During the Lawrence City Council meeting last January 19, they were to approve the recommendation of Michelle Melancon for the Lawrence Redevelopment Authority, when James O’Donoghue approached them to accuse the mayor of “retaliation” as the reason for dismissing him from that board.
Mr. O’Donoghue was appointed in early 2014 to a five-year term. He recently found a telephone message from the mayor’s office stating that he was no longer a member of that body but, as far as he is concerned, he has a five-year appointment and was appointed by the council which means that only the council can fire him for cause.
He went on to read this statement:
According to the official City Council agendas and minutes I was appointed to the Lawrence Redevelopment Authority (aka LRA) for a term of 5 years.
The LRA is moving forward with an Urban Renewal Study.
We can anticipate that at some point the LRA board positions will become paid positions similar to the BRA positions in Boston through development agreements at no cost to the taxpayers.
The person that the mayor wants to appoint to the LRA in my stead is in my opinion considerably less qualified to serve in that position than I am.
I consider Mayor Rivera’s action to be a Wrongful Discharge from the LRA.
What the City Council needs to know is that I consider the Mayor’s action to remove me from the LRA to be Retaliation for speaking out on Facebook against his publishing the names of Recall signers.
I also consider Mayor Rivera’s actions to remove me as Intimidating a Witness because of what I overheard on November 18, 2015 regarding supporters of the Mayor conspiring to sign the Recall Petition in one another’s names so that the Recall Petitioners could be accused of forgeries.
Mayor Rivera sent us a statement with his response to these comments saying,” “I wanted to go in a different direction on this opening on the LRA board and is why I submitted Ms. Melancon’s name for approval by the council. I consider Mr. O’Donoghue a friend and thank him for his service and support.”
The meeting with the Foundation for Transparency in Government was to clarify what he heard at that November 18, 2015 meeting at the LRA. That information will be valuable next week when the group discusses their objections to the way 3,095 signatures were eliminated from the forms turned in by them, deeming the recall effort null.
