The Holyoke City Council voted Wednesday to send a recently negotiated contract for the Professional Supervisors Association back to the finance committee after a sharply contested debate over its terms, including retroactive pay dates, vacation and flex-time provisions and which positions are included in the agreement.

The issue arose after the finance committee recommended denying the appropriation tied to the contract (Items 19–21). Councilor Jardine, speaking on the council floor, criticized the contract's vacation and flex-time language and called the package "a total and complete giveaway," saying it would add long-term costs the city cannot afford while residents face a record property tax increase.

Several councilors pushed back; Councilor Givner and others argued the contract removed costly "vacation buyback" practices and includes performance-based elements that can yield future savings. The law department and city solicitor were asked to clarify the scope of allowable retroactivity for pay increases. City Attorney Kevin Bissonnette said the statute the law department relies on (Chapter 44, Section 68) permits retroactivity "to a date not earlier than the beginning of the fiscal year prior to the date of such a vote," and said the department had reviewed the transfers before the council.

After roll-call voting on a motion described by the chair as accepting the finance committee's recommendation (to deny), the clerk recorded a split result; the minutes show a close tally that the chair summarized as six yea and seven nays. Following that result, a motion to reconsider and send the appropriation back to the finance committee passed, returning the matter for further committee consideration rather than final council action.

Councilors engaged in extended debate on several points raised in finance: whether department heads should be in the same bargaining unit as supervisors, whether a newly created $500 longevity payment at five years is appropriate, and whether the contract's flex-time language effectively guarantees a 35-hour work week for some management positions, leaving mayors hamstrung in staffing decisions.

The council also discussed the procedural limits of its authority: councilors repeatedly emphasized that the body cannot negotiate contract terms — its available tool is to appropriate or not appropriate funds — but that the council may deny appropriations to signal disagreement with a contract's cost or terms.

Outcome: The council did not appropriate funds for the supervisors' contract Wednesday; instead the council voted to reconsider the committee report and return the item to finance for further study and possible amendment.

Next steps: The finance committee will revisit the appropriation and the council asked the law department to provide further statutory guidance on retroactivity and other legal questions. Councilors also requested any missing three-year fiscal impact analyses required under local ordinance be provided to the council before further action.