Letter to Senate and House Leadership, Rules Conference Committtee

The Honorable Karen Spilka

The Honorable Ron Mariano

The Honorable Michael Moran 

The Honorable Cynthia Stone Creem 

The Honorable William Galvin 

The Honorable Joan Lovely 

The Honorable David Muradian 

The Honorable Ryan Fattman 

Monday March 25th, 2025

Dear President Spilka, Speaker Mariano, Majority Leader Moran, Majority Leader Creem, and Members of the Conference Committee, 

We write to you at a time of great uncertainty for citizens of the Commonwealth. Residents are reeling from an onslaught of current and anticipated cuts to federal funding, which target key programs and sectors that shape the daily lives of many in our state. Others fear for their livelihoods in the face of indiscriminate federal immigration raids. 

We are following up on the letter written by some of us Saturday March 8th, on the subject of the Joint Rules negotiations, to stress the utmost urgency of the task before you. The public has clearly spoken about a need for legislative reform to improve transparency and accountability. We were pleased that Rules proposals from both chambers take significant steps in that direction. It is imperative that you reach an agreement on Joint Rules to deliver on these promises. 

Nevertheless, we are now nearly three months into the legislative session, and committees await clear instructions on Rules changes before taking up the work of lawmaking. Contingency plans must be made and debated publicly for the state’s 2026 budget, which anticipates $16 billion in federal funds that may not materialize. Bills have been filed that, if passed, could immediately provide better protections for immigrant families, incarcerated individuals, and other vulnerable groups that have been targeted by the Trump administration. 

We address you also as progressives, committed to providing a meaningful alternative to conservative governance by attacks on social services and vulnerable populations. A major takeaway from last year’s election is that elected officials are seen by many as distant and unresponsive to the needs of working-class voters. Constituents are looking for leadership in light of a perceived unwillingness among elected officials to fight the billionaire takeover of the federal government or to take concrete action to defend social policies. With this in mind, further delays to begin the lawmaking process in Massachusetts are unwise. 

Massachusetts has an opportunity to serve as a beacon of stability and hope at a time of great chaos and fear for the nation and for the Commonwealth’s own residents. However, this bold vision cannot materialize until we get to work. 

We urge you to move swiftly to pass a robust Joint Rules package, including transparency reforms, and immediately take up and pass legislation to respond to the extraordinary moment we are facing. 

Sincerely, 

Act on Mass

Boston Catholic Climate Movement

Climate Action Now Western Mass

Community Action Agency of Somerville (CAAS) 

Food & Water Watch 

Homes for All Massachusetts

Lexington Climate Action Network  

Massachusetts Sierra Club 

Mass-Care: the Massachusetts Campaign for Single Payer Health Care

Our Revolution Massachusetts 

Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts 

Progressive Massachusetts 

Springfield No One Leaves

Unitarian Universalist Mass Action 

Live Every Week Like Sunshine Week: Transparency Campaign Update & Action Hour

Sunshine Week—the week-long celebration of open government — may have been last week, but we know that it’s important to live every week like Sunshine Week.

Join us TOMORROW at 6 pm for an update on the push for a more transparent, responsive, and timely Legislature.

In February, both the House and Senate adopted a series of transparency reforms to make a more open, inclusive, and timely legislative process. These reforms were only possible because of people like you who emailed, called, and met with your legislators.

But the fight isn’t over yet. The House and Senate have to negotiate the differences between their respective proposals for Joint Rules.

In recent sessions, these conference committees have stalemated. But this session can and must be different. Legislators have felt the pressure from the public that voters across the commonwealth want to see these changes. Let’s keep up the momentum, get this done, and get to the important work across so many urgent issues facing the Commonwealth.

Happy Sunshine Week! ☀️ Let’s Talk about Transparency

Happy Sunshine Week!

Sunshine Week is a nonpartisan collaboration among groups in the journalism, civic, education, government, and private sectors that shines a light on the importance of public records and open government.

Sunshine Week celebrates a radical concept: that you deserve to know what your elected officials are doing.

In other words, what could be a better week to talk about the push for State House Transparency and our Scorecard Website?

Tomorrow, the three state representatives and three state senators who will negotiate a final set of Joint Rules for the legislative session will meet for the first time. There’s a lot at stake (they haven’t come to a deal in several sessions), including whether committee votes and testimony will finally be posted, whether we will see more timely advancement of legislation, and much more. Read on for what you can do to take action.

And *drumroll please* our Scorecard Website is now up to date with full data from last session as well as co-sponsorship data from this session. Want to know if your legislators are co-sponsoring the bills on our Legislative Agenda. We’ve got you covered.


