Category: The New Bedford Light

  • Advocates hope House follows Senate’s lead in passing menstrual equity bills

    The bills would require free products in schools, shelters and correctional facilities, and include an ingredients list on menstrual product packaging.

    Advocates in Massachusetts want menstrual products to be as easy to find in public places as toilet paper. After years of stalled attempts, they remain optimistic about ending what they call “period poverty,” or limited access to menstrual products.

    On Oct. 16, the state Senate unanimously approved two bills: An Act to Increase Access to Menstrual Products, or “I AM,” which would require free products in schools, shelters and correctional facilities, and a companion bill mandating transparent ingredient lists on menstrual product packaging. 

    Now, all eyes are on the House, where similar legislation has died in past sessions. 

    “I think it would have a big impact across the entire state … particularly in communities where income is a challenge to provide access to these products for free,” said co-sponsor and New Bedford Rep. Mark Sylvia.

    The “I AM” measure has been recommended to pass by the House Committee on Health Care Financing, and is now awaiting review by House Ways and Means. No version of the measure has been recommended to pass in past sessions. The bill’s progress is a good sign, Sylvia said.

    Another bill, which would extend menstrual product access to all state buildings, including colleges and universities, landed in the House Ways and Means Committee after a vote in November. The ingredient disclosure bill also awaits review by House Ways and Means — a common dead end for legislation. 

    Advocacy groups like the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women, YWCA Southeastern Massachusetts and Hope and Comfort Hygiene Hub, have been filling the gap by providing donated products to public facilities like shelters and libraries — places that would be included in the “I AM” bill. They have seen positive impacts, but said the need remains high.

    “Poverty has already been an issue, homelessness has already been an issue, and we know those are proxies for people experiencing period poverty as well,” said Sasha Goodfriend, executive director of Mass NOW. 

    In Massachusetts, one in nine women and girls of average menstruating age lives below the federal poverty level, according to a 2022 survey by the Alliance for Period Supplies. With less money for food, household budgets for covering basic necessities like pads and tampons are even smaller. (Massachusetts exempts period products from sales tax — a decision made more than a decade ago.)

    New Bedford Public Schools and the county jail provide free menstrual products, but the state lags behind others that require them in public buildings. 

    Advocates say the issue could have been solved long before now.

    “I’ve been working on this bill for six years,” said Leimary Llopiz, advocacy coordinator at YWCA. “How come I’m still working on this bill and people still don’t understand that this is so important?”

    Without healthy options, people who menstruate often resort to unhygienic alternatives that could be detrimental to their health, Goodfriend said. 

    Even some sanitary choices contain toxins like heavy metals. The ingredient transparency bill aims to further reduce those risks by requiring clear labeling and timely updates when ingredients change. A violation could result in a $1,000 fine per offense.

    “That can create more reproductive health problems that are even more costly to the state and to the individual,” said Goodfriend. “We’ve heard from doctors who have had to perform hysterectomies on people that wouldn’t have needed to have them otherwise.”

    Potential barriers to “I AM” passage

    If these bills have seen unanimous Senate approval, what is causing them to consistently stall in the House? Sylvia and Llopiz said menstruation remains an uncomfortable topic for many. 

    “It’s not just about the convenience of them,” Sylvia said of basic health products. “If you don’t have access to them, you won’t go to school, you won’t go to a meeting, you won’t go to an interview, you won’t participate.”

    More than half of surveyed school nurses in the state reported that they had seen students miss class to obtain menstrual products, according to a 2019 study by the Massachusetts Menstrual Equity Coalition. 

    Rep. Carole Fiola of Fall River said the success of nonprofits like Mass NOW and Dignity Matters may make the issue seem less urgent.

    “I don’t hear from constituents, possibly, because that is something that a lot of educational and other institutions are covering,” Fiola said. Still, she considers it a priority.

    Neither the Senate nor House bills include a plan for financing the new requirements, a potential barrier to their passage. Sylvia said that could be one of the reasons why Health Care Finance reviewed it.

    Funding mechanisms are largely undecided, said Rep. Christopher Markey of Westport, a member of the House Health Care Finance Committee. Some school districts that provide free access to menstrual products have found funding within their own budgets and through partnerships with community organizations. 

