Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 9/12/2022
HOLYOKE – Confusion caused the City Council’s Sept. 1 meeting to open with a lengthy discussion looking for clarity after it was announced that the Ward 2 seat occupied by Councilor Wilmer Puello-Mota had been vacated.
Puello-Mota, who returned to the council in late August, is facing criminal charges in Rhode Island, including a child pornography charge. Before his return, he spent 90 days in the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Facility for violating bail conditions.
Section 46 of the City Charter was cited for Puello-Mota’s vacancy, creating a vacant seat in Ward 2. Councilor At-Large Kevin Jourdain, who raised a point of order after the start of the meeting, stated the City Charter specifies that a member must be convicted of a crime for removal, creating confusion from councilors on who made this decision and what conviction had been made.
Jourdain said that Puello-Mota was “duly elected to office” and had not been convicted of a specific crime, a requirement under the cited Section 46. He brought this to fellow councilors’ attention when noticing Puello-Mota was left off the roll call at the start of the meeting.
“Some decision was made to have him moved off the body. What exactly is going on? If that is not lawful, it jeopardizes anything we are doing tonight and we need to as a matter of procedure understand what’s going on,” Jourdain said.
There was also confusion during the meeting on whether Puello-Mota was expelled or removed from the council. It was later confrimed by Council President Todd McGee that Puello-Mota’s absence should be called a vacancy.
In an interview with Reminder Publishing following the meeting, McGee said Puello-Mota has not technically been expelled or removed as was previously discussed at their meeting.
“In essence, legal alerted us that pursuant to the Charter Section 46, that the seat became vacated based on what they came up with as to the current situation,” McGee said.
McGee said the council is still awaiting an answer on if there was an official conviction made for Puello-Mota from the city’s legal counsel, who is set to soon provide the council with more information.
Puello-Mota was in attendance and participated in the Public Service Committee’s Aug. 24 meeting where he cast votes on agenda items that were later presented at the City Council special meeting. This was the concern of legal and why they issued the vacancy letter to Puello-Mota as transfers were going to be voted on.
McGee said there has been a request for a future executive session to get the full briefing of the issue.
In continued discussion during the Sept. 1 meeting, McGee cautioned the council to refrain from discussions that could place the council in legal jeopardy due to the conversation happening during an open meeting. Jourdain still wanted an answer or more information to be given to the council as it appeared there was little to no heads up on this announcement.
“I understand that it perhaps has something to do with him being convicted of a crime. The question is, what crime has he been convicted of?” Jourdain asked.
Jourdain added that “expulsion” could prove unlawful and place the council in legal troubles. He added the council has purposefully not gotten involved with Puello-Mota’s legal situation but that “all people are innocent until proven guilty.”
Councilor At-Large Joseph McGiverin said the council was in no position to discuss facts or Puello-Mota’s situation, especially during the ongoing special meeting.
“We don’t police others. We are not here to discuss facts or situation or anything pertaining to another councilor. I hear there is something going on and we should know, but should not be discussing that [here],” McGiverin said.
Assistant City Solicitor Kathleen Degnan clarified during the discussion that Puello-Mota was not removed, and it was “not an accurate statement.” She added that the city received information two days prior to the meeting that brought into question Section 46.
According to Degnan, the Law Department determined Section 46 “has served to render the Ward 2 seat vacant.” She informed the council that the Law Department could not say why the seat was vacated to protect Puello-Mota’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
“I understand the normal process is people want to know why, but we can’t say why because we are talking about a person’s Fifth Amendment rights, a person’s civil rights,” Degnan said. “It’s a pending criminal matter, and we cannot divulge the information we have. I apologize for not being able to go into greater depth but that is fact right now. It’s important that we make this decision, and it was made.”
Degnan added that Jourdain was correct that a stated legal opinion by the Law Department could jeopardize future council votes. Jourdain called the removal of a councilor due to Section 46 a “major ordeal” and brought up an unspecified issue from eight months ago. He added he just wanted the legal justifications for removing the Ward 2 Councilor to be known.
Degnan replied that Puello-Mota was aware of the charges against him and that they weren’t intentionally trying to keep information away from the people of Holyoke. She added that Puello-Mota’s rights were most important in the matter.
Councilor At-Large Israel Rivera said after much discussion among the council that Puello-Mota’s situation was referenced at a past meeting, but those discussions were discouraged. He then asked the council to move forward with the agenda for the special meeting.
Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon pressed Degnan on who initiated the action against Puello-Mota to which Degnan replied that City Solicitor Lisa Ball had.
City Clerk Brenda Murphy McGee was notified of the Ward 2 vacancy the day of the special meeting.
The council considered taking up an executive session at meeting’s end to discuss more of this information but decided against it for concerns of conversations on the matter becoming public.
Reminder Publishing reached out to Attorney Degnan and the City Solicitor’s Office for follow up comment on the meeting but did not receive responses by press time.