LRA meeting of 9/25/24
I attended the LRA regular meeting because I was planning on asking some questions about specific items on the agenda. I must be careful because there is still confusion regarding what they do and my sense of logic. There’s too much that I don’t understand.
My curiosity was regarding two items they had in Old Business. Like the city council’s agenda, that keeps growing with tabled items from more than ten years ago, the LRA’s was increasing the same way.
Many months ago, I became interested in something part of my expertise: creating a television studio for the government and community components of the cable companies portion that we all contribute to our monthly bills. Nobody could explain why the Lawrence Redevelopment Authority had to be in charge of selecting the architect to draft the design.
So, the city paid lots of money for that work that went to waste because I made so much noise that finally, mayor DePeña understood that 255 Essex Street, 1st floor, was not an appropriate space for a television studio. Besides, there was no room for editing suites, dressing room and makeup room. That has now become the LRA administration and other small offices with the front room set up for big meetings or government affairs.
However, “the design proposal LRA – Lawrence Access TV Studio” remained in old business, and I feared it would end up permanently under the LRA where it didn’t belong.
The other issue was The White Fund Paintings. From the first day, moving the paintings from the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to Lawrence has been brought up at almost every meeting.
I don’t know about art and have never gone to see them because I wouldn’t understand what I’m looking at, although it’s clear they are worth millions.
That reminded me of when former mayor Patricia Dowling, in 2000, wanted to sell them and use the money to improve the city. Many people expressed their outrage and ended up in court. Headed by Elizabeth Beland (God bless her; we still miss her), others argued that the will of the late Reverend William E. Wolcott was specific in its instructions. Wolcott died in 1911.
He clearly stated that his will, executed on June 20, 1907, does not allow the defendants to sell any of the seventeen paintings that were bequeathed, including works by Eugene Boudin, Camille Pissarro, and Claude Monet, to the trustees of The White Fund (trustees), a charitable trust.
“3. Whenever the pictures or any part of them shall come into the actual possession of the said Trustees, they shall offer the same for purposes of exhibition to the Museum of Fine Arts in the City of Boston, unless they shall determine otherwise by the discretion confirmed on them in the following paragraph:
“4. If at the time of my decease or at any subsequent time there shall exist within the present limits of the city of Lawrence a public art gallery housed in a fireproof building and under such management as the Trustees of the White Fund shall approve, the said Trustees may deposit the aforesaid pictures with such art gallery for purposes of exhibition.”
. We all know that before considering bringing the artworks here, we must build a super-secure fireproof museum with the best electronic protection and security guards. Can Lawrence afford that, and why would we?
After careful analysis of Rev. Wolcott’s will, the Superior Court decided that there was no doubt that he wanted the masses to enjoy that art belonging to the residents of Lawrence. The court also established that the trustees of the White Fund were the keepers and had no right to sell any of them.
That controversy was settled 24 years ago. The paintings shall remain at the Museum of Fine Arts and cannot be sold.
So, when I heard them say they were removed from Old Business, I left the meeting.
I also volunteered to be on the LRA committee to review the proposals received to build/restore properties, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to start writing about that.
What’s the First Amendment for?
At the beginning of this year, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s comments on the First Amendment surprised everyone. As a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, we expect her to know the basics of the US Constitution, which our forefathers made the First Amendment first for its importance.
Justice Jackson said, “My biggest concern is that the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways…”
James Madison was the primary author of the First Amendment and was a champion of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious liberty, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Its purpose was to protect the public from the government.
Then, this week, John Kerry, former senator and former secretary of state, said something similar. “If people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and, you know, has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence,” said Kerry.
“So what you need, what we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully having, you know, winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change,” he added.
What’s happening in this country is unbelievable. Laws don’t mean anything anymore, and changes are happening under the radar because most of us never hear what happens.
Talking on speakerphone
I must confess that I use my speakerphone all the time. If I’m working at home, it allows me to keep working while carrying a conversation. The same is true if I’m in the car; if you see me talking, I’m either on the phone or having a staff meeting with myself.
However, it annoys me when someone else does it around me. Talking on speakerphone in public spaces is my biggest pet peeve. Whether we are talking to the love of our life, the doctor, or having a fight with our husband (swearing and being vulgar), nobody needs to be part of it. If you must carry a conversation on the telephone in a public place, DON’T TURN ON THE SPEAKER.
Our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence…”
John Kerry at the Free Speech Union
Be the first to comment