Firing chaos
Since the news came out about the dismissal of Personnel Director Michael Owens in Lawrence, there have been many rumors, so I requested whatever records City Hall could send me. Since all I heard was silence, I wrote again asking for some more specific things. What I received was a letter from City Attorney Tim Houten stating that Mr. Owens had not been fired and that he was still a city employee.
I know that personnel issues are delicate and not everything can be released to the media; I just wanted some clarity on the rumors, but I never expected that response from him.
Some sources have told me that Mr. Owens was hired by the Chief Administrative and Finance Officer (CAFU) Mark Iannello, who was on vacation that week and was furious upon his return to work and finding out what they had done the previous week. They are now claiming that the proper procedures were not followed, such as giving his last paychecks along with the letter, and because of that “violation,” there’s a question as to whether he was let go.
At that time, there was sufficient evidence that the personnel department’s work was not being done, as I described last week, and that was reason enough to take this action. They later found a treasure trove of evidence in his city-owned telephone showing that he was involved in other areas irrelevant to his position.
If he’s not going to work but, according to Mr. Houten, “Has not been terminated or separated from the City of Lawrence,” why is he collecting his salary at home?
He recently sent Mayor DePeña a letter demanding $50,000 to go away, but with all the evidence available and the fact that he was “dismissed” before the six months stipulated in his contract, I wonder if he justifiably should get that.
In a conversation with the Mayor, it was obvious that the City is always afraid of lawsuits, which they want to avoid with Michael Owens. My opinion was that if they continue doing that, they will never be able to fire any employee due to that fear, no matter what they do.
Changes to the School Committee
Not having any children in the school system, I don’t follow what’s happening there as carefully, and I have been very cautious about judging what goes on with the Lawrence Public Schools. In other words, I may not know what I’m talking about.
But I do follow the city council meetings because most of the time, a councilor has no idea of what s/he is speaking. I not only follow what they say but also check it out to find the truth in what’s being said.
The proposed legislation has various provisions that address how mayoral appointees apply and are selected by the Mayor to serve as 1 of the 7 mayoral appointees – as well as provisions that provide for the process of electing the three members at large. The details of these provisions are NOT reviewed or addressed in this review. Instead, the legislative manner by which the petition process is subject to this review.
This school committee issue is very confusing, particularly for those who don’t like reading. I believe the “new” Lawrence School Committee, established by a petition filed directly with the Lawrence City Council, is impermissible by the terms of Article 89 and G.L. c. 43B, sec. 10 (in particular).
Unfortunately, the reasoning is very complicated, but consider the following: Reorganizing a “legislative body” (like the School Committee) is NOT like “reorganizing a “City Department.” It takes a lot of effort, a lot of meetings and a lot of time. Not just a vote of the City Council. Most importantly, Article 89 and G.L. c. 43B REQUIRE voter input – not only to vote on the “final product” but also to approve or defeat the measure at a City Election.
This law provides for certifying petition signers, Board of Registrar oversight, interposing a ballot question to be voted on, and selecting a “nine-member commission” responsible for considering and reporting its findings to the City Council, which will, in turn, place the issue on a ballot to be voted upon by voters at the next city election.
A petition for adopting or revising a charter shall be signed by at least fifteen percent of the legal voters residing in such City or town at the preceding state election.
We should not allow the council to violate our right to decide what’s good for Lawrence when our opinion is required by law.
The only thing I could not find was Special Legislation, which waives specific required provisions under Article 89 or G.L. c. 43B. I say this because it seems the City of Lawrence no longer requires a public hearing for some or specific “ordinances” or approvals/adoption of State Laws, contrary to the City’s requirements of Section 3.8 (d). I am unsure and was unable to find out if the “public hearing” requirement of the Lawrence City Charter has been amended or limited in any way.
The bottom line is that past city clerks stopped performing the most expensive functions because it helped reduce the Clerk/Election budgets. I suspect required public hearings are going the same route.
G.L. c. 43B, section 10(c) also requires the Clerk IMMEDIATELY to forward a copy of the proposed Charter Amendment “… to the attorney general and the executive office of housing and livable communities and such order shall not take effect for four weeks after the date of such submission.” See G.L. c. 43B, sec. 10(c) 2024. In return, the Attorney General must send the City Council a written opinion stating any conflict the proposed amendment has with the Massachusetts Constitution (which I believe conflicts with Article 9 and Article 89) AND the laws of the Commonwealth, if any.
The proposed amendment of Section 5 of the Lawrence City Charter providing “changes” to the composition and/or manner of representation by the Lawrence School Committee in the City of Lawrence should be “denied” as the petition, as filed, fails to meet the lawful procedures required by Article 89 and G.L. c. 43.
Although the “Council Agenda Item [148/24] Establishment of Home Rule Petition defining a Governing Structure for the Lawrence School Board upon the Exit of State Receivership – Mayor Brian A. DePeña is unlawful as presented for failing to comply with the provisions of Article 89 AND G.L. c. 43B, more than 4 months have elapsed from the original filing date of April 2, 2024 – which doesn’t apply since a “citizen petition” is required even to present an amendment of the provisions of City Charter Section 5 that provides for the composition, election, and representation provided by district School Committee Members.
The proposed amendment of Section 5 of the Lawrence City Charter providing “changes” to the composition and/or manner of representation by the Lawrence School Committee in the City of Lawrence should be “denied” as the petition, as filed, fails to meet the lawful procedures required by Article 89 and G.L. c. 43.
If the HRP approved by the City Council is signed by the Mayor, it CANNOT go into effect until the Attorney General is sent a copy of the approved Charter Change and returns a legal opinion on the lawful effectiveness of the “amendment.”
I may not have interpreted the laws or the City Charter correctly, but when I showed this to an attorney friend, s/he agreed with me. At least, it will be food for thought for those councilors who have no idea what goes on at their meetings or the impact they will have on Lawrencians’ daily lives.
I understand that I am reacting to the fear of having our right to vote denied at election time, but we should study what benefits the children of this City and the school department. After all, I could be wrong!
Be the first to comment