The Fight for State House Transparency Continues

In February, both the House and Senate adopted a series of transparency reforms to make a more open, inclusive, and timely legislative process. They did not go as far as they could have, but the fact that they went as far as they did was only possible because of people like you who emailed, called, and met with your legislators.

But the fight isn’t over yet. The House and Senate have to negotiate the differences between their respective proposals for Joint Rules.

A six-person conference committee was just appointed to oversee these negotiations:

  • Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton)
  • Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem)
  • Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton)
  • Rep. Mike Moran (D-Brighton)
  • Rep. Bill Galvin (D-Canton)
  • Rep. David Muradian (R-Grafton)

In recent sessions, these conference committees have stalemated. But this session can and must be different. Legislators have felt the pressure from the public that voters across the commonwealth want to see these changes. Let’s keep up the momentum, get this done, and then get to the important work across so many urgent issues facing the Commonwealth.

We recently sent a letter with Act on Mass and Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts in support of critical transparency reforms. Now it’s your turn:

Email Your State Legislators

Email the Conference Committee



Last Session’s Votes…And This Session’s Co-Sponsorships

Our scorecard website is now up to date with our full data from the 2023-2024 legislative session.

The most striking thing about last session’s recorded votes in the State House? How few of them there were.

Last session saw only 203 votes in the MA House and 252 in the MA Senate, each approximately 50% below average and part of an ongoing decline. That’s bad for accountability. When all of the discussion and debate happens behind closed doors, voters are less aware of where their legislators really stand.

And not each of these recorded votes will be worth scoring: many are low-stakes votes where everyone agrees.

To account for the scarcity of votes last session—especially ones that were beyond unanimous or party-line—we included a few additional data points:

  • Whether your state legislators are visiting prisons and jails to serve as a force for accountability in the conditions there
  • Whether your legislators are holding office hours and town halls to engage constituents
  • Whether your legislators are co-sponsoring the bills that we are tracking on our Scorecard website

For the first two, we did our best to reach out to legislative offices to get information. If we’re missing something, just let us know.

But headed into the new session, our Scorecard website also has other important information: Co-Sponsorship. We’ll be tracking which legislators are co-sponsoring the bills on our Legislative Agenda. That’s a critical tool for you to be able to apply effective pressure — as well as to give credit to the legislators who are fighting the good fight.

Take a look, explore, and take action!

Letter to the Conference Committee on Rules Reform

The Honorable Michael Moran 

The Honorable Cynthia Stone Creem 

The Honorable William Galvin 

The Honorable Joan Lovely 

The Honorable David Muradian 

The Honorable Ryan Fattman 

Saturday, March 8, 2025 

Dear Majority Leader Moran, Majority Leader Creem, and Members of the Conference Committee: 

We are pleased that both chambers have taken up reforms to the legislative process to promote greater transparency, accountability, and timeliness. As we said in our January 22 letter, “The citizens of Massachusetts have made it clear: we expect our legislature to be transparent, democratic, and accountable to its constituents.” 

As you negotiate differences to determine a final set of Joint Rules to govern the 194th session of the General Court, we urge you to consistently side with the reforms that maximize the ability of rank-and-file legislators and the public to participate fully in the process. 

Hearing Notice (Joint Rule 1D)

We urge you to adopt the language from the Senate, which would increase the notice for hearings from 72 hours to 5 days. This makes it more possible for members of the committee and members of the public to make space in their schedule to participate and to make whatever arrangements they need to in order to make that possible. 

Making Testimony Public (Joint Rule 1D)

We were pleased to see both chambers recognize the public interest in making the testimony submitted to committees accessible. We urge adoption of Senate language specifying that such testimony will be made “available on the general court website,” as opposed to simply “publicly available.” This guarantees the broadest accessibility and reflects best the underlying intent we hope both chambers share. 

Committee Votes (Joint Rule 1D) 

We were similarly pleased that both chambers recognize that Massachusetts should join the majority of state legislatures in publishing committee votes. We urge adoption of Senate language specifying that the rule applies to “study orders” as well as votes on pieces of legislation themselves and language clarifying that the results of both “electronic polls” and in-person roll calls are to be made public. 

We also urge adoption of House language specifying that such votes should be published in a timely manner, i.e., within 48 hours. 

Materials Presented to Committee Members Before Votes (Joint Rule 1D)

The legislative process works best when legislators are fully informed about the matters before them. We urge you to adopt House language stating that committee members will receive “(i) a document clearly marking any changes made by the committee to the underlying matter, and (ii) a document clearly marking any changes to any general or special law proposed by the matter, which shall be made publicly available.” We urge that these be made available to the public as well as legislators before said votes and that committee members be provided due time to review them before voting. 

