I am very pleased to share the documents below reporting agreement between the House and Senate on their joint rules.
We have not had a joint rules agreement since 2019 and this agreement is welcome: It makes a huge and positive change in how joint committees will work. While committees will continue to do joint hearings on both house and senate bills, house and senate members will vote separately on when and whether to advance the bills for their branches. Previously all bills had to be voted out of committee by a vote of all members. Joint decision making about which bills would move out of committee has created a point of friction between the branches. Ultimately, all decisions of the legislature are joint house and senate decisions, but there is no need for the branches to march in lock-step at every stage of the process.
The new rules also increase notice requirements for hearings and make a number of other transparency improvements.
Statement from House Speaker and Senate President
Today, House Speaker Ronald J. Mariano and Senate President Karen E. Spilka issued the following statement regarding the conference committee on joint legislative rules:
“We are proud to announce that, for the first time since 2019, the House and Senate have reached an agreement on new joint rules. Once adopted, these joint rules will govern the 2025-2026 legislative session.
At the beginning of this session, we committed our respective chambers to deliver a transparent and efficient legislative process that meets the moment. This agreement draws on key provisions from each chamber’s original proposals, and represents our shared commitment to creating an accessible and productive Legislature that responds to the concerns of our constituents and delivers for Massachusetts.
We are deeply grateful to Senate Majority Leader Creem, House Majority Leader Moran, Senate Rules Chair Lovely, House Rules Chair Galvin, and all members of the conference committee for their thoughtful and collaborative work.
We look forward to filing the conference committee report and sharing details of the agreement later today, and to a productive legislative session strengthened by these new joint rules.”
Statement from Majority Leaders Creem and Moran
Today, Senate Majority Leader Cindy Creem and House Majority Leader Michael Moran issued the following statement regarding the Legislature’s agreement on joint rules for the 194th General Court:
“This agreement reflects thoughtful collaboration between our two chambers and demonstrates that meaningful reform is possible when we share a commitment to open and responsive government. At a time when the strength of our institutions matters more than ever, these changes underscore our commitment to serving with unity. With this agreement, we’ve strengthened public access, streamlined the legislative process, reduced the potential for legislative logjams, and laid the groundwork for a transparent and effective Legislature that will continue to deliver results for the people of Massachusetts.”
Summary of Changes (from Joint Press Release)
Joint committees structure and process
- Notice time for joint committee hearings will increase from 72 hours to 10 days. Joint committees must also post a schedule of hearing dates within three weeks of committee appointments.
- Hearings will be conducted jointly on all House and Senate bills, and after a bill is heard, the House or Senate Chair may unilaterally poll members of the committee from their respective branch on a bill that was filed in that branch.
- Money bills filed in the Senate, constitutional amendments filed in the House, and any matters not filed by a member of the General Court will continue to be voted on by all members of a joint committee.
Committee participation and votes
- Members of the public will be able to participate remotely in joint committee hearings, as will members of the Senate. Per House rules, House Members of a joint committee cannot participate remotely and must be physically present in the hearing room.
- Attendance of joint committee members at hearings posted with 10 days’ notice will be taken and available on the General Court website.
- How each individual member votes on the bills being acted upon by the committee will be posted on the General Court’s website.
Bill reporting deadlines
- Joint committees will be required to report bills by the first Wednesday in December of the first year of session.
- Per House Rules, House Chairs will be required to make a final report not later than 60 days after a matter is heard by the committee, but they may request an additional 30 days, at their discretion. Additional extensions must be approved by the House. House bills cannot be extended beyond the third Wednesday in March of the second year of the session. Any bill not acted upon will be ordered to a study by default.
Summaries and other materials
- Joint committees will be required to produce plain-language summaries of all bills in time for their hearings, which will be posted to the General Court’s website.
- Joint committees will adopt rules making written testimony publicly available. The rules will contain limitations on the sharing of testimony including sensitive personal information, obscene content, or information that may jeopardize the health, wellness or safety of the testifier or others.
Conference committees
- The first meeting of conference committees will be open to the public.
- A minimum of 24 hours of will be required between a conference committee report filing and a legislative vote. If a conference committee report is filed after 8 p.m., it cannot be voted on until the second calendar day following the day on which it was filed.
Formal lawmaking
- The Legislature may meet in formal session after July 31 in the second year of the legislative session to take up the following matters: reports of conference committees formed on or before July 31; appropriation bills filed after July 31; and gubernatorial vetoes or amendments.
Joint rules review
- At the end of the two-year session, the Joint Committee on Rules will conduct a comprehensive review of the joint rules. As part of the review, it will conduct a public hearing and solicit testimony from the public and other interested parties.
Chamber Rules Previously App[roved
- In addition to the joint rules approved today, the House and the Senate approved their own chamber’s rules in February to govern their internal operations.
Any updates on the audit over 70% of us voted for?
No update on that, but I hope we may have something to report fairly soon.
Why don’t you Legislators want us to see how the sausage is made on Beacon Hill? The best sunlight is disinfectant.
