The following is an official statement from City Councilor Shane Burgo.
“Mayor Mitchell’s veto of the Paid Family Leave Ordinance is disappointing because it prioritizes speculative concerns over the needs of the hardworking employees who keep our City running every day. After years of discussion and careful drafting, the Council adopted a policy that is both compassionate and fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, the administration continues to search for reasons not to support working families.”
The Mayor argues that limiting paid adoption leave to children under the age of two is legally problematic. It is not. The Council intentionally crafted this provision because infants and very young children require the greatest amount of bonding and adjustment following adoption. Establishing reasonable eligibility standards for employee benefits is common public policy and does not obligate the City to provide identical benefits in every circumstance. Foster placements were likewise excluded because they are temporary by nature and require a separate policy framework.
The administration also suggests employees could combine paid family leave with other accrued leave and remain out of work for nearly six months. That argument ignores the City’s existing personnel policies. Vacation time already requires supervisory approval and may be denied based on operational needs. More importantly, many employees currently spend years saving every hour of earned leave simply to recover from childbirth and care for their newborn child before returning to work with little or no time remaining if they or their child become ill. This Ordinance ensures employees no longer have to sacrifice years of earned benefits simply to start or grow their family.
Concerns regarding staffing impacts are equally overstated. City departments already manage extended employee absences for medical leave, military service, and other circumstances. This ordinance requires advance notice whenever practicable, allowing departments to prepare accordingly. Supporting employees during one of the most important moments of their lives should not be viewed as an unreasonable burden.
The Mayor also criticizes the Ordinance because it applies only to non-union employees. That limitation exists because the City Council cannot negotiate collective bargaining agreements. If the administration believes union employees deserve similar benefits, it already possesses the authority to negotiate those provisions at the bargaining table. After years of waiting for administrative action through multiple personnel directors, the Council chose to act rather than continue delaying meaningful support for employees.
Finally, despite repeatedly claiming this Ordinance is too costly, the administration has failed to provide any meaningful fiscal analysis demonstrating an increased burden on taxpayers. Employees taking paid family leave are already budgeted positions. In most cases, departments will continue operating with existing staff, and in the rare instance temporary coverage is necessary, the cost remains limited. During the final six weeks of leave, employees receive only a percentage of their salary, further reducing any potential financial impact.
At its core, this debate is about priorities. A City that wants to recruit and retain talented employees must recognize that supporting families is not a luxury, it is an investment. Paid family leave strengthens our workforce, improves employee retention, and demonstrates that New Bedford values the people who dedicate their careers to public service.
I remain confident that my colleagues on the City Council will override this veto. Our employees should never have to choose between caring for their family and earning a paycheck. We stand with the families who keep this City running, and we intend to ensure New Bedford becomes a place where employees can build careers while raising their families with dignity. – Shane Burgo –