    State revenue could be used towards providing free menstrual products, but the formula is undecided, said Markey. For the bill to pass in the House, there must be a clear outline of the exact cost for agencies and a sustainable guideline for funding, he said.

    “Period products are costly and I think the government has a lot of competing demands for finances,” said Alison LeBlanc, vice president of development for Hope and Comfort. “I can understand the hesitancy about adding another line item of things that the state is paying for, however … it’s an equity issue that needs to be addressed.”

    LeBlanc said Hope and Comfort currently works with 600 partners statewide, with nearly 400 more on a waitlist. The group buys products in bulk, which reduces the cost, but not enough to meet the need.

    “It’s been almost impossible to keep up with demand,” LeBlanc said. “Sometimes we have a hard time getting donations at the level we need, because people just aren’t aware that this is a problem in Massachusetts.” 

    Still, LeBlanc says she’s optimistic about the bills’ chances this time. 

    “It has felt different this year,” LeBlanc said. “I don’t know where we’ll end up, but I do remain hopeful.”

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.

  • Cannabis lounges could soon be legal. Will the South Coast opt in?

    Rules for social consumption establishments for marijuana could be approved this month.

    Cannabis users across the state may soon find that their favorite neighborhood dispensaries or yoga studios have a new feel.

    In July, the Cannabis Control Commission approved draft rules to allow public use of marijuana in group settings like cafes or lounges. Commission members say they aim to give the rules final approval this month. 

    Once they do, it’ll be up to cities and towns to decide if they want to allow social consumption establishments.

    The regulations include three license types that some businesses will be eligible to apply for.

    The supplemental license, open to existing cannabis retailers, cultivators and product manufacturers, would allow licensees to add on-site consumption spaces to their existing establishments. 

    “I could go to a cultivation facility and sit in a consumption area and sample some of the products,” Commissioner Bruce Stebbins said. “Similar to going to a brewery, you sit in their tap room and taste what they have to offer.”

    Hospitality licenses would allow non-cannabis businesses, like yoga studios, bed-and-breakfasts, and performance spaces to incorporate marijuana. 

    A third type, special events licenses, would go to organizers of pop-up events or festivals.

    “I see that as a great entry point for somebody with less capital build-out,” Stebbins said. It’s ideal for applicants who want to get into the industry at the ground floor, but lack resources for brick-and-mortar spaces, he said. 

    Opting in or out

    License seekers can only apply if their city or town opts into allowing social consumption. Cities may decide to allow some but not all license types, and could approve different parameters, like banning outdoor spaces. 

    The CCC has conducted regional listening sessions for municipalities to ask questions. They have heard positive feedback from Somerville, Cambridge, Worcester, Haverhill and Holyoke, which have all expressed intentions to opt in.

    On the South Coast, responses are more cautious than in other parts of the state. 

    New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell has declined to take a position on social-consumption establishments until the CCC passes its regulations, according to Jonathan Darling, a public information officer for the city. 

    Dartmouth’s town administrator, Cody Haddad, did not respond to The Light’s request for comment.

    Fairhaven Town Administrator Keith Hickey expressed skepticism about social consumption.

    “It hasn’t been discussed with the Select Board at this point, but I can tell you that staff would recommend the board not supporting or allowing open-air social consumption of marijuana,” Hickey said.  

    In 2016, Massachusetts passed recreational adult-use cannabis legislation through a ballot measure, after approving medical usage in 2012. Most South Coast communities, including 55% of Fairhaven, voted in favor of allowing recreational use. 

    But Hickey has some reservations about the town’s response to social consumption, especially regarding safety measures.

    The CCC has proposed safeguards, like requiring businesses to make food and non-alcoholic beverages available to mitigate intoxication effects, and to have approved transportation plans for impaired customers. 

    The owners of some South Coast marijuana businesses, like Bask Cannabis Dispensary in Fairhaven and Taunton, feel the regulations are strong enough to ensure safe consumption spaces.

    “If the business model allows us to make revenue and everything’s safe and regulated correctly, we would definitely do it,” said Basks’s owner, Chapman Dickerson. 

    Other dispensary owners in the state hope for more specific regulations, like a dosage limit or a membership-only business model.

