Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 4/25/2023
HOLYOKE — In the City Council’s first meeting following Mayor Joshua Garcia’s veto of a Community Preservation Act ballot question, councilors questioned the legality of the move and will now await a legal opinion coming in their first May meeting.
The April 18 meeting saw the council receive the communication from Garcia notifying them of his veto. The City Council passed a ballot question that allows residents to decide whether to lower the CPA surcharge from 1.5% to 1%, which Garcia vetoed in hopes of getting the question on the ballot during the presidential/state election in 2024.
Garcia has maintained that he believes there is unanimous support between all councilors and himself to allow voters to make the call on the CPA tax. However, based on councilors discussions before the narrow 7-6 vote, he felt that waiting an election year with better turnout than this November’s municipal election would better reflect the city’s voice on this question.
Garcia said in his letter to the council that while the data is not overwhelming as some may assume regarding election turnout, there was enough data showing presidential and state elections will bring out the most voters which in turn will best reflect the city on the decision. The data Garcia was referring to was provided out of the city clerk’s office.
“Regardless of how people feel about CPA, I share the opinion with the council that it’s important we let the voters decide. The data shows that a state/presidential election has the strongest turnout, and the results will give the more accurate reflection of what the community wants,” Garcia said in the letter. “I hope you will agree to support the path that will leverage the greatest voter turnout.”
When opened for discussion among the council, At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain said he didn’t understand the veto and based on state law the mayor did not have the authority to veto it in his opinion.
Jourdain cited two sections of state law detailing that the legislative body makes the decision on ballot questions, which would be the city council. He also said that there was no reference in these sections of a mayor and being involved in this process.
“This issue has come up in the past with other ballot questions that have come before this body and it’s been long pointed out that the mayor has no veto power over the placement of ballot questions,” Jourdain said.
Jourdain added even the city’s charter did not necessarily require the approval of the mayor for something like this to become effective.
“As a matter of fact, our former Mayor Alex Morse acknowledged in an email to the city clerk on Jan. 20, 2015, he stated he has no veto power over ballot questions,” Jourdain said.
Jourdain also pointed out that with ballot questions, the city clerk is required by law to place the question on the ballot after its passing through City Council and asked clerk Brenna Murphy McGee to follow through as he felt the mayor’s veto was not legal.
“I think the honorable City Council should take note of the mayor’s veto. That’s nice, but he doesn’t have the authority to veto this and the council through you, should uphold the vote of the majority,” Jourdain said.
When referring to legal, Assistant City Solicitor Michael Bissonnette said he and legal had not yet had the chance to absorb all the points made by Jourdain and were not prepared to issue an opinion on the matter. Bissonnette eventually confirmed to the council they would have a legal opinion by the council’s first meeting in May.
At-Large Councilor Joseph McGiverin asked Bissonnette if there was any concern of a timeline before the mayor’s veto would be final. Bissonnette said it was up to the council to accept or overturn or take no action and whatever was approved would become law.
“So, at this point you don’t really have a clock ticking as much as you have an election calendar ticking,” Bissonnette explained.
Ward 3 Councilor David Bartley said the council “can’t let this linger” and noted it was important to resolve this and know where they legally stood heading into the finalization of the budget for the next fiscal year.
Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon noted back in 2016 when initially trying to get the CPA tax question on the ballot they were informed it was only achievable through two avenues, City Council vote or citizen’s petition. She added that they were also informed any changes in the future would need to be made in the same manner.
“I really sort of hate to see us get into overcomplicating a pretty straightforward situation where we’ve had a clear vote by the council, and we have done everything in accordance with the initial placement of the CPA question on the ballot,” Vacon said. “From my perspective I really feel the voters should have the right, to have a say over any money that is coming out of their pockets and going to city government.”
Ward 6 Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos said that the mayor’s communication to the council and veto decision was not discouraging voters rights but attempting to move the ballot question to an election that would more likely than not lead to better voter turnout.
One last note made by Vacon before the discussion ended was a reminder that this current sitting City Council does not have authority to bind the next City Council to any action for a future ballot if the ballot question were to be moved to the 2024 election. Jourdain reiterated there was law and precedent showing the mayor’s veto should not hold up and added he was interested to hear back from legal.
The council voted to bring the question of whether Garcia’s veto was legal or not to the Law Department and are expected to receive an opinion back for their first meeting in May.