“The best disinfectant is sunlight”. (Oopsie)
Hi Bob,
The Dem party bosses in the House and Senate threaten (explicitly and implicitly) any legislator who gets “out of line.”
These bosses can withhold state aid to a district, withhold Dem campaign funds, or consign you to the basement of the State House.
These same party bosses hold “informal sessions” to pass significant legislation, and God help you if you complain too often.
At an “informal session” there is no debate and no vote.
This is not democracy and moreover as explained elsewhere it flat-out violates the Mass. Constitution.
BTW, some Mass. Speakers of the House have been indicted and found guilty by the Feds.
What does that say about our legislature?
Awsome
lets shed some light on Lydia Edwards never once spoke to me both times I went to her office to busy coaching folks here Illegally on avoiding Federal Law another one who should be picked up,also on the housing committee but not once filed on bill ordinance in support of not short of low housing bill and its lol how these ” want to be so intelligent” people up at the StateHouse seem to think by building more housing it would some how reduce the cost of rent just another attempt to me to get folks coming here to keep them into office,another thing I notice when these elected officials know folks are tired of them they get money for their votes outside the mapping areas they cover,and anyone monitoring weather my post shall be seen because they don’t want my information out just should you really don’t stand on nothing that don’t fit or suit your narrative cause they can’t handle the truth
There not trying to give information to the auditor which is why they direct their conversation else where if they was open and honest and had nothing to hide they would open up to an audit,like State lottery money going to towns and city to folks who don’t spend as much money as folks considered low income do,the time for the lottery number changed so they can manipulate how the ball come out and which areas will win,Housing they had a hearing Lydia Edwards who took the district when William left she on the housing committee but never supported the senator who sponsored the bill,so she another one who action don’t match her words
Never gonna happen.
Death, taxes, and the MALeg resisting an audit.
Democracy (local control,) is the obstacle to Progressives’ (read socialists’) “abundance.”
FACT:
Bills are often passed on Beacon Hill with just 2 or 3 people present.
They’re called “informal sessions” and flat-out violate the Mass. Constitution:
———————————————————————————————–
“Article XXXIII:
A majority of the members of each branch of the general court shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but a less number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members.”
———————————————————————————————–
But that doesn’t happen.
See, the lead legislator just asks if any one objects. There is usually no one else present to object because the legislators are AWAY.
Will, a lawyer, knows all this and knows it’s undemocratic and illegal.
But he doesn’t care.
Do you, Will?
No. As we have discussed, I disagree with your reading of the law.
Hi, Will:
Dee raises an interesting question about Article XXXIII in the Mass. Constitution, which I wasn’t aware of. When you say you disagree with Dee’s reading of the law, what does that mean, relative to the article Dee cites? Thanks for any clarification!
Hi Libby,
There is no “law.” I have asked around a LOT with numerous legislators and staff.
It’s the Mass. Constitution and no law or rule can overrides that anyway.
Will knows this full well.
Libby:
Imagine ONLY 2 or 3 members of the Belmont Town Meeting or Watertown City Council met and passed some law without a quorum (assuming a quorum is needed).
And those 2 or 3 members said, “Hey, anyone HERE object to this law? Oh, gee whiz, I don’t hear anyone (because the room is EMPTY) so the law is passed.”
Will thinks that is OK.
The Mass. Constitution says it is NOT.
Will knows this.
He is trying to put one over on all of us. He is violating the law and knows it but is afraid of offending the Dem leaders.
Honest readers here know I’m right, but they like Will and so will ignore the Mass. Constitution, which speaks very poorly of them politically, morally, and intellectually.
This issue is not going away, Will.
It will come back and nullify every law passed unconstitutionally.
every last one of them up in that state house has no problem of trying to rewrite laws or circumvent them which the U.S Constitution states no state or Rep
of the state and make or amend no Federal law that would abridge the rights of we the People another thing look at Boston City Council Tania Fernandaz admitted to bribery in Federal court and refuse to step down like these Clowns are an insult
another thing stop depending on someone just because they work in the Statehouse to change what you already know and believe to be true your beliefs are just as valid as theirs and you have to right to challenge it,Constitution clearly state no representative or a state can make or abridge any Federal law that violates the right of the people
Will, are you saying that it is OK to pass bills in informal sessions with only a few legislators present?
Yes. That is standard operating procedure. As long both parties are represented and no legislator objects non-controversial bills may be passed in informal session. It is efficient and transparent and any legislator who feels that a bill needs more discussion can prevent it. So, informal sessions happen every week and have been happening every week for decades, probably for centuries. Every once in a while a legislator has a problem with a particular bill moving in informal sessions and insists that it be held for a formal session. But there are no legislators among the 200 sitting senators and representatives who object to the practice of informal sessions for minor business.
That’s wrong, Will, and you know it.
The Constitution’s language is clear and cannot be overridden.
And just because no one objects (because the room is empty or people did not bother to show up) does not mean it’s OK to pass a bill without a vote.