    “I would just be really nervous about first timers,” said Tim McNamara, president of the Middleborough-based dispensary, Suncrafted. “Having a strong customer base that is recurring would be ideal.”

    Colorado and Michigan have adopted social consumption models similar to the CCC’s proposals, and many have found success with and without membership requirements. 

    If the proposals have a strictly defined set of safety regulations, Hickey said he would be more likely to recommend approval in Fairhaven, especially for the supplemental license.

    “We’ve got to do what’s in the best interest of the community as a whole, and be sensitive to those who may be uncomfortable or offended by secondhand smoke,” Hickey said.

    There’s no date in place for a South Coast listening session, but the commission is working on final regulations to present to South Coast city officials “within the next month,” Stebbins said.

    Only ‘social equity’ participants can apply

    For the first three years of social consumption rollout, only applicants whose businesses are 51% owned by social equity participants can apply for licenses. 

    The Social Equity Program is designed to give individuals most impacted by the war on drugs — like those charged for marijuana possession — a  pathway into the cannabis industry. Both companies and individuals may qualify for the social equity program.

    There are 18 recreational dispensaries between New Bedford, Fall River, Dartmouth and Fairhaven. Four of these establishments, all located in Fall River, are social equity participants.

    Dickerson said Bask does not qualify for social equity, but he, as an individual, does. He said he would consider applying for a supplemental license for Bask’s Fairhaven location.

    The three-year period will give smaller businesses with fewer resources the first opportunity to succeed, said Kevin Gilnack, a public affairs consultant at cannabis advocacy organization Equity Opportunities Now. 

    Without an exclusion period, large cannabis operators could dominate the social consumption sector of the industry, he said.

    The draft regulations originally proposed a five-year exclusivity agreement, but it was shortened by two years. 

    The adjustment was a disappointing step, Gilnack said, since many social-equity entrepreneurs who embraced the 2021 introduction of cannabis delivery saw a surge of business closures, Gilnack said.

    The rules included a three-year exclusion period for social-equity participants. But the first two years of delivery included burdensome regulations that made it hard for businesses to turn a profit, Gilnack said.

    EON will urge the CCC to learn from delivery and adopt a longer exclusivity period, Gilnack said. 

    The state could see social consumption regulations approved before Christmas, possibly during the CCC’s meeting on Dec. 11.

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.

  • Legislature revisits bills to criminalize sexual misconduct by school staff

    The state remains one of 11 nationwide that does not prohibit sexual misconduct between staff and students who are 16 and 17 years old.

    After years of stalled attempts, Massachusetts lawmakers are inching closer to passing a bill that would prohibit sexual relationships between school staff and students as young as 16.

    The state remains one of 11 nationwide that does not criminalize sexual misconduct between staff and students who are 16 and 17 years old. For more than a decade, legislators have filed bills to address the issue, but none have become law. 

    Now, a pair of bills moving through the House and Senate are leaving some advocates and legislators hopeful for their passage.

    Recently, a bill filed by Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem, saw progress in the Senate. It would raise the age of consent to 18 in cases involving adults in positions of trust or authority, address the definition of “position of trust or authority” and amend sentencing procedures. 

    Lovely said she hopes it will fix what advocates call the “consent loophole” in the state. There is no statute that penalizes relationships between consenting-age students and adults working in schools. Advocates say this creates a way for employees to groom young teens and initiate a sexual relationship once they reach 16 — the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

    “People say, ‘It can’t be my favorite teacher, or my favorite coach, or my favorite priest, or my favorite friend,’ whoever it might be, and years later they find out that it was — and so for this particular bill, we want to stop that in its tracks,” said Lovely.

    The bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July and is awaiting review by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

    Sen. Michael Rodrigues of Westport, who chairs the committee, did not respond to The Light’s three requests for comment on the bill’s future.

    Lovely, who has been filing similar legislation since 2015, said she is optimistic that her efforts are working, even if it is taking time to convince her colleagues of the urgency of the topic.

    Last session, an identical version of this bill failed to become law. Some advocates and legislators worry that could happen again this session. 

    Sen. Mark Montigny of New Bedford, a cosponsor of Lovely’s bill, said in an email to The Light that while he is encouraged by the favorable committee report, “there is still a tremendous amount of work that must be done to break through the inexcusable inertia on Beacon Hill.”