Reporting Deadlines (Joint Rule 10)

We are pleased to see that both chambers are interested in moving up the deadline for reporting bills out of committee. 


To ensure a thorough and expedient legislative process, we urge adoption of Senate language establishing a new reporting deadline of the first Wednesday in December as well as House language creating a series of rolling deadlines following hearings. 

Disposition of Bills Not Acted Upon (Joint Rule 10)

Under current rules, if a committee makes no report on a bill by a given deadline, the bill is marked as receiving an adverse report. This language, included in the Senate‘s proposal, should stay, instead of the House’s proposal to dispense of such remaining bills with a bulk study order.

Open Conference Committee Meetings (Joint Rule 11) 

We have endorsed making conference committee meetings fully open to the public, and we urge you to adopt Senate language specifying that the first meeting of a conference committee must be an open meeting. 

Time to Read Conference Reports (11B) 

As previously stated, the legislative process works best when legislators are fully informed about the matters before them. We urge you to adopt Senate language ensuring that members have at least one full day to review a conference report before voting on it. 

End of Formal Session (Joint Rule 12A)

Both chambers adopted new language specifying what work can occur after the end of formal session on July 31 of the second year of session. We urge adoption of the House’s more tailored language identifying the specific cases in which votes could occur and how such cases relate to work largely conducted within the formal session. We are concerned by any effort to push significant legislative activity into the fall and winter of the second year of session. 

Again, we are pleased to see attention to issues of transparency, accountability, and efficiency of the legislative process. The changes elaborated above embrace the best of both chambers’ proposals and would help improve public trust and engagement in the legislative process. We hope that this will be a sign of a broader change in the building in the direction of openness, engagement, and responsiveness. 

Sincerely, 

Act on Mass 

Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts 

Progressive Massachusetts

Statement on Passage of House and Senate Rules

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have embraced reforms in the Joint Rules that will promote transparency, accountability, and (we hope) timeliness. Although more steps should be taken in the future to guarantee that the public’s work is done in public view, both chambers supported measures to expand access to information and to mitigate the end-of-session bottleneck, changes that resulted from a clear public message that voters demand better from the Legislature. We urge both chambers to come to a swift and comprehensive compromise for Joint Rules for the Session. It has been too long since both chambers agreed on a set of rules, and the legislative process has suffered because of that.

As we approach the month of March with still no committees formed and no bills being heard, we stand out in the country in our legislative delays. There is so much work that needs to get done to be proactive against the threats coming from the Donald Trump – Elon Musk administration, and further delay puts our Commonwealth at risk.

While we eagerly await the finalization of Joint Rules, we recognize that rules are only one element of the legislative process. For our Legislature to truly deliver for everyday people, we need cultural changes throughout the chamber. May new rules be a first step toward that.”

The House and Senate Have Both Adopted New Rules for Themselves. What’s New?

The MA House and Senate have both passed their respective proposals for the Joint Rules, which we discuss here. But both also passed reforms to their own chamber’s rules as well. Let’s explore.

(Want to see the exact text changes? Read here.)

The Senate’s New Rules

  • Making Testimony Public: Regardless of what is agreed to in the Joint Rules, the Senate plans to make testimony submitted to its committees as well as joint committees public, with appropriate redactions for sensitive information. The Senate’s rules previously only addressed testimony for Senate-only committees, and such testimony would only be available upon request.
  • Committee Votes: Senators already make their votes public in Senate-only committees (Ways & Means being the committee with the most of such votes); however, the Senate now plans to publish its members votes in Joint Committees as well. However, the Senate removed the language stipulating the timeliness in which said votes should be published.
  • Summaries of Bills Voted On in Committee: The Senate also plans to make public the summaries of all bills voted on by Senate committees. These summaries often already exist, but for members only.

The House’s New Rules

  • Attendance Records and Requirements: The House will record and publish attendance of committee members at House committee hearings and require in-person attendance from all members, not just the chair.
  • Committee Votes: The House previously only required the reporting of the tallies from committee votes along with the names of those voting no. The new House rules would require all committee members’ votes be recorded and would eliminate the stipulation that committee votes only happen by request of someone at in-person committee meeting (such meetings almost never happen).
  • Reporting Deadline: The House rules include the language around an earlier reporting deadline and rolling deadlines following hearings that the House voted on for the Joint Rules.

PM in the News: “With Mass. House set to vote on its rules, is transparency a priority or a talking point?”

