Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Forestry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ordinance committee tables proposal to split parks superintendent and city forester
Summary
The Holyoke Ordinance Committee heard hours of testimony about staffing, union agreements and job descriptions before voting to table a councilor’s order to separate the combined parks superintendent/city forester role for more review and union input.
The Holyoke Ordinance Committee on Nov. 12 postponed action on a longstanding proposal to split the combined parks superintendent and city forester positions, saying more review of job descriptions and union implications is needed.
The order, filed by Councilor Meg McGrath Smith, would separate the positions currently held by one person and revise city ordinance to reflect that change. Interim Department of Public Works Director Mike Gallagher told the committee the two roles have been combined for nearly 20 years and that the consolidation reflected earlier staffing cuts and organizational changes. “There has been a significant reduction in ... staff,” Gallagher said, describing cross-coverage between parks and highway crews that developed after the merger.
Councilors pressed for clarity about supervision, budget impacts and union contracts. Councilor Bartley said the packet contained two job descriptions, one of which he called “a flat‑out joke” and urged a tighter, legally vetted draft before moving forward. Several councilors said they wanted input from UFCW Local 1459 and from the parks and recreation commissioners before making an ordinance change.
Councilor Israel Rivera, chairing the meeting, said the goal should be to improve service delivery without creating disruption for workers. “If it means giving you the staff that you needed in the past to make it effective and functional, then let’s have that conversation,” Rivera said.
After discussion, Councilor Bartley moved to table the order so administrators, union representatives and the parks commission could provide input. The motion passed by voice vote and the item was tabled for further work.
Next steps: the committee asked staff to coordinate with union representatives and the parks commission and return with revised job descriptions and implementation options before taking the matter up again.
