Next week, Holyoke's city council will take another stab at passing its agenda — after this week's meeting struggled to clear the first few items and frustrations boiled over.
Tuesday night was primed to be a busy one at Holyoke City Hall - only to get caught up in confusion over procedure and back-and-forths, capped off by exchanges involving council leadership and one councilor in particular.
As heard on Holyoke Media, the meeting had an agenda with some 60 items on it - ranging from letters of appointment and re-appointment from the mayor to appropriations for school infrastructure studies to talk of a potential residential redevelopment effort for vacant city parcels.
However, after an hour-and-a-half, the night came to a close with barely anything voted on.
The night saw the council accomplish little, aside from passing item number 30 out of order - a special permit request for Schermerhorn’s Restaurant, a beloved seafood joint undergoing reconstruction.
Trouble emerged after that. For some time now, members of the council have been trying to approve a slate of raises for over 20 city positions – the product of contract negotiations involving the mayor’s office.
Broken down into multiple items and by category, At-Large City Councilor Patti Devine submitted them and hoped to have them all packaged and voted on together.
However, Councilor At-Large Kevin Jourdain, appearing concerned one of the items could run afoul of inter-departmental transfer rules, sought to leave it out as he pursued further guidance outside the meeting.
“There’s an extra set of rules here relative to item two,” Jourdain said, adding he didn’t mind four other, related items being packaged together. “… what clearly was done, because of other objections that were raised when this all came in on one package, which was some portions [were] inter-departmental transfers, others not - the administration, the mayor, who’s trying to get this obviously through, [items] three through six - he’s now made these as intra-departmental transfers, so therefore, there is no more inter-departmental rule problem. The only issue here would be, for tonight, if we wanted to pass both readings tonight, there would need be the two-thirds vote [requirement] … unless we do them at two separate meetings.”
A motion would also be made by Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon to have the package sent to the finance committee, which Devine chairs and objected to.
Vacon said the orders had not been taken up by committee, while Devine contended they had been presented in finance.
Regardless, more confusion bubbled up when it came to the vote just to take one item off the table.
“Did anybody vote – did you call a vote on taking [item two] off the table,” Ward 3 Councilor David Bartley asked the council president.
“Didn't we say … to take them off the table as a package, and we all said, ‘All those in favor’..?” Council President Tessa Murphy-Romboletti responded.
“No - we didn't, because I objected to it all being … we were almost there, but then I asked for two to be separate from three through six,” Jourdain answered.
It may have seemed like a minor, bureaucratic matter – but what followed was a series of debates, opinions given by the council’s legal counsel, and more importantly – discussions over what needed to be voted on and how many times.
As mentioned earlier, Jourdain said that if the council wanted to approve the items in one night – two readings and votes – the city charter dictated the second would need a “two-thirds yea and nay vote” since it was occurring within three days of the first reading.
An hour of debate followed with some councilors voicing frustration over what they said was one councilor stalling a long-awaited item. Meanwhile, councilors such as Jourdain and Vacon pointed to the charter and shared concerns over breaking from council norms.
At one point, it was suggested that the first reading for the contract items technically happened at the council’s last meeting on Feb. 4, when Murphy-Romboletti gave what she called at the time an “abridged” reading of the matter.
However, instead of multiple items, the raises were balled up into one, large order. A vote was held and approved, but it was to send it to the city’s auditor.
Further discussions and exchanges would occur – culminating in a recess being called to cool the room’s temperature, and then what appeared to be a quick, first reading vote on item two.
It passed, and an attempt at a second vote was held. The result was 7-3 in favor, with Assistant City Solicitor Michael Bissonnette being called on to clarify the result.
Bissonnette said the motion passed, only for Jourdain to state the charter had been violated. In a statement to WAMC, the councilor explained how, according to the charter, the second vote technically "required the approval of 9 of 13 members.”
Before an abrupt adjournment, the council president touched on how lengthy discussions over a handful of items effectively brought the night to a standstill agenda-wise.
“I’m going to entertain a motion that these all get tabled, [items] 3, 4, 5, 6, because honestly… you guys just argued about this for … an hour-and-a-half,” Murphy-Romboletti said. “We just argued about this for an hour-and-a-half, and it's very clear … that, clearly, half the council does not agree with me on every single decision I make - that's fine, that's okay, I can handle that. But if now everyone's going to be contradicting each other…”
The final stretch of the night saw Jourdain and Murphy-Romboletti go back and forth over procedure, but also candor. At one point, the council president threatened to adjourn the meeting over Jourdain’s objections to how council business was proceeding – something he said amounted to censorship.
Meanwhile, as Jourdain claimed members of the council were subjected to “unfair treatment” based on language used by leadership, the council president posited that so many objections had been logged – she had run out of patience.
As things came to a head, another councilor off-camera made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which was quickly seconded and approved.
Both councilors responded to requests for comment from WAMC, with Murphy-Romboletti submitting a statement that read in-part:
“... my job as President is to maintain decorum and facilitate meetings. Unfortunately Tuesday night a Councilor felt the need to talk over me and others, and rather than continue the meeting in an unproductive manner, I entertained a motion to adjourn. Councilors may not always agree with my rulings and my decisions, but it's no excuse to treat each other with anything less than respect.”
Also opting for a statement was Jourdain.
“Over my thirty years of service, I have never witnessed such chaos and meltdowns as I have witnessed on numerous occasions during this current term. I encourage all citizens to watch this February 18th meeting as a case study. It is a wonder how we can get any qualified independent candidates to run for Council and serve in such an environment. I am also deeply troubled by the apparent political nature of changes to our long held Council rules and procedures. It appears there are some trying to make the City Council simply a rubber stamp than a co-equal branch of government looking out for taxpayers. If you seek regular order and question these changes or point out to the general public the waste and excess that is driving their property taxes to record levels, you are met with personal attacks and abuse in and out of the chambers. Our City Council has seen many hotly contested issues over the decades and managed those differences appropriately. The City Council has never been at such a low dysfunctional point as I have seen it now. The culture now is the ends justify the means.”
According to the city calendar, the council is scheduled to hold a special meeting on Monday, Feb. 24, at 6 p.m.
