Ordinance committee tables proposed pay increase for Holyoke city clerk after members ask for comparables

The Holyoke Ordinance Committee on May 21 considered an order to amend Schedule B of the city code to set the city clerk’s salary at $90,000 but decided to table the measure to gather more comparative data and to discuss an appropriate effective date.

The measure, filed by Councilor Bartley, would amend the compensation schedule in Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances to list the City Clerk at $90,000. Brenna Murphy, the city clerk, told the committee she is in her 12th year in the office and said she has had one raise in that time. "I am in my twelfth year as the city clerk. I will be running for my fourth term. I have had 1 raise in 12 years," Murphy said.

Committee members discussed workload increases since Murphy took office, including new election processes, expanded mail voting, and responsibilities as records access officer. Murphy said public-records work has become a major portion of her duties: "Every public records request that comes into the city comes through me. The police department has probably up to 20 public records requests a day that have to be funneled through me. It literally could be a part time job."

Councilors pressed for salary-comparison data. Councilor Bacon reported past records showing the clerk’s pay at about $71,832 in 2021 and asked whether HR had compared the position to similar-sized cities. Murphy and others said Kelly Curran had reviewed comparables and indicated $90,000 was consistent with peer communities, but the committee wanted the underlying data. Curran said she had the data and could provide it to the committee separately.

Members also debated an appropriate effective date for any increase. Councilor Burley said she preferred an effective date of Jan. 1 because she was not “super warm” to a mid‑fiscal‑year (July 1) raise; others favored July 1 aligned with the fiscal year. Murphy said she favored July.

On the motion to lay the matter on the table pending further information, the committee voted to table the item. The chair announced the tally as three yeas and two nays. The committee set the item for further consideration at its next meeting on June 4 and asked staff to include the salary-comparison packet in the committee materials.

Committee members said they wanted to see the HR comparables and the salary schedules for other elected positions before taking a final vote.

Ending: The committee did not act on the pay change; it remains tabled until members receive HR comparables and decide whether an effective date should be Jan. 1 or July 1.