And you are flat-out wrong, Will, that informal sessions are only for non-controversial bills.
Here is PROOF:
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen5/24c/MA-activists-go-to-legislators/index.html
* *
When will you stop trying to fool people?
You can’t move along or pass ANY bill without a vote with a QUORUM present.
Read the Constitution:
“Article XXXIII:
A MAJORITY of the members of each branch of the general court shall constitute a QUORUM for the transaction of business.”
That’s there for a reason, and it is immaterial whether it is “efficient” to ignore it or whether it is “tradition” to ignore it. There are no exceptions to the Constitution.
Would you and your constituents like it if the GOP was the majority in the state legislature (or CONGRESS!) and passed bills without a quorum present?
No.
So you’re being hypocritical, Will.
You have been exposed.
state cannot pass no bill on Federal Law
Yes, I hope the legislature respects the electorate on this.
Dear BP,
This “informal sessions” issue is not going away and is of long-standing.
Someday itt is going to nullify every Mass. law passed unconstitutionally.
Will thinks he can stonewall this indefinitely.
Constituents who go along with it are doing something very, very wrong, and they know it.
Honestly, Dee. Any individual legislator could put an end to informal sessions, if they wanted to come in every day and object. But if anyone did that, it wouldn’t take long for them to realize the foolishness of their position. There is no reason to drag 200 people into a formal session to approve a bridge naming or the routine referral of a bill to a committee.
You’re wrong, Will, and you know it.
The wording of the Constitution is clear.
Stop trying to defend a practice that is wrong.
And stop telling people that only “non-controversial” bills are passed by informal sessions:
https://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues2/MA-informal-sessions/index.html
You are sworn to uphold the law.
EVERY legislator – or a quorum of them – must vote and be put on the record.
This isn’t North Korea, China or Cuba.
Legislators must show up and vote on the record.
That’s their JOB, and it’s yours too even if you don’t know it.
You keep saying it’s only “non-controversial”
bills, and I keep proving you wrong with the links.
Can you read plain English?
Things aren’t “controversial” when the dealing is done over the dinner table.
Furthermore, when constituencies are kept in echo-chambers like: X, Blusesky and the like diversity of opinion is quickly censored, because who would want to be shunned by not following the blocking bandwagon??
I must praise the Senator for hosting this last remaining democratic forum.
Congrats to you and your colleagues on the rules reform, Senator. Substantial improvements on both transparency and process.
Hi Nathanael:
What do you think of this:
“Article XXXIII:
A majority of the members of each branch of the general court shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business …”
Is OK to ignore it?
What I think of it is that you’ve made your point, it’s not convincing, and continuing to harangue every commenter in a blog about it doesn’t serve anyone’s interest. Have a great day!
To harangue someone it must be done verbally, because it squelches other voices and is inescapable for the audience. Nobody is being silenced by Dee.
Here, one may simply scroll past. By calling it out you are the one applying coercion and suppression. It does serve a purpose: Dee is adamant in expressing her 1A rights.
Seems like progress. Thx Will
Hi Hal:
What do you think of this:
“Article XXXIII:
A majority of the members of each branch of the general court shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business …”
Is OK to ignore it?
When do the new joint rules take effect? This month? July 2025?
Thanks for the update Will!
These are wide ranging improvements to the operations of the legislature, great news!
These look to me like very important improvements that will greatly help to enhance/ensure both greater transparency/access/opportunity for public input and participation AND enable efficient functioning in the institution. Nice to see progress.
Scott, “informal sessions” which pass legislation at which no debate or vote occurs are the opposite of “transparency/access/opportunity.”
Yes! I’m grateful for progress to a more productive and accessible State House.
Sarah, “informal sessions” which pass legislation at which no debate or vote occurs are the opposite of “accessible.”
The irony of the “No Kings” hysteria is NYC just rank choice “voted” for a billionaire Hollywood royalty.
RCV equals not one man one vote.
Senator Brownsberer,
While I appreciate the rules change for voting in joint committees that you describe, there are many other ways that the legislature could improve its processes. Several months ago, I posted a number of suggestions here about how the legislature could do better, for itself and for the people it represents. Here are some:
* Getting a state budget passed on time.
* Doing so -without- the typical “midnight feeding frenzy”.
* To that end, prohibiting the addition of last-minute sections which no one is even aware of, much less has the time to read.
* Ending its constitutional objections to State Auditor DiZoglio’s attempt to audit the legislature and providing her with the information that she requests.
* Ending the practice of having the heads of House and Senate select the chairs of committees, complete with significant raises in pay that do more to gain obedience and loyalty to the appointer than anything else.
* End the practice of creating committees that don’t meet and/or are unnecessary for any reason other than to reward a loyal subordinate.
* Regularly review the attendance of committees and replace members who are excessively absent.
I’d appreciate a status from you on these or other measures.
Sincerely,
Aram Hollman
Arlington, Mass.
These seem like good suggestions.