Abigail Pritchard, “With Mass. House set to vote on its rules, is transparency a priority or a talking point?,” New Bedford Light, February 24, 2025.

Jonathan Cohn, the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts, said that this reform would increase efficiency and help supporters of bills know whether their bills are dead or still up for discussion. Most bills die in committee on an unclear timeline, Cohn said.

….

At an action hour on government transparency that Progressive Massachusetts and other organizations hosted Feb. 19, Cohn suggested that the public should have as much time to prepare for a hearing as they need to request time off from work — at least two weeks.

Hille and Cohn, of Progressive Massachusetts, credit the growing political movement for transparency with increasing pressure for the proposed rules reforms. Both are hopeful about the House and Senate adopting reforms, but said those can only go so far.

Cohn also credits Cambridge’s Evan MacKay with pushing the legislature toward rules reforms. MacKay ran against long-time incumbent Rep. Marjorie Decker last year, losing narrowly after a campaign that criticized the legislature for lack of transparency and consolidation of power. 

“I think that they’re mindful of not wanting to give challengers talking points against them,” Cohn said, “and if that means doing the things that we’re criticizing you for not doing and not making public, I take that as a win.”

New Rules: How Far Did Each Chamber Go in Promoting Transparency?

The 194th session of the Massachusetts General Court began with both Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano promising to take up rules reforms in the service of a more accountable, transparent, and efficient legislative process.

It was clear that this was a direct result of years of advocacy from activists who understood that good process and good outcomes go hand in hand (including a broad coalition push at the start of this session to shape the outcome), the wide margin that Question 1 achieved statewide and in every city/town, and the increased media coverage of State House dysfunction.

What are the rules, and why should you care? Legislative rules govern things like who has access to what information, when things need to happen, what happens in the open vs. behind closed doors, and much more. We know from years of following the Legislature that the mega-rich and large corporations can always get behind closed doors, but we, the people, can’t. And such top-down, non-transparent legislating tips the scales away from working people, from marginalized communities, and from the public interest in general.

The Senate passed its proposed changes to the Joint Rules (joint = House and Senate acting together) and its own chamber rules earlier this month. The House did today.

For each chamber, the rules they adopt for themselves (House rules, Senate rules) are now done. But the rules governing them acting together still need further negotiations. When House and Senate differ, they must go to a conference committee to negotiate a compromise. And they haven’t succeeded at this for the Joint Rules for several sessions. With both chambers proposing important reforms, we need to make sure that this session is different.

So what reforms are at stake? Let’s go through them below. (Want to see the text for each? Check out our deeper dive here.)

House vs. Senate: Drafter of Bill Summaries 

The House and Senate both propose requiring bill summaries for every bill in advance of a hearing, but the House wants committee staff to draft the summaries whereas the Senate wants the lead sponsors to. 

House vs. Senate: Hybrid Hearings & In-Person Privileges 

The House and Senate both continue the practice of hybrid hearings, but the House wants to require in-person attendance for committee members and privilege in-person public testimony over that delivered virtually. 

House vs. Senate: Hearing Notice 

The Senate’s proposal would increase the required hearing notice to 5 days as opposed to the current 72 hours, which the House would like to keep. 

House vs. Senate: Making Testimony Public 

Both House and Senate proposals take steps toward making testimony public. The Senate’s proposal intends for testimony to be published on the Legislature’s website, whereas the House proposal is unclear about whether relevant testimony would be published or available upon request. In both cases, there is an acknowledgement that testimony with sensitive information would be redacted. Notably, in the Senate’s own chamber rules, the Senate has expressed an intent to publish testimony regardless of what is decided in the Joint Rules.

House vs. Senate: Committee Votes 

Both the House and Senate proposals endorse the concept of publishing committee votes, provided that the House language does not maintain a distinction between “roll call votes” and “electronic polls.” The House proposal would require that members be provided with redlined versions of the bill prior to a vote, with that markup made publicly available (whether posted or available upon request, though, is unclear). Notably, in the Senate’s own chamber rules, the Senate has expressed an intent to publish its own members’ votes regardless of what is decided in the Joint Rules.

House vs. Senate: Reporting Deadlines 

Both chambers would like to see the reporting deadline for bills moved up from the first Wednesday in February to a date in December: the first Wednesday for the Senate and the third Wednesday for the House. 

The House proposal includes a rolling reporting deadline, with committees required to take action within 60 days of a hearing, with the possibility of a 30-day subsequent extension (and longer with unanimous consent), but not past the third Wednesday in March. 

The Senate proposal would mark bills receiving no action as being given an adverse report; the House proposal would mark them as being sent to study. 

