Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 5/23/2023
HOLYOKE — The City Council voted during its May 16 meeting to table Mayor Joshua Garcia’s veto of a Community Preservation Act ballot question instead of voting to sustain or reject it on the premises of awaiting more legal information on the legality of the vote.
Garcia vetoed a recently passed ballot question that would allow residents to decide whether to lower the CPA surcharge from 1.5% to 1% as he hoped to bring the measure to the 2024 presidential/state election for more turnout as opposed to this falls general election.
The veto was sent to legal for an opinion before being sent to the Finance Committee where they discussed the veto and heard opinion from assistant City Solicitor Michael Bissonnette. Bissonnette’s opinion argues that Garcia’s veto is within his right.
At-large Councilor Kevin Jourdain and Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon have been the most outspoken councilors against the mayor’s veto. Vacon noted she filed the initial order of the CPA change to the ballot to allow for the taxpayers of the city to make the decision.
Jourdain said he disagreed with the idea that this question was needed to be held off for another year when for example in the 2019 city election there was a ballot question for $155 million to potentially fund two new school buildings. He added with this CPA ballot question, the change would create a $300,000 reduction and if there was so much concern about turnout because of a state election, why wasn’t it the same for a project worth millions of dollars.
Jourdain continued and cited state law in the case of why the mayor’s veto was out of order. He cited statute chapter 44B, Section 3 which has a sentence that reads, “not withstanding the provisions of Chapter 59 or any other general law or special law to the contrary, the legislative body may vote to accept sections 3-7.” Jourdain continued citing section 16 which states, “in the exact same way it was adopted is how you shall revoke it.”
“That’s the operative language. The argument is important because it says not withstanding any other general law or special law to the contrary. Our charter is a special law,” Jourdain said.
The City Council initially voted for the change during its April 4 meeting through a narrow 7-6 vote. The council’s order cited rising utilities, food and heating costs as financial stressors on property owners. The CPA was adopted by Holyoke voters in 2016 and the surcharge added to property tax bills provides funding for historic preservation, low-income housing and land conservation and recreation projects across the city.
Jourdain argued that while Bissonnette’s opinion said it should be with the state law with the charter, allowing the mayor to vote, his cited examples from state law explicitly stating the opposite. He added he respectfully disagreed with Bissonnette’s opinion and that the council did not have to automatically go with legals opinion as there had been plenty of times in the past where the opinion was considered but not followed.
Ward 4 Councilor Kocayne Givner felt that while Jourdain did his research, she said it was too easily dismissive of Bissonnette’s opinion and felt there was more time to seek legal advice on this. Givner initially wanted to vote to sustain the veto as she felt satisfied with legal’s opinion and is in favor of moving the ballot question.
“I have a really hard time believing that everything our city lawyer is doing to represent us or make decisions is wrong and everything being said in this chamber is somehow overriding everything they reserached,” Givner said.
Jourdain added taking a vote on the mayor’s veto during this meeting could potentially become a mistake if the mayor’s veto were to be confirmed an illegal action at a later date.
“If this council says it sustains the veto and there’s no legal standing for a veto, now you’ve potentially violated the civil rights of the citizens to vote on a question that was dully adopted by a council that should’ve never been vetoed in the first place,” Jourdain said.
At-large Councilor Israel Rivera said he wished there was an option for the ballot question to offer either a raise or decline in the rate number to give more options to voters. He also felt it was best to table the vetoed ballot question if there was potential a decision would violate state law in the future.
Bissonnette said during the May 10 Finance Committee meeting that his opinion was a fair reading of what has happened in the past and a fair reading of the statute. He added the mayor could not veto it and it was difficult to argue his actions.
The council’s decision to table the mayor’s veto gives them more time to receive new information regarding the item and give time before making a decision. The council has no deadline to react to the mayor’s veto but does have until 35 days before the fall election to either have the ballot question remain or removed.