    “I will continue to support this bill and Senator Lovely’s efforts to deliver it to the Governor’s desk, which should have happened years ago,” said Montigny.

    For over a year, Jennifer Cullen has been walking the halls of the Statehouse on some of her days off, hoping to find a legislative ear. She said it has been very difficult to get state representatives to speak to her. It has made her wonder: “How important do they think this is?”

    Cullen’s nephew, Jacob Pothier, was killed in a car crash in January 2024. Kathleen Martins, who was also in the car, was critically injured. Pothier was 18, and Martins was 44. Martins had been a security guard at Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School while Potheir was a Voc-Tech student. They were involved in a sexual relationship, according to Pothier’s relatives, who believe it started when he was 16.

    “There needs to be some real reform with this bill,” said Cullen. “My nephew was 8 years old when this issue came into consideration. I don’t know if it would have changed him being dead … but he could have been protected.”

    Cullen also said the bill needs “teeth.” Passing the bill should be a priority, she said. But it needs to cover a more specific range of protections and consequences to make it easier to enforce.

    House companion bill gets redraft

    In September, a House companion bill to Lovely’s initiative was redrafted by the Judiciary Committee and combined with a series of similar legislation. The committee reported the new bill favorably, and it is now before the House Ways and Means Committee.

    Rep. Leigh Davis, D-Great Barrington, who filed the original companion bill, describes the redraft as an “omnibus child protection bill.” In addition to similar proposals outlined in Lovely’s bill and the original House companion, it would require all K-12 schools in the state to adopt abuse prevention policies and training — specifically reporting and recognition training for staff and students — and require all perpetrators to be included on the sex offender registry. The bill also calls for licenses to be suspended upon conviction.

    “It strengthens reference checks and it’s kind of wrapping around, how can we protect our students better?” said Davis. “I’m actually really, really happy about the way that the Judiciary Committee approached this.”

    The original version of the bill stated that anyone who is in a position of trust and engages in sexual intercourse with a child who has reached 16, but is not yet 18, could face up to a life sentence. The redraft allows flexibility, stating that anyone over the age of 21 who is in a position of trust or authority and engages in sexual activity with students 16 or younger, will serve five years maximum in a state prison — making it a felony — or 2½ years in a house of correction, with a fine of $10,000. 

    The original bill also defined “position of trust, authority and supervision over a child” as anyone who provides instruction or educational services to a child, paid or unpaid. The redraft narrows that definition to school employees only.

    Davis said that making the redraft more specific and adding a more comprehensive outline of discipline will help to push the bill forward.

    Fall River’s Rep. Carole Fiola also filed legislation that has become part of the redraft. It would require the state to draft a new abuse prevention policy for schools across Massachusetts.

    The redraft is in great shape, but needs some tweaks, Fiola said. She said she will suggest implementing plans that have already proven useful, like ones developed by the abuse prevention initiative Safe Kids Thrive.

    New Bedford Reps. Mark Sylvia and Steven Ouellette were cosponsors of the original House companion bill and continue to cosponsor the redraft.

    The fact that the revised bill was reported favorably out of Judiciary is significant considering how many issues die in any committee before they can see the same action, said Sylvia. He said he appreciates constituents’ concerns about the drawn-out timeline these bills have historically seen, but believes their recent movement is a good sign.

    “The legislative process, probably for all of us, can take longer than maybe we wish,” said Sylvia. “But in most cases that’s intentional, so that we’re making sure that the issues and concerns that are raised are addressed through the process.”

    Similarly, Ouellette stressed that the process is necessary but mentioned that in addition to protecting children, new legislation must consider how it will affect any person in a position of trust or authority over a child.

    “You’ve got to be very careful how you go public with this, because people are going to attack anybody that there’s possible interaction with children that’s improper,” said Ouellette. “Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slow sometimes.”

    Lovely, Sylvia and Ouellette said they have not heard any opposition to the bill. Davis said that since the Senate bill was passed as-is, unlike her House companion, it still includes broad sentencing provisions which were amended in the House redraft, which she has heard opposition to from some constituents.