House vs. Senate: Conclusion of Session

Both chambers’ proposals would extend the Legislature’s ability to take votes after the July 31 end date for the formal legislative session. 

Nearly Identical Changes Made in Both 

New in Both: Chamber Privilege over Chamber Bills 

New text in both chambers’ proposals would give greater Senate control over Senate bills and greater House control over House bills. 

No Corresponding Language In Other Chamber’s Proposal 

House (only): Attendance Reports 

The House’s proposed joint rules require a record of attendance at committee hearings, to be published online. 

House (only): Detailed Conference Reports

The House’s proposed joint rules require conference reports to lay out the areas of disagreement and what each chamber fought for. 

Senate (only): Open Conference Committee Meetings 

The Senate proposal guarantees that the first meeting of a conference committee will be fully public. 

Senate (only): Indigenous Leaders

The Senate proposal would require that leaders of Indigenous communities be afforded the same privileges in speaking order as other public officials. 

Senate (only): Time Before Voting on Conference Reports 

The current rules, as reflected in the House language for Joint Rules, state that a conference committee can file a report at 8 pm and vote on it as early as 1 pm the next day. The Senate would require at least one full day in between.

MA Has a Democratic State House. But Do We Have a *Democratic* State House?

At the start of the legislative session, both Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano said that they would take up reforms during the Rules debate in February to increase transparency and boost public confidence in the legislative process.

It’s no surprise why they are singing such a tune: Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s ballot question about auditing the State Legislature won every single city and town with a commanding lead, and the press rightly and repeatedly called out the Legislature last session for missing deadline after deadline and doing so much of their work in the dark (when and if there was work even being done).

But here’s what’s clear to us: we, the public, should be saying what would boost public confidence in the legislative process. That’s not a decision to be left just to State House Leadership.

Everyday people need to have clear ways of following what happens in our State House, making their voice heard, and seeing that their voice can actually have an impact.

That’s why we joined a wide-ranging list of advocacy groups from across the Commonwealth calling for a suite of reforms to boost transparency, participation, and public accountability. But if we want any of these changes to happen, then your legislators need to hear from you too.

The changes include the following:

  • Improving public access to information by making committee votes and testimony public
  • Increasing opportunities for public engagement in the legislative process by providing adequate notice of hearing schedules, further limiting the number of bills per hearing, providing testifiers with an understanding of speaking order, and guaranteeing the right of incarcerated individuals to testify (a practice which began last session)
  • Creating a more open, robust, and timely committee process by requiring public committee markup sessions and public committee reports with bill summaries, moving up the hearing and reporting timelines, expediting hearings for bills that advanced in the prior session, and requiring Conference Committees to meet in open session
  • Providing more time to read legislation, whether bills or floor amendments

Your legislators will say that the public doesn’t actually care about any of this. It’s our job to show that they are wrong. Can you take a minute to email your state legislators?

Beacon Hill 101 Video & Follow-up

Thank you to everyone who joined our Beacon Hill 101 Session! You can find the link to the video below.

You can find the slide deck for the presentation here.

There were a lot of great questions in the chat, and we compiled them and put together answers below (you can find a printable version here):

Do late-filed bills have any better or worse chance of getting passed?

  • Given that most bills face long odds, I’m tempted to say that it’s the same regardless, but a late-filed bill lacks a burst of early momentum. However, at the same time, late files may be responding to a particular hot-button issue and gain momentum that way. 

What can we do about the lack of transparency?  Ask the news media to cover this? / I imagine that the lack of transparency has been an ongoing issue – have there been efforts to change that and is there hope?

  • In 2016, when the Legislature voted to update the public records law, they created a commission to look into whether the law should reply to the Legislature and Governor. That commission dissolved because the House and Senate couldn’t agree, but the Senate released their own report, recommending several changes that they have adopted in their own rules since. 
  • Although this has been a long-standing issue, the latest wave of rules-related progressive advocacy around transparency dates to 2018, when a number of female candidates signed a pledge calling for more transparency. Several of them won their elections. That was followed by advocacy from groups like us at Progressive Mass and others in early 2019 around the rules, where we worked with progressive representatives in the House to get votes on a few rules changes. The votes were not successful, but they raised the profile of the issue. You can read about that in our 2019 archive. (Here is our response to common excuses from legislators.) 
  • Act on Mass started soon thereafter, with the founders having worked on State Rep Nika Elugardo’s campaign and having been active in that 2019 push. Act on Mass spearheaded a transparency push (“The People’s House” campaign) in 2021, as well as a transparency pledge during the 2020 election cycle.
    • See our roundup of the House debate from 2021, which was pushed to the summer when legislators freaked out about advocacy early in the session. 
    • Last session, Sen. Jamie Eldridge filed these rules reforms in a bill known as the Sunlight Act, and Sen. Becca Rausch and Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven filed other bills to open up the legislative process. 
  • In their opening remarks for the session on January 1, both Speaker Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka spoke about an intent to take up some kind of legislative process reform, with Spilka naming concrete proposals. This was likely a result of the large win for Question 1 (Audit the Legislature) and negative press about the end of the legislative session. Your legislators need to hear from you about support for pro-transparency reforms: https://www.progressivemass.com/jan2025action. Expect to hear more from us on this soon. Legislators often say that the issue doesn’t matter to their constituents, and they need to hear otherwise. 

