17

THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – FriDAy, MAy 9, 2025 Page 17 situation, and there is a multitude of reasons I could not support it,” said Rep. Ken Sweezey (R-Hanson). If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562. Beacon Hill Roll Call Volume 50 -Report No. 18 April 28-May 2, 2025 Copyright © 2025 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved. By Bob Katzen G ET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 30,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications. MASSterList will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Saturday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: www.massterlist.com THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of April 28-May 2. There were no roll calls in the Senate last week. All roll calls in the House were on matters relating to House passage of a $61.47 billion fi scal 2026 state budget. A LOOK BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE “MAKING OF THE BUDGET” Most of the decisions on which representatives’ amendments are included or not included in the budget are made behind closed doors. Of the more than 1,650 budget amendments proposed last week, most of them were bundled into consolidated “mega” amendments. This year there were seven mega amendments and all were easily approved on roll call votes. The system works as follows: Individual representatives file amendments on various topics. All members then pitch their amendments to Democratic leaders who draft consolidated amendments that include some of the individual representatives’ amendments while excluding others. The categories of consolidated amendments include many subjects including programs relating to public safety, judiciary, energy, environmental aff airs, housing, labor and economic development. Supporters of the system say that any representative who sponsored an excluded amendment can bring it to the fl oor and ask for an up or down vote on the amendment itself. They say this system has worked well for many years. Opponents say that most members do not bring their amendment to the floor for an up-ordown vote because that is not the way the game is played. It is an “expected tradition” that you accept the fate of your amendment as determined by Democratic leaders. HOUSE APPROVES $61.47 BILLION FISCAL 2026 STATE BUDGET (H 4000) House 151-6, approved and sent to the Senate a $61.47 billion fi scal 2026 state budget after three days of debate. The House version now goes to the Senate which will approve its own version. A House-Senate conference committee will eventually craft a compromise plan that will be presented to the House and Senate for consideration and then sent to Gov. Maura Healey. “The House’s fiscal year 2026 budget makes key investments that better support Massachusetts students and families, that increase access to aff ordable health care and that provide for a safer and more reliable public transportation system – all without raising taxes,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “In a moment of incredible uncertainty at the federal level, our budget is proof that government can be both fi scally responsible and an agent of good, the kind of government that our residents deserve.” “This budget builds off the successes of the last few years by prioritizing our residents,” said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston), chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. “Whether it is greater investments into programs like housing stability, public transportation or early education, these initiatives are a refl ection of our shared values. By reinvesting in the people of the commonwealth, we will continue to make our economy more competitive and equitable for years to come.” “The fi scal year 2026 budget is a bloated budget that is not attached to the reality of our fi scal “Although there are many good aspects relating to municipal funding that I was happy to see included, it does not go far enough in that realm and continues to poorly prioritize funds. With the fi scal uncertainty relative to the federal government, it is reckless to pretend that this budget should be business as usual and support a budget increase of 7 percent yearover-year and nearly 50 percent in just six years.” “Beacon Hill has once again shown its commitment to secrecy over sound fi scal policy,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Mass Fiscal Alliance. “The House tacked on $81 million in new spending over their original proposal. The last three days showed the House has no fi scal restraint. This was negotiated behind closed doors and rammed through massive, opaque consolidated amendments … At a time when the state is facing declining tax revenues, increased outmigration and deep structural budget challenges, lawmakers should be tightening the belt, not throwing more money into a budget crafted in the shadows.” (A “Yes” vote is for the budget. