Lawrence Police Superior Officers Still Waiting for Answers Nearly a Year Later
Sep 24, 2026
Nearly a year after the New England Police Benevolent Association first publicly raised concerns regarding unresolved hostile work environment complaints involving members of the Lawrence Police Superior Officers Association, the Union reports that the investigation remains incomplete and fundamental questions remain unanswered.
At the center of those unanswered questions is the role of the Lawrence Mayor’s Office.
Several Lawrence Police superior officers filed hostile work environment complaints in 2024 and early 2025. The City subsequently retained outside investigator Attorney Djuna Perkins to investigate those complaints. According to information provided to the Union, Attorney Perkins interviewed multiple individuals, reviewed documentation and issued notices of allegations before her work was placed on hold.
The Union was initially informed that the investigation had been halted because of a City spending freeze. However, as NEPBA previously reported, the Union was subsequently advised that the directive to stop the Perkins investigation came directly from the Mayor’s Office.
That distinction matters.
The City had already retained an outside investigator. Investigative work had begun. Interviews had been conducted. Notices of allegations had been issued. Yet the process stopped before reaching a conclusion.
The spending restriction subsequently ended, but according to the Union, the investigation did not resume.
The LPSOA has repeatedly sought an explanation for why.
Questions Raised Publicly Before the City Council
Questions surrounding the City’s handling of the hostile work environment complaints were also raised publicly before the Lawrence City Council.
During the January 29, 2025 City Council meeting, Council Vice President Stephany Infante questioned City Personnel Director Caryl Garcia regarding the outstanding complaints. According to the Union’s subsequent correspondence with the City, Garcia indicated during that discussion that a possible outside vendor was being considered.
➡️Watch the January 29, 2025 City Council discussion
The Union has also identified the January 22, 2025 City Council meeting as providing additional public context regarding the City’s handling of these matters.
➡️Watch the January 22, 2025 City Council discussion
These public discussions demonstrate that questions concerning the complaints and the City’s response were being raised before the City Council months before the Union says the outside investigation was ultimately halted.
A Second Investigation and Another Question About the Mayor’s Office
Separately, during the February 5, 2025 City Council meeting, councilors publicly questioned the handling of the leaked Maverick report. According to the Union’s June 2026 correspondence, the Council ultimately directed the City Attorney to hire someone to investigate the leak.
➡️Watch the February 5, 2025 City Council discussion
Concerns about the lack of progress were not limited to the Union.
In July 2025, City Councilor Wendy Luzon contacted City officials regarding both outstanding matters, writing that using a budget freeze to delay them was “not productive” and calling for the City to move forward. City Personnel Director Caryl Garcia subsequently wrote to City officials: “This needs to be addressed. Please advise.”
According to correspondence provided to the Union, no further communication followed that exchange.
Yet nearly a year later, the LPSOA was still seeking answers.
LPSOA Again Demands Answers
On June 24, 2026, LPSOA Secretary Lt. James Raso wrote directly to City Attorney Timothy Houten and Personnel Director Garcia regarding the two unresolved matters. The Union sought answers to two straightforward questions:
- Why did the City retain Attorney Perkins, allow her investigation to proceed through interviews and notices of allegations, and then place that investigation on hold without subsequently completing it?
- Why was the City not conducting the leaked Maverick report investigation that the City Council had previously directed be undertaken, and what was the basis for that decision?
The City did not initially respond.
On July 17, NEPBA counsel Attorney Thomas Horgan followed up on behalf of the Union, noting that no response to the June 24 correspondence had been received and asking when the Union could expect one.
Three days later, City Attorney Houten responded with two sentences concerning only the Maverick matter:
“The Mayor cancelled any investigation into the leak of the Maverick report. There is no ongoing investigation.”
That response did not address the Union’s separate questions regarding the hostile work environment investigation or explain why Attorney Perkins’ investigation remains unfinished.
But it did provide a direct answer concerning who cancelled the Maverick investigation: the Mayor.
That disclosure takes on additional significance because, in the separate hostile work environment matter, the Union reports that it had previously been advised that the directive to stop Attorney Perkins’ investigation came from the Mayor’s Office.
In one matter, the Union reports being told that the Mayor’s Office directed that an outside investigation be halted. In the other, the City Attorney expressly stated that the Mayor cancelled the investigation.
That leaves a fundamental question:
Why did the Mayor’s Office intervene in these investigative processes, and why have the affected employees, their Union and the public still not received a complete explanation?
NEPBA Renews Its Call for Answers
NEPBA believes employees who raise serious workplace concerns through established channels deserve a process that reaches a conclusion. Likewise, those who may be the subject of allegations deserve the certainty that comes from a completed process. An investigation that remains unfinished indefinitely provides neither.
The Union is not asking the City to predetermine an outcome.
It is asking the City to finish the process it started.
NEPBA and the LPSOA are calling for a full accounting of who authorized the Perkins investigation to be halted, the basis for that decision, why the investigation did not resume after the stated spending restriction ended, and whether the City intends to complete it.
The Lawrence City Council has itself raised questions regarding these matters. NEPBA believes the Council and the affected employees deserve clear answers regarding the decisions that were made and the role of the Mayor’s Office in those decisions.
The Lawrence Police Superior Officers Association has sought answers through correspondence, through counsel, before the City Council and through the appropriate municipal channels.
Our members are still waiting.
NEPBA stands firmly behind the Lawrence Police Superior Officers Association and will continue advocating for a transparent and complete resolution of these outstanding matters.