    There is currently no further action scheduled for either bill. For the bills to become law, both the House and Senate Ways and Means committees must review the bills and decide to send them to the full chambers for deliberation. If both chambers pass the legislation, it would be up to Gov. Maura Healey to sign them into law.

    Cullen said she will never stop pushing for change and fighting for justice for her nephew, regardless of how long it takes.

    “I think Jacob would have protected his siblings from any of this. He would have never let this happen to them,” said Cullen.

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.

  • Legislature revisits bills to criminalize sexual misconduct by school staff

    The state remains one of 11 nationwide that does not prohibit sexual misconduct between staff and students who are 16 and 17 years old.

    Attorneys confer with Jacob Pothier’s father, Jason, at a hearing in Superior Court in New Bedford in October 2024. Jacob’s mother, Stacey, is in the background. Credit: Eleonora Bianchi/ The New Bedford Light.

    After years of stalled attempts, Massachusetts lawmakers are inching closer to passing a bill that would prohibit sexual relationships between school staff and students as young as 16.

    The state remains one of 11 nationwide that does not criminalize sexual misconduct between staff and students who are 16 and 17 years old. For more than a decade, legislators have filed bills to address the issue, but none have become law. 

    Now, a pair of bills moving through the House and Senate are leaving some advocates and legislators hopeful for their passage.

    Recently, a bill filed by Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem, saw progress in the Senate. It would raise the age of consent to 18 in cases involving adults in positions of trust or authority, address the definition of “position of trust or authority” and amend sentencing procedures. 

    Lovely said she hopes it will fix what advocates call the “consent loophole” in the state. There is no statute that penalizes relationships between consenting-age students and adults working in schools. Advocates say this creates a way for employees to groom young teens and initiate a sexual relationship once they reach 16 — the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.

    “People say, ‘It can’t be my favorite teacher, or my favorite coach, or my favorite priest, or my favorite friend,’ whoever it might be, and years later they find out that it was — and so for this particular bill, we want to stop that in its tracks,” said Lovely.

    The bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July and is awaiting review by the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

    Sen. Michael Rodrigues of Westport, who chairs the committee, did not respond to The Light’s three requests for comment on the bill’s future.

    Lovely, who has been filing similar legislation since 2015, said she is optimistic that her efforts are working, even if it is taking time to convince her colleagues of the urgency of the topic.

    Last session, an identical version of this bill failed to become law. Some advocates and legislators worry that could happen again this session. 

    Sen. Mark Montigny of New Bedford, a cosponsor of Lovely’s bill, said in an email to The Light that while he is encouraged by the favorable committee report, “there is still a tremendous amount of work that must be done to break through the inexcusable inertia on Beacon Hill.”

    “I will continue to support this bill and Senator Lovely’s efforts to deliver it to the Governor’s desk, which should have happened years ago,” said Montigny.

    For over a year, Jennifer Cullen has been walking the halls of the Statehouse on some of her days off, hoping to find a legislative ear. She said it has been very difficult to get state representatives to speak to her. It has made her wonder: “How important do they think this is?”

    Cullen’s nephew, Jacob Pothier, was killed in a car crash in January 2024. Kathleen Martins, who was also in the car, was critically injured. Pothier was 18, and Martins was 44. Martins had been a security guard at Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School while Potheir was a Voc-Tech student. They were involved in a sexual relationship, according to Pothier’s relatives, who believe it started when he was 16.

    “There needs to be some real reform with this bill,” said Cullen. “My nephew was 8 years old when this issue came into consideration. I don’t know if it would have changed him being dead … but he could have been protected.”

    Cullen also said the bill needs “teeth.” Passing the bill should be a priority, she said. But it needs to cover a more specific range of protections and consequences to make it easier to enforce.

    House companion bill gets redraft

    In September, a House companion bill to Lovely’s initiative was redrafted by the Judiciary Committee and combined with a series of similar legislation. The committee reported the new bill favorably, and it is now before the House Ways and Means Committee.

    Rep. Leigh Davis, D-Great Barrington, who filed the original companion bill, describes the redraft as an “omnibus child protection bill.” In addition to similar proposals outlined in Lovely’s bill and the original House companion, it would require all K-12 schools in the state to adopt abuse prevention policies and training — specifically reporting and recognition training for staff and students — and require all perpetrators to be included on the sex offender registry. The bill also calls for licenses to be suspended upon conviction.

