Massachusetts House and Senate lawmakers remain divided over transparency and process reforms in their t rules package, with many major issues unresolved this coming after months of negotiation. Reporter Chris Lisinski with the State House News Service details some recent disputes that highlight inconsistency among Legislative leaders.
Chris Lisinski, SHNS: The lawmakers in charge of coming to a consensus on a final package say that they are making some progress, that they're optimistic about the course of negotiations. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that we're four and a half months into the term and they still don't have an agreement in place, and they even itted that some of the biggest sticking points, like how to change the bill reporting deadline or what to do over committee attendance. Consensus on that front still remains out of reach.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: As for Western Mass lawmakers, does the current situation impact their ability to effectively represent their districts?
It depends on who you ask. And if you ask Senator Jacob Olivera, for example, the answer is a resounding ‘yes.’ Last week, Olivera was not allowed to testify remotely at a committee hearing about a bill of his. The House chair of that , Rep. Tackey Chan, said that lawmakers need to be present in person for committees of which they are a member. That's something that the House is pushing for in its reform package, but has not yet become final.
In the wake of that, we had some back and forth between the House and Senate, including one top representative suggesting maybe the House will soften its position.
But for right now, we are at least hearing the argument made by some western Mass. lawmakers that there are barriers to getting their voices fully heard by their colleagues.
More to come, there. With a hiring freeze across the Massachusetts executive branch starting next week. Governor Maura Healey aims to preserve budget flexibility amid economic uncertainty, with threats of major federal funding cuts on the horizon. She's applied the hiring brakes before. Do we know how long she expects this period to last?
No, we don't. I believe all the governor said was that this will remain in place until the next year's state budget, the fiscal 2026 budget, is signed into law, at which point she'll reassess. That's not going to happen before July 1st. Lawmakers, by rule, [usually] miss the start of the fiscal year deadline to get a new budget in place, so I'd expect this to be around for at least a couple of months.
It's worth noting she's taken similar action before, but last year's version was more of what the istration called hiring controls, where executive branch agencies needed to get waivers, needed to get explicit, advanced permission to bring employees on. This time, with a few exceptions, it's much more of an across-the-board freeze with no waivers allowed.
Lawmakers continue to advance next year's state budget forward. This week, Senate President Karen Spilka and the Senate will debate their chamber's budget bill. Are Spilka, or any lawmakers, saying federal funding changes might slow state spending?
Yes. Senate President Karen Spilka, in particular, has suggested that the budget that is up for debate in the Senate this week might not be the actual final package, that there might be a need to come in later down the line and change the plans in response to federal funding cuts. But that's just a comment.
And in of action, lawmakers are still plowing ahead with their mostly original plans to jack up state, spending more than 6% over the budget that Governor Healey signed last year, despite all of the uncertainty about federal funding cuts.
And procedurally, Chris, they actually can't change or whittle back that budget at this point. Is that right?
Mostly, yes. The Senate Ways and Means Committees budget is already drafted and is ready to hit the floor. Amendments already needed to be filed. If there is to be a change before that budget is signed into law, I would expect that to happen at the conference committee stage for House and Senate Democrats in private negotiations to say, ‘Look, a big Medicaid cut is official!’ or something like that, ‘Let's change this section of our budget to accommodate for it.’
