Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 2/28/2023
HOLYOKE — The City Council spent a solid portion of its Feb. 21 meeting continuing debate on a vacation proposal that stretched from their last meeting on Feb. 7 and still is yet to reach its conclusion.
The meeting ended with the amendment of the ordinance being postponed one final time as it is expected to be voted on with no debate at the council’s next meeting. The change would allow non-union and professional-level employees additional vacation time.
Council President Todd McGee pulled the order from the Ordinance Committee during the council’s Feb. 7 meeting. If passed, the amended ordinance would add more vacation days for non-unionized employees or workers not covered under collective bargaining.
At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain was responsible for delaying the Feb. 21 vote, as he objected to the vote taking place and cited state law for his reasoning.
The amendment to the ordinance called for additional personal days and vacation time, with employees receiving a maximum of six weeks off after 25 years of service. The amendment more specifically proposes to tack on five more days of vacation time for new and current non-union employees based on length of continuous service or relevant work experience.
Employees with less than five years of service will receive 15 days of vacation time, employees with at least five years will receive 20 days, with 10 years of service employees will get 25 days, and those with at least 20 years will receive 30 days.
After the council’s Feb. 7 meeting, the Law Department was asked to draft an amendment to the current ordinance before the Feb. 21 meeting and vote.
Jourdain claimed the vote violated council rules because a draft ordinance or legal form was not sent to councilors and interested parties before the Feb. 21 meeting. He noted that with the state law, if a councilor objects to the vote of an ordinance that passed all three of its readings in one night, then the vote would be automatically postponed to the council’s next meeting.
After some dispute, Jourdain referred to Assistant City Solicitor Michael Bissonnette, who confirmed Jourdain was correct, and the vote must be postponed to the next meeting.
Ward 2 Councilor Will Puello, Ward 3 Councilor David Bartley and Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon all joined Jourdain in opposing the revised ordinance.
Jourdain has been consistent in discussions on this proposed change saying he feels it will burden taxpayers in a time of rising costs and stationary wages. Jourdain continued arguments that this was unnecessary for the city as their focus should be more so on offering competitive wages and retaining all city staff as opposed to resolving this specific issue for the 21 non-union city employees.
“We have a duty here to reign it in. We’re creating more liabilities for the city. We need to focus very tightly on the finances of the city. We need to continue to give people cost of living adjustments, they have bills to pay,” Jourdain argued. “But when it comes to opportunities like jacking up vacation leave or jacking up personal days, come on. We can’t do that to the city…This is how cities fall apart financially.”
Jourdain continued saying the only reason the city has been “walking around here like we’re big shots with money” is because of “$40 million worth of government handouts.” He noted there would be “a day of reckoning” when government support slowed down and the city had to face its finances without aid.
Jourdain asserted during the previous meeting’s discussion that some city employees receive 15 sick days and 13 to 15 holidays and three personal days. He added the latest discussion had been around flex time and a 35-hour work week.
At-Large Councilor Joseph McGiverin disagreed with Jourdain’s objection and ultimate postponing of a vote, stating that the original order was introduced at the committee level along with a first and second reading, the necessary steps before passing.
The last two City Council meetings have resulted in almost four total hours of discussion and debate on this one item. McGiverin, by the end of the Feb. 21 discussion, made it clear that the next meeting would have zero discussion and only a final vote on the proposal.
At-Large Councilor Israel Rivera said he felt the change was looking to create more equity for the city employees who weren’t in a union but still work every day for the city. He added that the city’s financial status was not due to vacation time of employees.
“Councilor [Jourdain] brought up a lot of points that were valid, I hear him on them, but it’s just that it’s not consistent across the board,” Rivera said. “At the end of the day, because of this decision isn’t why we’re in debt some 200 and something thousand dollars.”
Rivera noted a decision like this could add to the debt, but it was not the reason or even a large factor as to why the city’s debt is where it is. Rivera said these employees deserve this change that would cost the city just over $60,000 and he doesn’t understand why this is such an issue when the council has approved raises for salaries over six figures.
“You can’t pick and choose, bro. This is why we’re where we’re at now. Because this is what it’s been for years, for decades,” Rivera said. “I’ve only been here 12 months. You want to blame me for everything? This one decision? The last 12 months I’ve been here? I’ll take some accountability because I should, and I will…the issue here is making it equitable for everyone across the board…we should all be able to work in a way where its effective and efficient for the city. Not for an individual, not for an individual department…things need to evolve.”
McGiverin explained that when examining the individuals who would benefit from this change, most work in the office setting in city government. These individuals cannot enter collective bargaining and often have nobody to speak up for them, McGiverin noted. Ward 4 Councilor Kocayne Givner made this same point at the previous meeting and suggested in this instance the council needed to act in a way to represent the non-union group.
“These are benefits and benefits that allow an individual time off. Many of these individuals come into these chambers when we call them and spend hours in a committee meeting. Many of these individuals are on Zoom right now with us, long beyond the hours of 8:30 [a.m.]-4:30 [p.m.],” McGiverin explained. “Many of these individuals don’t get the benefits that their contemporaries in other cities do.”
At one point in the discussion, Jourdain accused councilors of voting for “raises for relatives” but did not name any specific individuals. Bartley questioned the ethics of a councilor voting on a pay raise for a relative. McGee stated that if a conflict of interest were to arise, a councilor must self-report or seek an opinion from the state ethics board.
Puello-Mota tried raising a question, through the council president, to Ward 6 Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos something related to if he received any opinion from the state ethics but was cut off and ruled out of order by the council president. This caused the two councilors to butt heads and begin arguing as Anderson-Burgos’s husband works as the council’s administrative assistant and felt questioning his ethics about his husband’s role was insulting.
Anderson-Burgos apologized shortly after saying he was out of line but noted tempers can flare when integrity is challenged like he felt is was being done to him by fellow councilors.
“To me, it’s an insult when you throw my husband in my face and say ethics when this has nothing to do with my husband,” Anderson-Burgos said. “
Anderson-Burgos spoke with the Law Department about the upcoming vote, equating it to approving the annual budget. Bissonnette clarified that the increased vacation time was for a group of employees, not an individual line item so there was no issue he noted with ethics.
The City Council’s next meeting is scheduled for March 7 and a final vote with no further debate is expected then.