Page 16 THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – FRiDAy, OCTObER 2, 2026 Beacon Hill Roll Call Volume 51 - Report No. 39 September 21-25, 2026 By Bob Katzen THE HOUSE AND SENATE: On November 3, or prior to that for voters who take advantage of early voting between October 17-30, all voters will have the opportunity to vote on nine ballot questions that will become law if approved by the majority of voters. To get on the ballot, the groups backing each ballot question were required to collect and submit at least 74,574 signatures last fall. The Legislature had until May 5, 2026 to act on the proposed law. The Legislature did not act on any of the pro~ Legal Notice ~ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS THE TRIAL COURT PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT MIDDLESEX, ss Docket No: MI26E0055PP To Luis E. Umana of Gardner, in the County of Worcester, in the and to all other persons interested. A petition has been presented to said Court by, Aparicio Umana ,of Everett, in the County of Middlesex, representing that She holds as a joint tenant a 50% undivided part or share of certain land lying in Everett, in the County of Middlesex, and briefly described as follows. SOUTHWESTERLY by Nichols Street, 55 .25 feet; NORTHWESTERLY by Lot Al on said plan, 96.9 feet; SOUTHWESTERLY again by Lot Al on said plan, 2.3 feet; NORTHWESTERLY again by Lot Al on said plan, 25 feet; NORTHEASTERLY by land now or late of Lovejoy, 20 feet; SOUTHEASTERLY by land now or late of Bennett, 39 feet; NORTHEASTERLY again by land now or late of Bennett, 38.08 feet; and SOUTHEASTERLY again by Lot B, shown on said plan, now or late of Ida. H. Reed, 79.94 feet. Said parcel contains 5,254 square feet ofland more or less. Setting forth that the petitioner desires that all said land may be ordered to be sold at private sale Or Public auction, for not less than ($1,229.000.00) ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS, and praying that partition may be made of all the land aforesaid according to law, And to that end, that commissioner be appointed to make such partition and be ordered to make sale And conveyance of all, or any portion of said land which the court finds cannot be advantageously Divided, either at private sale or public auction, and be ordered to distribute and pay over the net proceeds therof in such manner as to make the partition just and equal. If you desire to object thereto you or your attorney should file a written appearance and answer in said Court at Woburn before ten o’clock, on the third day of November, 2026 the return date of this citation. Witness, Honorable Terri L. Klug Cafazzo, Esquire, First Justice of said Court, this twenty-second day of September, 2026 TARA E. DeCRISTOFARO REGISTER OF PROBATE COURT October 02, 09, 16, 2026 posals by its May 5 deadline. At which point supporters were required to collect another 12,429 signatures by July 1, 2026 in order to get their question on the ballot. All nine groups gathered suffi cient signatures to get their question on the 2026 ballot. Although neither the House nor Senate voted on any of the nine proposals, the Committee on Initiative Petitions did hold public hearings on the questions. The committee eventually issued a majority report recommending that the Legislature take no action on each proposal. The Legislature never acted on the reports which were simply “placed on fi le,” where they died. Secretary of State Bill Galvin has issued an 88-page book via the U.S. mail and online with details about each question. If you would rather not read the entire 88-page book, Beacon Hill Roll Call will be presenting a report on each ballot question over the next several weeks prior to the election. BALLOT QUESTION 2 – Here is a look at Question 2: QUESTION 2: ALLOW EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES (CPCS) TO ENGAGE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THEIR EMPLOYER. THE CPCS PAYS FOR ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT INDIGENT PERSONS IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES. This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would specify that employees of the CPCS are permitted to engage in collective bargaining with their employer. It would also require CPCS, after executing a collective bargaining agreement, to request the appropriation necessary to fund such agreement from the governor. WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “Vote ‘Yes’ on 2 because public defenders are underpaid as it relates to other states,” Tom McKeever, President of SEIU Local 888, told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Public defenders provide legal services for people that need it the most -- the underprivileged and poor [including the] indigent population, our neighbors, constituents and residents in the commonwealth. Organizing public defenders and support staff will give predictably for the future. Security through just cause, protection through grievance processes. Fair compensation, safe working conditions and additional membership benefi ts through the union.” McKeever continued, “[There is] no opposition to [Question 2] to speak of at this time. Our campaign received over 100,000 signatures in just over a month. SEIU Local 888 and partners National Association Government Employees are very happy with the momentum being built as we approach Election Day on Nov. 3rd.” WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question. Opponents in general say that CPCS is an independent agency of the judicial branch and allowing it to collectively bargain could cause problems. They say that any such agreement could aff ect the agency’s delivery of its legal services because of questionable specifi cs of the agreement that might limit the agency’s ability to have fl exibility in responding to varying caseloads and other conditions. OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, from each side of the question: IN FAVOR: “A ‘Yes’ vote will give employees of the CPCS the right to organize a union and collectively bargain with their employer if they choose to do so. CPCS employees provide critical support for the constitutional right to counsel and help ensure that Massachusetts residents who cannot aff ord an attorney have access to legal representation. Yet, unlike other state employees, CPCS employees do not currently have the right to choose whether to organize and collectively bargain over wages, benefi ts and working conditions. This ballot question would allow CPCS employees to form a union if they so choose. It simply gives CPCS employees the right to make that choice for themselves. Vote ‘Yes’ to give CPCS emBEACON | SEE PAGE 17
17 Publizr Home