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Donald Wong Yes MUNICIPAL TAX AMNESTY (H 4000) House 25-132, rejected an amendment that would authorize cities and towns to conduct a municipal tax amnesty program over a two-month period, as determined by the local legislative body, any time prior to June 30, 2027. It specifi cally authorizes communities to waive any or all penalties, fees, charges and accrued interest if the original overdue tax assessment is paid in full. “This proposal would clear the way for the fi rst municipal tax amnesty since 2003,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “I fi led this as a fl exible local option for cities and towns to generate additional revenues by giving residents an incentive to pay their overdue property and excise taxes. This amnesty program would not only help communities but also would benefi t individuals who have outstanding tax liabilities so they can wipe the slate clean by settling their original debt.” Rep. Adrian Madaro (D-East Boston) opposed the amendment and said there is uncertainty in the budget writing process that we’re dealing with given the recent events in Washington, D.C. He said that the House drafted a budget taking into account current municipal collections in order to develop local aid and apportionments. He noted that adopting this measure right now may undermine those eff orts and require the House to reassess how much local aid will be needed to ensure cities and towns have the resources they need again, at a time when we don’t know what holes will need to be plugged at the federal level. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Donald Wong Yes ALLOW DETAINMENT BY IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (H 4000) House 25-131, rejected an amendment that would provide a mechanism for law enforcement and the courts to detain individuals for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the person poses a direct threat to public safety. It would specifi - cally allow for the detainment of individuals for possible immigration violations for up to 12 hours upon receipt of a written request and warrant from ICE. “This amendment is an attempt to respond to the 2017 Commonwealth v. Lunn decision, in which the Supreme Judicial Court determined the authority to honor ICE detainer requests is not expressly permitted under current statutes,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “The amendment is a relatively modest proposal because the authorization is limited to ICE detainer requests for individuals who pose a serious threat to public safety for engaging in, or being suspected of engaging in, specifi c crimes such as terrorism or espionage, criminal street gang activity, sexual abuse or exploitation, human traffi cking, unlawful fi rearm possession and drug distribution or traffi cking.” Rep. Daniel Cahill (D-Lynn) opposed the amendment and said there are criminal detainers issued by ICE and there are civil detainers. He noted that as a former prosecutor, he understands that when there’s a criminal warrant for an ICE detainer from a defendant and they are in the custody of Massachusetts, there is a cooperation with ICE to ensure that upon release of that defendant, or sometimes while a case is pending, ICE is notifi ed and they’re allowed to come pick up that defendant. What we’re talking about here would be for Massachusetts to cooperate with the federal government in civil detainers. The law says here in Massachusetts, we are not to detain someone a moment -- not 12 hours, not 12 seconds. When your case is concluded, you leave. What the federal government wants us to do is expend resources to hold people beyond that time. That’s a constitutional problem. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Donald Wong Yes RIGHT TO SHELTER (H 4000) House 27-129, rejected an amendment that would place further restrictions on the state’s right to shelter law by limiting participation in the commonwealth’s emergency housing assistance program to U.S. citizens who have resided in Massachusetts for at least six months. “Over the last two years, the state’s emergency shelter system has been plagued by cost overruns, fueled by the migrant crisis, which has led to waiting lists for services,” said Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “This amendment would help restore the original intent of the right to shelter law by ensuring that Massachusetts residents in need have access to emergency shelter.” Rep. Alice Peisch (D-Wellesley) opposed the amendment and said it would unfairly restrict eligibility for the emergency shelter program to citizens of the United States and make legal residents ineligible. She argued that it also raises constitutional questions around defined length of residency. She said that the state has put in a number of controls on this program and the number of people using it and seeking to use the program, is now down to 4,804 families. . (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Donald Wong Yes PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUNDING (H 4000) House 28-128, rejected an amendment that would prohibit any city or town’s eligibility for public safety related grant funding from being contingent upon that municipality’s compliance with the MBTA Communities Act. The MBTA Communities Act, according to the state’s website, requires that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria” including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than 1/2 mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children. “Earlier this year, the Healey Administration changed the rules for the Firefi ghter Safety Equipment Grant program by denying grants to communities that are not in compliance with the MBTA Communities zoning law,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “Although the huge public outcry that followed led the governor to reverse course and restore this grant funding, it is important that we add language to the zoning law to ensure that this does not happen again. TyBEACON | SEE PAGE 18

18 Publizr Home