous meeting with the first three interviews. Of course, that didn’t go anywhere.
We were given a set of ten questions for the candidates and were allowed to ask one or maybe two. They were philosophical (E.g., “Why do you want to be Chief?” “Significant achievements?” “How do you stay motivated?” “Fostering relationships with the community?” “Law enforcement vs. civil liberties,” etc.
When I tried to deviate from them by asking, “Have you ever had to fire anyone perhaps for doing something illegal?” I was interrupted by Mr. Felhman, “That question is not part of the list, and we have to stay on the topics of that list.”
Before we began with Maurice Aguiler, I made a disclaimer. I told them that he was a personal friend of mine. His resume was perfect for the job, and he did a great interview. However, when we were left alone to discuss the three candidates interviewed that night, everyone picked up a mistake he made while talking about problems at the station and it was decided to select only two great candidates, leaving him out. Besides, he was tied to another candidate for third place who later resigned from the competition.
Stephany and Rafael Guzmán continued to be adamant about letting me vote. She wrote, “We still have a member who formally resigned via email and stated this publicly, but yet the administration refuses to do the right thing and is allowing this member to participate.”
Rafael added, “I am in complete agreement with Ms. Councilor Infante regarding the voting process: only the members that participated in the interviewing process of both candidates are allowed to voice their opinion and vote. One can’t really provide an objective opinion about two individuals when one has only seen and heard from one.”
But nobody mentioned that Susan Almonó and Filbert Ferreira were only at the last meeting and voted.
The mayor insisted on getting three names to submit to the council so they could pick the winner. When he was sent only two, he refused to accept until he had a third one.
Captain Aguiler was tied with another candidate 3-3, and when that other applicant resigned, Aguiler was then added as the third name to the list.
That’s how it happened, except the mayor chose one instead of sending all three to the council. It was a mess from the beginning, and I wonder if that was his purpose from the start.
Be the first to comment