The Holyoke City Council Ordinance Committee on Sept. 10 took up competing drafts of a municipal modernization ordinance and approved a set of targeted edits while rejecting several larger changes, leaving a mix of reforms and unresolved items to return to legal form. Committee members debated creation of a chief administrative and financial officer, the role of a proposed comptroller, confirmation thresholds, interim-residency waivers and reporting and removal procedures for finance-related posts.

Committee members said the group had two competing legal drafts before it and that members could “take parts of one and parts of the other,” City Solicitor Bissonette told the committee. “You are free to act on either or neither,” he said.

Why it matters: The ordinance would reorganize municipal finance functions and change appointment and removal processes for several positions. Committee decisions could reshape who has day-to-day financial authority in city government, what confirmations require, and how the council and mayor share oversight.

Most important outcomes
- Confirmation threshold for a CAFO appointment: The committee voted to add the phrase “majority of the city council” to section 2-292 (the mayor’s appointment of the chief administrative and financial officer), approving the edit on a 4–1 vote. That makes explicit that confirmation is by majority rather than a fixed numeric two-thirds count. Councilor Bacon confirmed the roll-call result after the vote.
- Residency-waiver language: A proposed change to require a two-thirds vote of “all members” for extensions of the residency waiver (paragraph d) failed on a 3–2 vote; the prior language remains in the draft.
- Comptroller position: A motion to remove section 2-293 (the comptroller position) in its entirety failed (two in favor, three opposed). After debate, the committee adopted compromise language requiring the CAFO to “make an evaluation to determine if the position is warranted on a full-time regular basis or if the position shall be consolidated under the duties of the CAFO” before any comptroller is appointed.
- Authority and removal edits: The committee struck language that had made some removals depend on the CAFO’s recommendation, voting 5–0 to remove “upon recommendation of the CAFO” where that wording would have limited council initiation for removal of council-appointed posts (board of assessors, treasurer/collector).
- Director of internal audit removal: The committee amended the internal-audit removal clause so the director “may be removed upon recommendation of the mayor for cause by a two-thirds majority vote of all the members of the city council.” The change passed unanimously.
- Access to documents and reporting duties: Members kept and clarified language requiring a proposed financial officer to provide written assessments on the fiscal impact of appropriations, leases exceeding 30 days, collective-bargaining agreements and borrowing, language that supporters said would increase transparency and create written records for council consideration.

Points of contention and discussion
- Cost and staffing: Several members expressed concern that the modernization plan adds positions and costs to city government. Councilor Bacon argued it would add “another roughly quarter of a million dollars” to the budget and urged removing the comptroller; other members said retaining the evaluation language lets the CAFO decide whether a separate comptroller is warranted.
- Confirmation math—majority vs. two-thirds: Some members argued for numeric clarity (naming “9 votes” if the body wanted a fixed threshold) while others preferred the fraction “two-thirds” so the threshold would scale if the council’s membership changed. The committee ultimately did not adopt a two-thirds-of-all-members standard for confirmations where the original draft did not require it.
- Interim leadership if CAFO post is vacant: Committee members debated whether the mayor should automatically serve as acting CAFO or whether the mayor should have the option to appoint an acting CAFO for up to 60 days. The committee retained language allowing the mayor to appoint an acting CAFO for no more than 60 days as the draft had originally read.
- Role duplication: Opponents described the proposed comptroller and related powers as redundant with existing CAFO responsibilities and the director of internal audit. Supporters said statutory duties and new reporting requirements justify keeping a pathway for a comptroller if the CAFO later demonstrates the position is needed.
- Outside legal counsel funding for internal audit: The committee approved language allowing the director of internal audit to seek outside legal counsel when necessary; the provision requires the council to approve expenditures and contains general funding language. Supporters sought firmer funding clarity; some members said the budget and appropriations process is the appropriate place to set a fixed appropriation.

What the committee directed next
The committee made several edits in the working draft and voted to return the modernization ordinance in legal form for final review. The body left unresolved some structural questions—most notably whether to create a full-time comptroller at adoption—and instructed staff to prepare a legally revised draft for the committee’s next meeting.

Quotations (from committee proceedings)
City Solicitor Bissonette: “You could work from either or neither,” when asked which legal form the committee should use.
Councilor Bacon: “It’s adding too many positions and too much money into the local government,” as he urged removing the comptroller, and said the plan could add “another roughly quarter of a million dollars” to the budget.

Ending
The committee made multiple technical and policy edits but stopped short of adopting a full reorganization; members asked staff and legal counsel to draft a consolidated legal form of the ordinance for review at the next ordinance meeting before sending it to full council.