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.

Transparency Action Hour: Next Steps

Thank you so much for joining us last night! We had 140+ people join to learn and take action together—and to keep the momentum going. And we filled up quite a few voice mails. (And if you weren’t able to make it, you were missed!)

Links from last night:

Earlier today, the House released a summary of their proposed rules changes. There are some positive signs, but we are awaiting the full text and will keep you posted. But for now, the important thing is to make sure that YOUR state rep is hearing from YOU.

Don’t forget to call or email (or both!) your state representatives, and to share the ask with your networks! Again, you can find our action guide at https://tinyurl.com/transparencyactionma. Pass this on to family, friends, and neighbors and ask them to take action for transparency too.

2/19: Transparency Action Hour

Voters have said on the ballot countless times that they want to see a more transparent State Legislature, and we know that the top-down, closed-door nature of policymaking empowers the large corporations and special interests that can get their way in, leaving the rest of us out.

Senate President Karen Spilka and Speaker Ron Mariano have both promised to take up rules reform to make for a more transparent and efficient legislative process. Last month, 30+ organizations laid out a set of pro-transparency, pro-participation, pro-democracy reforms that would boost public confidence in the legislative process.

With the Senate rules behind us and the House rules being taken up later this month, where does the campaign stand? Join us for a campaign update and an opportunity to make some calls to make sure that state legislators are hearing from us, their constituents.


RSVP here