Do you advise submitting oral testimony also in written form?

  • Yes. Not all legislators on a committee attend the hearings, so submitting written testimony increases the likelihood that all members of the committee and their staff would read it. 

Does anyone go through the hearing videos and track who testified? Can you know who submitted written testimony?

  • There are no public services that provide that of which I’m aware, although MAPLE is exploring how to track the testifiers from video. 
  • There is no public record of written testimony, in contrast to states like Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Arizona, California, Illinois, Kansas, and West Virginia post a list of testifiers but do not link to testimony. 

What if you have a testimony that has to do with slumlords and Horrible housing conditions? 

  • If there are things that the city/town could do to enforce better conditions, I would recommend contacting local officials. On the state level, there are various pieces of legislation that could improve this. Currently, testimony is not a public record, but if it was, there would be provisions for confidentiality if you needed that to prevent retaliation. 

I’m thinking of training an AI on MGL to interpret proposed bills. I wonder if anyone else has already done this. 

  • MAPLE is working on AI summaries of proposed bills and have been error-checking the quality of the summaries produced. 

“2026?” So if someone presents a bill now nothing happens until next year?

  • The February 2026 deadline, written into the Joint Rules by Joint Rule 10, is the deadline for joint committees (with the exception of Health Care Financing, which has a later deadline of March 25) to take action on legislation. Given that nothing inspires action like a deadline, the joint committees often wait until then to decide on bills, but they can report bills out at any time before then. 

Has the organization considered sponsoring a potential constitutional amendment superseding the OML/public records exemptions for the legislature? Would PM endorse and campaign for such an amendment if someone else initiated it?

  • There has been chatter about a ballot question around public records reform, and we will keep people posted on that. 

What about when a bill is just passed by the presiding officer even with no one else in the chamber?

  • This happens when bills are passed by voice vote, where the presiding officer calls for YEAs and NAYs and then announces the result immediately (so fast that it is suspect that there were even any votes to listen to). The House and Senate can operate in this way under unanimous consent: as long as no one is present to object, they do not need to prove the presence of a quorum to conduct business. As soon as someone objects and calls into question the absence of a quorum, then Legislative Leadership needs to bring people back (although the House has tested the boundaries of that rule). 
  • There are many bills for which a voice vote makes sense: for example, a home rule petition to change a Board of Selectmen to a Select Board. But such bills should never even need a vote from the Legislature in the first place–a sign of the need for a reform of the home rule process. 

How do you find the members of a conference committee? Is it on the Legislature’s website?

  • The names will be posted on the page of the corresponding bill. See, as an example, the climate bill from last fall: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S2838. You will also likely hear about it via action alerts to contact the Conference Committee / your own legislators. 

Why ‘compromise’ on something that was just passed?

  • Conference Committees are appointed to reconcile the differences between what the two chambers pass. If they pass the same exact legislation, then they do not need to appoint a Conference Committee. In larger bills, each chamber might have specific priorities, and the other chamber sometimes chooses to intentionally exclude said priorities to get bargaining power. 

Does each bill get a separate conference committee?

  • Yes, every bill that is passed in different forms in each chamber will get a conference committee. However, when the Legislature creates many conference committees at the same time, as happened last summer, the conference committees likely blur into one giant negotiation in an informal way, with provisions traded across bills. 

Spilka and Mariano have been talking about changing the calendar. Is it likely?

  • Both of them have started talking about changing the legislative timeline and making reforms to the legislative process, following from the bad press they received for blowing past the July 31 deadline as well as the demand for accountability demonstrated by the 72% public support for Question 1 (Audit the Legislature). One of the main changes proposed by Spilka was an earlier reporting deadline for bills, moving the February deadline to December. That would be a welcome change, but if the committees rely on perpetual extensions, it will not do that much. We would love to see them take steps to accelerate the hearing process, especially fast-tracking hearings for bills already reported out favorably in the last legislative session. Definitely make sure that your legislators hear from you about the need to not push all important work until July of next year (or even later). With the Trump administration coming soon, there is so much urgent work necessary to be done here in Massachusetts to protect our residents, and we should not tolerate such delays. 

