Holyoke council splits on transfers tied to retroactive pay; legal guidance and charter procedure debated

The Holyoke City Council debated several personnel-related transfers and retroactive-pay appropriations on Tuesday, Feb. 18, focusing on whether the transactions complied with the charter’s two-reading requirement and whether outside confirmation from the Department of Revenue’s Department of Local Services (DLS) was needed.

Councilors considered an order to transfer $21,600.22 from a mayoral contract-negotiations line to several departmental salary lines (agenda item 2). Councilor Jordan (transcript: "Jourdain") said he planned to speak with DLS on Friday to confirm whether moving funds placed in the mayor’s department into separate departments would trigger interdepartmental-transfer rules. Councilor Bacon moved to send the group of items (items 2–6) to the finance committee; that motion failed on a roll call recorded in the transcript as 6 yeas and 7 nays.

City Solicitor (Attorney) Bissonnette told the council that DLS had been consulted and had indicated the transfers were for a similar purpose and therefore consistent with guidance; she said DLS does not provide written opinions and defers to the city solicitor. Councilor Jourdain said he wanted direct confirmation from DLS because the funds were originally placed under the mayor’s department in the budget and were now proposed to move to multiple departments.

After extended debate about the charter’s Section 22 reading requirements and whether the transfers were interdepartmental, the council ultimately took a motion to pass the readings on item 2 the same night. The transcript records a roll-call tally for item 2’s second-reading vote as 7 yeas and 3 nays; several councilors later asked for that be noted on the record as taking two readings the same night and raised concerns that the charter requires a two-thirds vote when final passage happens on the same day. Councilor Jourdain and others argued the step was justified under DLS guidance; dissenting councilors urged caution and committee review.

The other transfers on the agenda were: a transfer of $8,182.93 (item 3) from local inspector lines to building-commissioner and inspection lines; a transfer of $11,342 (item 4) from planner I to assistant planner and senior project manager lines; a transfer of $5,050 (item 5) from an investigator to a national service officer (transcript wording varied); and item 6 (amount and destination not specified in the transcript). Councilors debated taking items 3–6 as a package and passing readings together; discussion grew disorderly and the transcript shows motions to table those items before they were finally resolved. The transcript does not record final adopted tallies for items 3–6; the record shows they were discussed, motions were made to pass first readings as a group, and later motions to table the package were introduced.

Speakers repeatedly framed the dispute as two related questions: whether DLS’s verbal guidance (as relayed by the solicitor) was authoritative enough to permit passage that night, and whether following an expedited same-night process would set a precedent for bypassing charter protections. Several councilors emphasized the urgency: they noted employees have been waiting for retroactive pay dating to July 2023. Others emphasized fiduciary duty to follow the charter and to seek written clarification where statutory interpretation affects precedent.

No ordinance or legal change was adopted that night beyond the recorded passage of item 2; several councilors asked for the DLS conversation to be memorialized and for staff to report back.