Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee votes 3–2 to deny funding for three PSA contract items and send matter to full council
Summary
After extended debate over vacation changes, flex time, longevity and other contract language, the Finance Committee voted 3–2 to deny funding for three settlement items with the Holyoke Professional Supervisors Association and will refer the matter back to the full City Council for final action.
The Holyoke City Council Finance Committee on Jan. 14 voted 3–2 to deny funding for three negotiated settlement items with the Holyoke Professional Supervisors Association (PSA) and will forward the matter to the full City Council for final consideration.
The committee took up Items 7–9 together after they were referred back for more review. Debate focused on a range of contract provisions beyond base pay increases—vacation and buyback language, new flex-time tracking, longevity changes and other personnel rules—that several councillors described as costly "giveaways." One councillor said the package was "tone deaf" given recent tax increases and fiscal pressures; others said some contract changes were intended to standardize language and improve evaluations.
Russell, labor counsel for the city, described a lengthy negotiation that included numerous concessions on both sides and said the agreement contains merit-based evaluation measures, a clarified probationary period and language intended to standardize job postings and discipline procedures. He told the committee the negotiation had spanned many sessions and that some provisions (for example, limiting the buyback) were designed to save money and improve budget predictability.
On a roll-call vote the motion to deny the three items passed 3–2. The roll call recorded the following positions: Councilor Ocasio — yes (to deny); Councilor Givner — no; Councillor Devine — no; Councillor Sullivan — yes; Councillor Jourdain — yes. Committee members said they would bring the full record and arguments to the City Council meeting on Tuesday so all 13 members could review and decide the final appropriation.
The committee’s denial is procedural: it withholds funding approval at the committee level and sends the matter to the full council, which may vote differently.