If a legislator votes against my preference, is it worth it to call and complain?

  • Yes! It is always worthwhile to contact your legislators to express displeasure. They work for you and should hear from you. Constituent pressure can encourage them to vote better–or encourage them to find another job. 

Very thorough explanation of the official process and clear about the outsized power of the leaders. I’m curious about the in-between politics. Clearly reps and sen have to not step on leaders’ toes. But can you say more about the ‘back room’ or unofficial politics and processes? How are deals done? How are compromises built? How do they make effective alliances? Etc.

  • Excellent question! Some of this is simply hard to know because of the closed-door nature of the process. However, this interview with Rep. Jay Kaufman was a useful window into what happens, backed by a group of former staffers and advocates.
  • During the amendment process on a bill, most of the decisions to adopt or reject amendments are made before the amendments get to the floor, with a Leadership team (Speaker/Senate President, Ways & Means chairs, and a few others) determining which will pass and which won’t. There is frantic internal lobbying from legislators (as well as external lobbying) to try to show support behind their measures and to make their case to Leadership, but those debates rarely make it into the public view. I have heard anecdotes of legislators being told to withdraw amendments or deal with Leadership whipping votes against them. There are few close votes, but whenever any vote gets remotely close without Leadership blessing, that’s an indication of a strong whip operation against its passage behind the scenes to ensure that legislators do not vote for it. An example of this is the Election Day Registration fight in the House in 2022, where the vote was left open for a long time and Leadership allegedly called representatives to ask them to change their votes. Another behind-the-scenes example, but in the Senate, would be the fate of the real estate transfer fee local option from this past session, where I was told by several people that there was a majority support for it but a few high-ranking senators opposed it and blocked it from inclusion. 
  • Conference Committee negotiations are harder to understand. The conferees’ own opinions obviously hold outsize influence, as will the Speaker’s and Senate President’s. 
  • Ensuring that legislative sponsors organize internally to put pressure on colleagues, conferees, and Leadership, and ensuring that we, as activists, are keeping up a drumbeat of pressure on our legislators, is the best way to attempt to break through such a process. The process can be somewhat hard to follow, but it’s our job to follow every step of it to the best we can and give you the tools you need to take effective action throughout the session. 

Can the House vote on a bill during the 1st year?

  • Yes, the Legislature typically passes many more bills in the second year of the legislative session; however, nothing prevents them from passing more legislation in Year 1. Spreading work across the session would help eliminate a bottleneck effect. Indeed, they are a full-time Legislature, unlike most. 

Does the House stay in session during the whole first year?

  • For much of the year, they will be in informal session, i.e., legislators are not asked to come in person. However, the last possible date for a formal session (i.e., where legislators are asked to come in person and take votes) this calendar year is December 19. 

Let’s say you have 100 co-sponsors on a House bill and you are past February of the second year.  Can you force a vote on a bill?

  • By early February, a committee will have made a decision on whether to report out a bill, vote down a bill, or send a bill to “study” (i.e., tabling it). Having a large number of cosponsors does not mean that a bill will advance out of committee; it could still be voted down or granted an extension. 
  • The House does have discharge petitions (i.e., a majority of representatives can sign to bring a bill forward), but this tool is rarely, if ever, used. 

What are ways to influence the House Speaker and Senate president?

  • Constituents in their district have an important role to play in influencing them, so organizing in their districts is especially valuable. (This can include phone banking into their districts, canvassing constituents, organizing events, etc.) However, unless they are especially passionate about an issue, the Speaker and Senate President do not advance “controversial” issues without a strong base of support in the Democratic caucus in their respective chamber. As such, pressure on rank-and-file legislators is also important since they will be making asks during caucus meetings, during budget meetings, at other times, and we need them to be using those opportunities to push the issues we care about. 
  • Although they are not always responsive to media coverage, both Spilka and Mariano complained about negative media coverage in their opening remarks in the session, an indication that they do, in fact, pay attention to it and that it can have influence. 

Please say something about how citizen lobbyists can compete with business/paid lobbyists on bills.

  • This is a matter of numbers and intensity. There are more of us than there are of them (people over money), and this speaks to the need to continue to expand the number of people reaching out to their legislators and showing up to things to put pressure on them. Legislators like to take the “path of least bother,” and constituents have power in shaping what that is for them. 
  • To give an example from the past session, we saw the influence of a flood of real estate spending against the local option real estate transfer fee, especially in how they were able to text voters with lies about what the proposal would do. We need to be talking with, mobilizing, and organizing more people to counteract that. 

