HOLYOKE – The Ordinance Committee’s Nov. 29 meeting saw continued discussions on a proposed ordinance that was previously vetoed by Mayor Joshua Garcia which focused on reporting losses within city departments.

The order filed by At-Large Councilor Kevin Jourdain sought to create ordinance requiring department a department head to report – with an incident report explaining the cause – of any loss in their department over $500 in value to the City Council and mayor within 30 days.

Garcia explained during the Nov. 29 meeting that his intentions in vetoing the order were not meant to appear as if was against the idea and that the word veto often sounds bad. He added he felt this was an opportunity for the city to establish policy on the matter.

“When I vetoed, my veto had nothing to do with disagreeing with the intent. It was more or less about how we seal, finalize this and make this a happening objective we commit to or follow, whether its by law or management and policy,” Garcia said.

Garcia noted he has been collaborating with representatives from the Division of Local Services in drafting a finances policy menu for city departments to follow. The Division of Local Services works with municipalities in promoting sound municipal finance management practices and supports local officials by providing guidance, training and oversight.

A finances policy menu would have expectations on day to days for departments and provides oversight and accountability within city government. Garcia said while this is all part of this process, his thought process has evolved to finish creating a draft and having a shell copy of one by January that can be amended and copied before being adopted into ordinance.

Garcia reiterated this was not to dismiss the intent of Jourdain’s order and that is he all for the intent and just trying to approach it more strategically.

“The intent here is to learn about it when it happens and not after the fact,” Garcia said.

Marcia Bohinc from the Division of Local Services explained that she had been in City Hall during the week talking about the policy manual with the mayor. She added for all the policies they put in in situations like this, they state the purpose, who is accountable for the instituted policy, following the policy and making sure the policy is followed.

Bohinc added that this new task was less “boiler plate” of a policy than what they normally work on but was eager to continue working with the city.

“It’s very important in this one to understand the ordinance that’s written is $500 property loss. What does that mean? What does that value and when does that kick in? What is the definition of property and what is the reporting chain? What is the department’s role in that reporting? What is the triggering event? All those questions will be fleshed out in the policy,” Bohinc said.

Jourdain said he appreciated the mayor’s approach but added that he felt the underlying principle in this all was that the city has had incidents in the past whether it be property losses, accidents, and “straight up theft” as a few instances where money was loss from a department.

According to Jourdain, he felt the council was consistently out of the loop in regard to some of these prior incidents and that as the “fiscal watchdog” for the city they needed a better system in place to be notified of these things instead of councilors continuing to hear of these instances third hand.

Jourdain suggested that some “wonder if it’s a borderline cover up frankly,” in regard to some of the losses suffered in the past by departments. He also noted that these incidents often are reported to police and councilors have no idea anything happens unless it becomes news.

“This happens in public life. Point is, I feel we need to know about these. This ordinance puts the onus on the department head to report it,” Jourdain said. “What you’re suggesting makes all the sense in the world.”

Garcia agreed everyone’s goals were aligned on this issue. The order was tabled again and will be brought up at a future meeting where hopes are a draft can be reviewed and amended by the city.

Earlier in November after the order was initially vetoed, Jourdain expressed he was surprised by the decision and called his order “pretty straightforward” during a Nov. 15 City Council meeting. He was looking for a better system in reporting losses and noted there was no ordinance in the city requiring thefts or losses to be reported to the mayor.

“The public has a right to know, especially as their representatives, if city property is going MIA for whatever reason,” Jourdain said during the Nov. 15 meeting. “I’m a little taken aback by this, what is clearly a good-government ordinance change.”

At the time it was noted to Jourdain by Ward 3 Councilor David Bartley that the may requested the order be sent back to the Ordinance Committee regarding fiscal procedures. Ward 5 Councilor Linda Vacon also added during the same meeting that the proposed ordinance was looking to establish a report system and not placing the council into the city’s day-to-day operations.

Ward 6 Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos asked during the council’s meeting for evidence of specific property losses, thefts or available reports. He added that department heads regularly appear before the Finance Committee for their capital needs and other requests, but ultimately accepted the mayor’s veto and “trusted his judgement.”

Jourdain noted several thefts that were “not affirmatively reported” to the council and recommended Anderson-Burgos examine past state inspector general reports.

“We had people brought up on charges for stealing from our departments. Those were not brought to us by department heads. We head about those things third hand,” said Jourdain.