    “It strengthens reference checks and it’s kind of wrapping around, how can we protect our students better?” said Davis. “I’m actually really, really happy about the way that the Judiciary Committee approached this.”

    The original version of the bill stated that anyone who is in a position of trust and engages in sexual intercourse with a child who has reached 16, but is not yet 18, could face up to a life sentence. The redraft allows flexibility, stating that anyone over the age of 21 who is in a position of trust or authority and engages in sexual activity with students 16 or younger, will serve five years maximum in a state prison — making it a felony — or 2½ years in a house of correction, with a fine of $10,000. 

    The original bill also defined “position of trust, authority and supervision over a child” as anyone who provides instruction or educational services to a child, paid or unpaid. The redraft narrows that definition to school employees only.

    Davis said that making the redraft more specific and adding a more comprehensive outline of discipline will help to push the bill forward.

    Fall River’s Rep. Carole Fiola also filed legislation that has become part of the redraft. It would require the state to draft a new abuse prevention policy for schools across Massachusetts.

    The redraft is in great shape, but needs some tweaks, Fiola said. She said she will suggest implementing plans that have already proven useful, like ones developed by the abuse prevention initiative Safe Kids Thrive.

    New Bedford Reps. Mark Sylvia and Steven Ouellette were cosponsors of the original House companion bill and continue to cosponsor the redraft.

    The fact that the revised bill was reported favorably out of Judiciary is significant considering how many issues die in any committee before they can see the same action, said Sylvia. He said he appreciates constituents’ concerns about the drawn-out timeline these bills have historically seen, but believes their recent movement is a good sign.

    “The legislative process, probably for all of us, can take longer than maybe we wish,” said Sylvia. “But in most cases that’s intentional, so that we’re making sure that the issues and concerns that are raised are addressed through the process.”

    Similarly, Ouellette stressed that the process is necessary but mentioned that in addition to protecting children, new legislation must consider how it will affect any person in a position of trust or authority over a child.

    “You’ve got to be very careful how you go public with this, because people are going to attack anybody that there’s possible interaction with children that’s improper,” said Ouellette. “Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slow sometimes.”

    Lovely, Sylvia and Ouellette said they have not heard any opposition to the bill. Davis said that since the Senate bill was passed as-is, unlike her House companion, it still includes broad sentencing provisions which were amended in the House redraft, which she has heard opposition to from some constituents.

    There is currently no further action scheduled for either bill. For the bills to become law, both the House and Senate Ways and Means committees must review the bills and decide to send them to the full chambers for deliberation. If both chambers pass the legislation, it would be up to Gov. Maura Healey to sign them into law.

    Cullen said she will never stop pushing for change and fighting for justice for her nephew, regardless of how long it takes.

    “I think Jacob would have protected his siblings from any of this. He would have never let this happen to them,” said Cullen.

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.

  • State activists take transparency fight to the ballot box

    Advocates for a more open government in Massachusetts are racing against a quickly approaching deadline. By Nov. 19, they need more than 74,000 signatures to secure a spot for two questions on the 2026 ballot, both aimed at pulling back the curtain on Beacon Hill.

    The petition drives mirror two transparency bills that were introduced in the Senate earlier this year but saw little progress. One, filed in January, would reduce leadership stipends for legislators, making them less financially dependent on the House speaker and Senate president. The other would reform public records laws. 

    Massachusetts consistently ranks among the bottom 10 state legislatures in the nation for lawmaking productivity. Over 10,000 new bills were introduced and just 391 were passed by the end of the 2023-24 session, which was a dramatic decrease from laws passed the session prior. Thousands of bills died with little to no explanation — a consistent trend in the state that has left constituents wondering if legislators are living up to their responsibilities.

    In June, in response to criticism on transparency issues, the House and Senate adopted joint rules that include a 60-day deadline on committee reporting, allowing public committee votes and giving committee chairs the ability to make testimony public. Those changes mark steps toward improving transparency, advocates say. Still, they see room for improvement.