Does Progressive Mass publish the historical voting patterns of legislators? 

When are we going to talk about 99% of bills not getting passed, and that those that do are mostly from being redrafted as amendments to the budget and bonding bills?

  • There has been an unfortunate tendency in recent years to move toward fewer and larger bills, with bills only advancing as riders (or, in technical terms, “outside section”) of “must-pass” bills like a budget or a bond authorization. This reduces accountability because most of these bills will pass unanimously, but we know that many legislators opposed and/or fought individual pieces within it. 

If there are 6-7000 bills filed and most don’t get passed, why do legislators  file all these bills?

  • To put it simply, the best way to ensure a bill never passes is to never file it. More expansively, some bills are filed as discussion starters, some are filed to build momentum across several sessions, and some are filed with the hope of attaching them to a larger bill. You never know when external events will raise the profile of an issue, so having legislation ready for when that happens is critical.

How would you work with legislators who say they are “rethinking” their policy of co-sponsoring; i.e., won’t co-sponsor bills? 

  • You should still ask them to co-sponsor bills because by asking them to do so, you are raising the profile of the bill to them. That is helpful if the bill starts to move and Leadership wants to gauge where members are. And don’t let them feel content about doing less! 

Always ask for receipts — receipts for what?

  • When you ask your legislators to take an action, make sure to follow up with it to ensure follow through. That could mean a co-sponsorship of a bill, a recorded vote, a signature on a letter, or other steps. It is always good to ask to see evidence of an action since, even if there are the best of intentions, things can fall through the cracks! 

The power that leadership has — and reinforced with their access to the $$ — is a terrible system.  How could it ever change, given that they are unlikely to support anything that reduces their power/$.  Not a very good model if one was designing a democracy, one where each rep/sen has the same power….   Is there any historical precedent for challenging this terrible system?  Any hope?

  • The folks at the Committee for Reform Our Legislature and Act on Mass plan to file legislation to reform the stipend system to raise the profile of the issue; however, ultimate change would likely have to occur by ballot initiative. 

Sounds like we need to apply some serious pressure. Think our Dems feel “safe” because of all that’s going on nationally?

  • Yes, we do! We understand the urgency on the ground around so many issues, and that urgency will get so much greater under the second Trump administration. The Democrats in the MA Legislature need to understand that it is incumbent upon them to be bolder, both to protect MA residents from the worst of the Trump administration’s policies and to demonstrate how government can make a positive difference in people’s lives and build back public trust. Many of them don’t feel urgency because they are never challenged and become insular to the State House itself, and that means they need to be hearing from constituents much more. 

How do we effectively put pressure on Gov. Healey?

  • Calling/emailing the Governor’s office is important, and calls/emails will be tracked. Elected officials are always attuned to intensity levels because that influences their electoral fortunes. The higher an office is, the more important media can be, and that makes events like rallies or efforts like editorials/letters especially important to shape what the Governor views public opinion to be. You can also try to put together a group of people to demand a meeting with a specific cabinet official; they might be harder to reach, but it is still worth trying. 

Does your organization have enough money to achieve its goals? Do you grow or support alternative candidates?

  • We have only two-part time staff and are hoping to grow capacity. You can support our work here (thank you!). We strive to have a strong grassroots funding base. 
  • Our chapters have often contributed to candidate recruitment work, and I am always willing to talk with people interested in running for office. Progressive Mass is also on the board of Mass Alliance, which runs excellent candidate trainings. 

I’ve worked on bills where a legislator cosponsors it to get us off of them, then goes to leadership to have him kill the bill in the committee process, so they never have to vote on it.

  • Yes, I’ve heard of many stories like that too. That is why it’s so important to treat co-sponsorship as just the first ask to make of legislators. We need them to do more than that! 

Do we have any progressive state cheerleaders? Like Warren at the fed level. 

  • Check out our Scorecard to see the top-performing legislators, especially ones that reliably co-sponsor progressive priorities. 

Do committees take minutes? If so, are minutes available by FOIA request?

  • Unlike in municipalities, which are bound by open meeting law, neither House, nor Senate, nor Joint (i.e., House/Senate) committees are required to conduct work in person in front of the public. Beyond a hearing, a committee’s work will be behind closed doors. The Legislature is also exempt from the public records law. Legislation to change that, such as the Sunlight Act by Sen. Jamie Eldridge, is being refiled.