Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/7/2023
HOLYOKE – The Charter and Rules Committee discussed an order during their Feb. 27 meeting that seeks to create a Cannabis Committee to strictly deal with special permits and ordinance changes related to cannabis.
Under this new order, placed by At-Large Councilor and Chair of the Charter and Rules Committee Jose Maldonado Velez, employee-related issues will be forwarded to the Public Service Committee instead of the Ordinance Committee.
Maldonado-Velez’s seeking to establish a Cannabis Committee “to strictly deal with marijuana special permits and ordinance changes related to cannabis” is also currently under the Ordinance Committee’s umbrella of responsibility.
Ward 3 Councilor David Bartley said the Ordinance Committee was set to reflect the City Charter. He added that while he was all for shifting the specific responsibility, he wanted to make sure the City Charter allowed for the change.
“I don’t think you can do this by City Council order,” Bartley said.
Bartley requested the Law Department issue a legal opinion on if the changes were permissible or required a new ordinance.
Ward 7 Councilor Todd McGee said the change would free up the Ordinance Committee for other matters. He agreed with Bartley’s precaution but noted the order was to start discussion on the matter. He added the council could not accept or reject the proposal.
At-Large Councilor Joseph McGiverin said he felt realigning and trying to lessen workloads was important but also noted the formation of new committees “might spread ourselves [councilors] thin.”
“I think we should really look at, do we think the five standing committees are not working, and if so how many new committees do we want there to be and much shifting can we do,” McGiverin said. “I think Attorney Bissonnette and Councilor Bartley are correct though, the Charter spells out some things that we’re not doing anything until the Charter language changes when it comes to the Ordinance [Committee] and I think finance also.”
Maldonado Velez said he thought the discussion was helpful in starting to figure out what the council’s options were in smoothing out some aspects of their process going forward as they awaited more information on what they can do.
Another order of note discussed among councilors and focused on potential procedure of the council was filed by councilor’s Tessa Murphy-Romboletti and At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain. The order looks to adopt a rule to establish that when a councilor’s legislative term ends, the orders they filed that are still active go out with them. The order stated, “Any orders pending in committee or not acted on by the end of the legislative term must be re-filed at the start of the subsequent legislative term.”
The order had been previously tabled three separate times over 2022. Bartley said he understood the order completely but to him it did not feel like “a democratic way to go about.”
“If I’m resigning or if I’m not running for reelection or if I get beat, whatever, I’m still a city councilor until December 31 and if I file an order in November or December its because I put some thought into it…and I want to see it at least taken up for debate,” Bartley said.
He added the time of year is busy for everyone and if the order were to slip past the end of a term, there was no assurance that the order would be brought back up right away by a councilor after the councilor who filed the order exited from the council. Bartley also felt if there was a really important reason other than slimming down the agenda jacket then it made more sense for him to be in favor of it.
“To me the more democratic way would be to at least recognize that the orders are valid, to at least have the City Council president – whomever it is – [so they] can try to expedite taking them up early in the term. I would hate to see this just be like in Boston. You know why they do that? It’s not for legislative efficiency, that’s a total canard. They do it because they want to zing the person walking out the door,” Bartley said. “I don’t think we have to be as crass as they are in Boston, or Washington. I respect the order and respect the intent, but I don’t want us to be that way.”
Murphy-Romboletti said this was one of her first filed orders since joining the council and said the reasoning behind why she filed it still stood and felt fellow councilors needed to be more thoughtful when filing orders.
“I think that we shouldn’t file orders just for the sake of being able to say, ‘look I did this thing’ and then we never really know what happens after that and its not efficient,” Murphy-Romboletti said. “To me as a new councilor it was really weird that we had to debate things that no one [who had filed the order] was even here anymore. I feel like if I don’t get reelected, that’s it. I lost my shot to make change legislatively and I shouldn’t have the ability to do that beyond my term.”
Murphy-Romboletti added she was “not super passionate” about passing the order and felt with the absence of Jourdain from the meeting she was not ready to get rid of the order as she wanted him to have an opportunity to add to discussion. She noted she thought the discussion on this was needed in order to explore better possibilities.
McGiverin said he doesn’t support the order for a few reasons, one being because when an order is filed, the full City Council receives it and refers it to committee thus making it become the “body’s order.” He said that is how he has always viewed this scenario and that the maker of the order was not necessarily the only one in favor of something.
He continued and noted that in the beginning of a new term is the middle of a fiscal year, so any financial orders are ongoing and “very important” orders that need to still be addressed. He also noted public hearings can become ongoing and last over months and said it does not take away from the importance of the order even if the maker of the order is not on the council any longer.
“Sometimes orders are tied up in the Law Department, sometimes orders are tied up waiting for information coming back from department head even if committee was all in favor of it,” McGiverin said. “I get it, it would make a clean slate and look great and clean out those folders real quick, but I think at the same time it would cause a lot of re-work…”
McGee said he also understood the intent of the filed order and was initially in favor as it would clear things up and help new councilors adjust. He noted he was ultimately against it as it could end up being “problematic, unintentionally” due to things in finance and ordinance that can take time to get approved.
The item was tabled until a future meeting as councilors agreed they wanted to hear Jourdain’s comments on the discussion as he was one of the councilors who filed the order.