    Reforming leadership stipends

    All legislators on Beacon Hill receive the same base pay, currently set at more than $82,000. Legislators in leadership roles, from committee vice chairs to the Senate president, receive a range of additional pay, totaling a combined $4.3 million, to compensate for added responsibilities. The ballot measure aims to change that structure. 

    Critics say the House speaker and Senate president assign and withdraw these lucrative roles as a tool of power. The ballot measure would reduce the incentive for legislators to fall in line with leadership to retain their salaries, said Scotia Hille, a steering committee member for the initiative’s primary sponsor, Coalition to Reform Our Legislature. She sees Beacon Hill’s lack of transparency as a symptom of hierarchy, and says control of these leadership positions have helped create a top-down concentration of power. 

    “There have been numerous instances where vice chairmanship, which carries an additional stipend, is dangled as an incentive, and numerous instances in which someone loses their lucrative position because of a vote that they took,” Hille said.

    The proposed reforms would add a stipend to increase the base pay for everyone and break leadership stipends down by tier. The highest-ranking leaders in Group 1 would earn no more than 75% of the base pay, and lower-ranking leaders in Group 4, would receive no more than 33%. Additional rules would apply to legislators who serve in multiple committees. Advocates say this would potentially lead to less additional pay for the highest-ranking legislators, but would soften the gap for rank-and-file members.

    Advocates also hope the measure will increase committee activity. Some legislative committees produce many more bills and hold many more hearings than others, analysis by The Light and other publications has found. Under the proposal, for legislators to still receive a stipend, they would have to meet certain transparency standards, like holding public markup sessions and reporting bills out of committee.

    State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, a former lawmaker and frequent critic of the Legislature, echoed Hille. She said that the House speaker and Senate president use leadership appointments as a way to maintain control of committee votes. 

    At a rally on the steps of the Statehouse early this month in support of a legislative audit and these measures, DiZoglio encouraged attendees to sign. Giving their signature, she said, would “let Beacon Hill know that this is not a politician’s house, this is the people’s house.”

    Reforming public records law

    Massachusetts is currently the only state that does not subject the governor, Legislature or judiciary to public records law. The ballot measure would make most of the governor and Legislature’s records public, with exceptions for “documents related to the development of public policy” and constituents’ requests for individual services from legislators.

    Under the current law, government emails, memos and documents are public unless they come from these entities, which claim exemption. While lawmakers have introduced multiple public-records reform bills in the last decade, only a handful of updates have been added — including the establishment of a supervisor of records in the Secretary of State’s office.

    Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said a main goal of the ballot measure is to strengthen enforcement. The supervisor of records does not have any enforcement authority, leaving disputed records requests to be settled in court. Other states, he said, have independent commissions which hear records disputes without requiring an attorney. 

    “I think for most legislators, it is a very difficult sell to pass a bill that would open them up to more public scrutiny, more accountability, and require more transparency than our current law affords,” Silverman said. “It’s difficult for members of the public to persuade legislators to do something that is going to open them up to more public scrutiny, but it needs to get done.”

    Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral of New Bedford has repeatedly filed legislation to establish a public records commission. Those bills have gone to study orders or died in the House Ways and Means Committee.

    The ballot measure has received little outspoken support from legislators. Just 12% of state legislators said they should be subject to public records law. Eleven percent said it should be extended to the governor and the majority provided no response, according to a recent poll by The Boston Globe. Cabral said that if this petition came across his desk, he would need to determine if the language addresses his and Silverman’s enforcement concerns before signing.

    Measures receive nonpartisan support

    Both measures have garnered support across party lines, with many nonpartisan groups endorsing them. 

    John Griffin, managing partner of strategy for Partners in Democracy — a nonprofit advocacy group for democratic reform — said support for the initiatives has been largely nonpartisan because they would give voters an opportunity to keep high-ranking legislators accountable. 

    Bob McConnell of Fairhaven, a former Republican state House candidate,  has been collecting petition signatures for stipend reform on the South Coast. He also believes that voters are rallying around transparency because they want to hold legislators accountable. In municipalities like New Bedford and Fairhaven, where impacts of federal cuts will hit especially hard, he said, residents want to know exactly what their state tax money is going toward.

