Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Times topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ordinance committee tables proposal to standardize meeting times after school committee objects
Summary
The committee postponed action on an order that would force municipal bodies to hold meetings at 5 p.m. or later after Devin Sheehan of the school committee said daytime meetings are sometimes necessary to reach parents and for negotiations. The committee will reconsider with input from the absent filer.
The Ordinance Committee of the Holyoke City Council voted Feb. 24 to table an order that would require municipal boards appointed by the mayor or council — and, as filed, elected multi‑member bodies including the city council and school committee — to hold public meetings at 5 p.m. or later.
Devin Sheehan, a member of the Holyoke School Committee, told the committee that the school board sometimes must schedule meetings during the daytime to reach parents and to conduct negotiations. “We typically meet after normal business hours… but there are cases where we have to meet during the day to meet people where they are,” Sheehan said.
Supporters of the ordinance said a uniform meeting time promotes public access because many residents work standard business hours. Opponents and several committee members said the proposal would be impractical for bodies that need flexibility to meet parents, student representatives or to hold labor negotiations. Solicitor Bissonnette also warned of a legal difference involving state‑created entities such as the retirement board and the Holyoke Housing Authority, which may not be bound by a municipal ordinance.
After discussion the committee voted to table the order so the absent filer, Councilor Bacon, could comment or the committee could draft a version that accounts for bodies with distinct governance arrangements. Chair Meg McGrath Smith said the council could consider companion language for particular boards if needed.
The motion to table was approved by voice and roll call; no substantive change to the ordinance was adopted at the meeting. The committee did not set a new date for action and indicated members will seek additional clarity from the filer and from affected boards before resuming the item.
