Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 1/2/2024
HOLYOKE — A discussion about the City Council’s meeting rules dominated much of the Charter and Rules Committee Dec. 11 meeting after Ward 4 Councilor Kocayne Givner filed two items looking to create a more efficient process for the public meetings.
The first item filed by Givner looked to regulate City Council meetings to a 2.5 hour limit, or 150 minutes, and that a majority vote be required to continue meetings beyond this limit, adding an additional 15 minutes no more than twice, capping meetings fully at 180 minutes. Givner said the intention of the change was to encourage a broader participation of Holyoke’s public through meeting efficiency and limited repetition of comments.
“The most common critique by Holyoke residents regarding City Council meetings is that they are too long, continue too late and are dominated by length repetitive commentary,” Givner said in the order.
Givner said during discussions that for a city with 35,000 plus people, the council’s 7 p.m. meetings too often run three to four hours long. She added that often when the City Council needs to discuss or act on an item that has gone through subcommittee meetings and debate already, the council will have the same conversations and debates that took place in the subcommittee meetings.
“I don’t think it’s necessary to then send it to City Council and have all the exact same conversations we just had in subcommittee. I’m just trying to figure out a way to make things more efficient,” Givner said. “We do have these conversations [prior to City Council], they are all recorded, so it’s really not necessary to have the conversations over and over and over and over again.”
At-large Councilor Tessa Murphy-Romboletti said that she remembered a past item brought before the subcommittee that would limit councilor speaking time during discussion on an item, but concerns were raised on if changes of this nature would stifle councilor’s first amendment right. She added while this may be a concern once again with this order, she understood the approach of the item in trying to find a way to have more efficiently run meetings and not ones ending so late at night.
Holyoke City Council meetings start at 7 p.m. and of the 19 regular City Council meetings in 2023, 11 went over 3 hours in length, seven of those went over 3 and a half hours, and three went over 4 hours. While there were a handful of long meetings, eight of the council’s 2023 regular meetings were less than 3 hours, with three of the meetings lasting only an hour and change.
The average meeting time of these regular City Council meetings in 2023 was 182 minutes, or 3 hours and 2 minutes. These figures were calculated by Reminder Publishing using the recording times of 2023 regular City Council meetings available online.
Murphy-Romboletti also noted the council was doing itself a disservice running meetings so late and a disservice to the public as they deserved more reasonable hours at times especially when an item they are there to see the council discuss is long down the line of its agenda. She added she also agreed with Givner’s point that oftentimes City Council meeting discussions regurgitate talking points and discussions already had in subcommittee meetings.
According to Murphy-Romboletti, Springfield’s City Council has a rule in place that no meeting shall go beyond 10 p.m. unless upon a motion of any city councilor, the meeting is extended for a period of time stated in the motion, and so long as the motion is unanimously approved by all members present. If a motion to extend the meeting past 10 p.m. is not approved, all remaining items shall be continued until the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
“I think that is reasonable, I think we should do something similar. I think that the public deserves it and I think we deserve it. And I think it’s just good governance,” Murphy-Romboletti said.
Givner added she looked at other surrounding communities such as Springfield, Northampton and Easthampton in getting the 2.5 hour long meeting limit and as to how their meetings are formatted and she found they all are often shorter and ending earlier in the night than Holyoke.
“But I think Springfield really says a lot because they’re a much bigger city [than Holyoke],” Givner said.
At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain had a different perspective of the council’s meeting length worries. Jourdain, who has served a total of 13 terms as a member of the council, said from his perspective he feels no extreme difference in the meeting lengths from the present compared to his many years previously spent on the council.
He also added that currently they have a rule in place that a councilor is only allowed to speak twice without permission during discussion, a rule in the same vain to limit run on discussion. Overall, Jourdain said he generally disagreed with the “characterizations” made by those in favor of the item.
“I don’t agree that the public wants this, in fact I have people overwhelmingly appreciate — for many, many years — the different points that I bring up in the discussion and the debate, and quite frankly, I have been voted in 14 times in a row. So, if my microphone seems to be working just fine and people seem to feel that I’m doing a good job by making the points I make, then what’s the problem? I think you guys should pay attention to that a little bit, especially as newer people,” Jourdain said
Jourdain did say while he was open to the idea of discussing how they could change their rules more in line with Springfield’s like the example made by Murphy-Romboletti, but added he felt any rule that limited councilors speaking time bordered on censorship.
“The public has a right to know what’s going on and they have a right to hear from their elected officials. A lot of people watch the meetings, and they have a right to hear the different points in the discussion,” Jourdain said.
He added the discussions from meetings add another level of transparency between the city government and the public as the day-to-day affairs of the city are always taking place behind closed doors. Jourdain also said that as a legislative body, the council has to react to things and have discussions and make rulings based on this process which requires a forum where debates and discussions are not limited or hard capped.
Jourdain in closing his points also said the job of a city councilor is a huge commitment and that if it were an easy going position more people would be running for office. In his case, a few extra late meetings a year is a trade off for what is required as a city councilor. He also noted that subcommittee meetings have “sketchy” attendance for the public and that City Council discussions are often where someone can catch up on the information as the council has a final discussion before voting.
Givner said Jourdain made a lot of valid points but felt it was disingenuous to suggest fellow councilor’s do not do a good job of getting the public to subcommittee meetings.
“That’s exactly what subcommittee meetings are for, and that is when the public really gets a chance to see different department heads, the chief of police, any number of organizations come in and give their presentations [to subcommittees],” Givner said. “So, I would actually argue that there is a lot more information in the subcommittee meetings on each topic and that those are very important meetings for people to pay attention to if they are actually interested in a topic. The City Council meetings are a great place to have the chairs of the subcommittee give a recap of what the meeting was about. The City Council meeting is not in my opinion, the time to restate every single point that was made in the subcommittee meeting.”
Givner also said she felt while attendance wasn’t always great for city meetings, she has heard from constituents that many catch up on meetings through the recordings made available due to busy lives and instead of catching the meeting live.
In regard to the claim of these changes bordering on censorship, Givner disagreed that was anywhere near the goal of the order and that it really was to create efficiency by giving a time limit that would hopefully discourage repeat discussions among the council.
Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon said she felt a time limit could lead to the danger of extending timelines for items that could be acted on sooner. With many items brought to the City Council being referred to subcommittees, these items could potentially be delayed in moving to those subcommittees if a meeting was stopped short with items still yet to be complied with. She also suggested more councilors visit subcommittee meetings or review their discussions so that they can be caught up once the item is back with the council, something Givner agreed with.
Jourdain maintained that from his experience over his council career, there was nothing present to suggest there needed to be a big change to the council’s rules on meeting limits. Still, he added in his closing remarks he would try to keep an open mind on potential changes and would be reaching out to Springfield city councilors for their perspective on the rule they have.
“But before we adopt this to change these kinds of rules that have been in place and working just fine for decades, I think we should leave good enough alone,” Jourdain said.
Givner in closing reiterated this was not a big issue, but the start of conversations to see how the council could potentially make their meetings more efficient for the public and continue to consider what constituents and the public say about the council’s meetings.
The subcommittee voted to comply with the item as a new City Council is set to be sworn with the new year. In order for this discussion to be brought back up and considered once again, it will have to be filed in the new term.