Due to technical regulation, a controversial vote on increasing sick and vacation days for a group of 34 city employees was tabled until the next meeting on March 7. While a majority of the council members wanted to vote yes on the proposal, a minority of council members advocated for further study of the implications of funding more benefits.

At a combined total of about four hours of debate over the course of two City Council meetings that included points about the city’s wavering financial situation, burdening taxpayers, over-reach by certain councilors to remove the matter from the Ordinance Committee chaired by Councilor Linda Vacon before the committee had a chance to further study the proposal, and allegations that certain councilors were in favor of the vote to benefit family members, the matter drew fire and ire from councilors across the sides of the debate.

At issue is adding sick leave and vacation time in addition to the 12 paid holidays a year, which could amount to $65,000 per employee. That figure depends entirely on an employee being on the job for a minimum of 20 years, however.

“We don’t have that many individuals hanging around for 20 years because the grass is greener somewhere else,” said Councilor Joe McGiverin. “Government is not about elected officials. We play a very key role. But (the) government are these people, the ones who are responsible for providing the services that this city and taxpayers want.”

Councilor Kocayne Givner advocated for more vacation time to help ensure that employees have a positive work-job balance. “Happy employees are important,” she said. “We have to provide to the people who provide for us.”

The financial rating company Moody’s downgraded the city’s credit rating a significant notch in light of Holyoke’s $62 million in outstanding debt. Councilor Kevin Jourdain said this isn’t the time to add to the city’s debt for benefits that supersede what other municipalities and businesses offer to employees.

“I really wonder: Have you done a financial analysis of what this costs?” Jourdain asked his colleagues. “Taxpayers are paying for all this.”

Moodys added that the downgrade is not irreversible:

“The city continues to see expansion in the residential sector from new development projects and appreciation. The commercial and industrial sectors have recently benefited from the expansion of the Cannabis industry’s cultivation, manufacturing and distribution. The city’s resident income is below average with median household income adjusted for regional price parity equal to 66.8% of the US median.

The financial position is likely to remain stable over the next few years as the new mayor and management team adheres to a structurally balanced fiscal 2023 budget. The city is also focused on governance and addressing auditor findings and an adverse opinion in the fiscal 2021 audit. Some of which have already been addressed in fiscal 2022 and year-to-date fiscal 2023. The fiscal 2021 draft audit reflects positive operations that will increase available fund balance to around $31 million equal to almost 15% of revenue.”

On the issue of hauling out of the Ordinance Committee the proposed updated benefits package, Councilor Vacon had expressed in an earlier City Councilor meeting that she was moving forward with it and to take it out of the committee could result in an unintended negative outcome.Councilor

Councilor Vacon asked Council President Todd McGee to read the names and positions that would benefit from the proposal.

Regarding Councilor Jourdain’s allegation that proponents of the proposal would benefit because of family ties in the case of unspecified employees, Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos defended the honor of his family. His husband, Jeffery Anderson-Burgos, is the council’s administrative assistant.

“It’s easy for you to sit there and use a city counselor’s husband to make a point, so say I gotcha, and then make a display so that all your constituents are looking and I hope that they are, and if they’re not I’m sharing this video. I am taking receipts. You guys mess with the wrong person,” said Councilor Anderson-Burgos.

Councilor Tessa Murphy-Romboletti, who had worked in the previous mayor’s administration, said as a former city employee, she could “not be retained here because the pay wasn’t good and the benefits weren’t good. I watched a lot of turnovers. And I know that fear-mongering can be super effective for those who are watching (on public access or Holy0ke Media’s YouTube channel) and don’t really fully grasp the situation.”

Councilor Vacon replied: “People who are starting to use loaded words like fear-mongering I think what we’re having here is a debate on the merits of the issue and we have a difference of opinion and some of us are pointing out process. So here’s what I’m going to point out: first, we have no emergency before us that led to a necessity to pull orders out of a committee that had been there for barely 45 days, when we — every chair sitting in this room — has orders in their jacket that are a year or more older. So the idea that this is an emergency is false and the public should know that. … yes we should be fair to the workforce yes we should provide reasonable work conditions.”

Councilor McGee read the list of positions that would be affected by the approved proposal which includes library assistants, custodians, archivists, computer coordinator, administrative assistance for the City Council, administrative assistants to the fire chief, and administrative assistant to the police chief.

At the previous City Council meeting, by a vote of 9-4, councilors had voted to approve the measure.

You can review the agenda and paperwork the councilors reviewed here.