Holyokers will decide four questions that are binding and one that is only advisory.
HOLYOKE -- Voters will be asked to make decisions about not only candidates on Election Day Tuesday but on ballot questions aimed at changing government.
Five questions -- four binding and one nonbinding -- will be on the ballot regarding term limits, the city treasurer and reducing the City Council, along with races for mayor, City Council, treasurer and School Committee.
The binding nature of the first four questions means that if they are approved, changes they describe would take effect with the 2017 municipal election.
The fifth question is advisory in gauging whether voters want to switch from a form of government led by a mayor to one led by a city manager.
Councilor at Large Howard B. Greaney Jr. has said it should be noted that members of the City Council by voting to place the questions on the ballot are not necessarily supporting or opposing them.
The council decision is merely to give voters the opportunity to decide the issues, he said.
The ballot questions give voters the most significant chance to overhaul government since 2011. That year, voters defeated a proposal to make sweeping changes in the city charter by voting 57 percent no and 43 percent yes.
Here are the questions voters will be asked to decide, along with arguments that have been made for and against each question:
1. Should the City Council be reduced to 13 members -- consisting of seven by ward and six at large -- from the current format of 15, with seven ward and eight at large?
For: Most of the ballot questions are part of a multi-step plan to save money and increase government efficiency proposed by Mayor Alex B. Morse and City Council President Kevin A. Jourdain.
A smaller City Council would be more in keeping with a city of 40,000 and with most cities having smaller legislative bodies.
That's an argument made for years by Councilor at Large Daniel B. Bresnahan, who was on the city charter review commission in 2011 that recommended the council reduction and other changes to modernize the 119-year-old city charter.
Chopping two council seats also would save $20,000 a year, which is the $10,000-a-year stipend each councilor is paid.
Some also say in arguing that the City Council dwells more on obstruction than action that a slightly smaller board would allow for swifter business.
The smartphone-in-every-hand proliferation of internet scrutiny today acts as a safeguard against the kind of "boss politics" that Councilor at Large Joseph M. McGiverin (see "Against" below) has warned could occur with fewer at large councilors.
Against: Others argue that the form of government has lasted 119 years because it works.
Why reduce the number of voters' elected representatives when the perennially stated goal is to have an informed and active electorate?
McGiverin has said such a change as proposed in the ballot question risks corruption. The number of at large seats on the City Council always should outnumber the ward representatives. The reason for that is to block the possibility of a mayor making deals with ward councilors, who perhaps are more plugged into particular neighborhoods' needs than at large members and thus vulnerable to such backroom politics, he said.
"Boss politics" is the term McGiverin has used for such dealing.
Also, McGiverin and others have said, if the desire to reduce the size of the City Council persists and the next step is to eliminate some ward seats, that unfurls issues related to the federal census and congressional redistricting.
2. Should the mayor's term be increased to four years from the current two years?
For: The main argument has been two years is too little time for a mayor to carry out a city-improvement plan.
After year one, a mayor in a two-year term already must begin devoting time to running for reelection.
Morse told The Republican editorial board Oct. 15 that Holyoke is a small city with big-city problems like poverty, troubled schools and drug-related and other crimes fueled by street gangs that keep police busy. Two years is insufficient to begin putting a dent into such problems, he said.
Also, business leaders want the stability that comes with a mayor they know will be in office for four years, he said.
And if the decision is to increase the term of councilors, or of the mayor, it makes sense to do it across the board and have them all be held to four-year or two-year terms, some have argued.
That would allow for a four-year election cycle instead of holding an election every two years for some officials and two years later for others, supporters of this question have said.
(Though that argument doesn't really hold up at the moment upon considering that the City Council failed to forward to the state Legislature for approval in time a binding ballot question regarding School Committee members' terms. That means most school board members' terms still will require elections every two years regardless of how voters decide the ballot questions Tuesday.)
Against: Foes say four years at a time is too long to withstand a politician at the local level.
Two-year terms give voters the power to keep a short leash on a mayor, an accountability they would surrender by increasing the time in office.
The mayor's yearly salary is $85,000.
3. Should the terms of city councilors be increased to four years from the current two years?
For and Against: See four-year term for mayor "For" and "Against."
Also, Morse said that while he supports a four-year term for mayor, he opposes increasing councilors' terms because councilors and the mayor have different kinds of duties.
The city's legislators need to be at a level of accountability that allows for a two-year review of councilors who are closest to the voters they represent and not as tied as the mayor is to the daily decision-making of running the city, he said.
4. Should the city treasurer be changed from an elected to an appointed position?
For: This is the question with perhaps the most ramifications, with supporters saying that making this change would allow for other improvements.
Changing how the treasurer is chosen comes as the city's most recent full-time elected treasurer, Jon D. Lumbra, resigned Feb. 13 after a controversy that included his having taken another full-time job with a private company while continuing to work as treasurer and draw the full-time city paycheck. Lumbra said all treasurer duties were fulfilled.
If the question passes, under the Morse-Jourdain plan, the treasurer would be merged with the tax collector. The tax collector is now appointed by the City Council.
The new position of treasurer-collector also would be appointed by the City Council. The job would be filled based on an application and interview process with candidates being eligible only if they have certain skills and experience beyond just getting the most votes.
Then, under the Morse-Jourdain plan, the treasurer-collector would join other finance-related offices like the Board of Assessors and city auditor under a new department head of chief financial officer.
The goal with that is to centralize the currently splintered financial operations, Morse and Jourdain said.
Such a structure would ensure that such City Council appointees have a day-to-day supervisor, the chief financial officer, which is now missing.
Against: Removing the power to elect the city treasurer from voters weakens their control over the government generally and specifically, over an official key to handling of the taxpayers' money.
The treasurer's duties include handling tax title records for properties whose owners are in arrears with the city, holding and investing city funds and managing employee payrolls in the city budget, which began the fiscal year July 1 at $125.5 million.
The treasurer's yearly salary is $70,016.
Also, aside from some city councilors irritated by Lumbra for working the private job while continuing to work as treasurer, and get a city salary, do most people even care about that Lumbra-councilors clash, as long as government kept functioning, which it did?
5. (Nonbinding) Should the city switch from a mayor to city manager?
For: Ward 6 Councilor Todd A. McGee proposed the city manager question because he said that's among changes voters have discussed previously.
The nonbinding nature would allow for a view of voters' feelings without having to deal with the actual triggering of such a big change, he said.
The main difference between a mayor and city manager is a mayor is elected and a city manager is appointed, usually by a mayor and City Council.
Supporters of such a change argue that installing a city manager nets a financial and management specialist hired based on skills, experience and education instead of someone selected based on voters' whims.
Against: Foes of such a system note a mayor becomes little more than a figurehead personifying the city seal at events.
Meanwhile, voters would get only indirect say on a key city leader, the city manager, in the form of electing the City Council or whichever body appoints the city manager.
The supervision concern also comes into play for a city manager, a specialist hired specifically to manage and deal with finances, appointed by a legislative board that by its nature is removed from the daily workings of City Hall.
Some could argue the same concern about daily supervision could arise regarding a mayor. But a mayor is chosen to be not a specialist but a generalist in terms of managing and making decisions across the spectrum of government. A mayor's work comes under a degree of public scrutiny that is essentially required to increase periodically, during election time, an examination of which a city manager would be free.