    “Beacon Hill has a rainy day fund of $8 billion when the towns are just really struggling, and a lot of that money should be coming back to the towns’ purposes,” McConnell said. “Instead, we’re finding out about all these other expenditures that people don’t even know about.”

    South Coast voters can sign the petition for legislative stipend reform on weekdays between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. at the DeMello International Center at 128 Union St. in downtown New Bedford, or on Sundays between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. at the Stop & Shop at 211 Huttleston Ave. in Fairhaven, McConnell said.

    Evan MacKay, a former Democratic state representative candidate and outreach director for the Cambridge Committee for Transparency and Democracy, said that the positive response to both petitions reveals the public’s lack of trust in Beacon Hill. According to MacKay, Gov. Maura Healey, before taking office, identified as a staunch supporter of public records reform, but reversed course after being sworn in, saying her office would evaluate requests on a case-by-case basis. MacKay said cases like that have made it necessary for voters to take a direct stand.

    Griffin, Hille and MacKay noted that while activism varies by region — it’s especially intense in Cambridge neighborhoods where MacKay petitions — the transparency measures are gaining support statewide.

    Next steps for ballot measures

    The signature-gathering campaign is only the second step in a long process to enact these reforms.

    This year, 47 new ballot initiative petitions were submitted to Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office. Forty-four, including the stipend and public records measures, were approved. 

    After signatures are gathered, petition sheets must be submitted to town clerks by Nov. 19 for verification by Dec. 3. Upon approval, they advance to the Legislature, which will determine whether or not to act. Advocates like Hille and MacKay said the measures are unlikely to gain approval from Beacon Hill, meaning petitioners would need to gather an additional 12,429 signatures by July 1, 2026, to secure a spot on the November ballot.

    Hille said the coalition is on track to obtain the needed signatures for the stipend question by the deadline. MacKay said he does not have exact numbers but is optimistic that both questions will advance. Even if they do not, the petition process alone is progress, because it gets people talking, he said.

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.

  • As Eversource gas bills rise again, legislators target delivery charges and oversight

    As frigid winter months approach, so do higher natural-gas bills. Eversource has proposed an average rate hike of 13% for its Southeastern Massachusetts customers.

    The rate increases come less than a year after the state’s Department of Public Utilities ordered major gas providers, including Eversource, to decrease residential gas rates, in response to the record-high delivery charges that spiked last winter’s bills.

    The Nov. 1 increase could raise monthly bills by $41.26 for residential gas customers using the average amount of gas per month, according to Eversource. In New Bedford, about 80% of residential customers rely on utility gas for heating, while about 9% use electricity for heating, according to a U.S. Census survey. (Other customers mostly use heating oil, propane, or solar.)

    The DPU has complete oversight of rate approvals, leading lawmakers to call for scrutiny of Eversource’s proposal and file new bills to increase legislative oversight.

    “This requires our full and immediate attention, especially in light of the significant increases in January, February and March of this year,” said Fairhaven’s Democratic Rep. Mark Sylvia. “Many ratepayers saw increases just on their gas bill of at least 30 or 40%, and that’s not acceptable.”

    One of the main drivers of total monthly costs is delivery charges, or the cost of getting gas into a home. Delivery charges make up roughly 65% of a typical utility bill in New Bedford, according to Eversource, compared to roughly 35% for the fuel itself.

    So what are our legislators doing to try to bring delivery charges back down?

    Old gas pipelines: a major cause of spiking bills 

    New Bedford’s Democratic Sen. Mark Montigny has co-sponsored a bill that would cap delivery rate increases to 3% a year. It would also set up a commission to recommend cost-reduction measures for consumers and reforms of utility delivery fees.

    “The biggest culprit of this program is the gas pipeline replacement program,” said New Bedford’s Democratic Rep. Chris Hendricks. 

    The old and leaky methane pipes in the state need constant maintenance and replacement. The Gas System Enhancement Program, or GSEP, is responsible for about 23% of delivery costs, while the rest funds public energy efficiency and low-income energy programs. 

    The Gas System Enhancement Program is poised to cost the state $880 million this year, up from $291 million when the program was introduced in 2015, according to a March report by Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Its cost has gone up by nearly 12% per year.

    Sylvia, a former energy resources commissioner and a co-sponsor of Montigny’s bill, said that digging into the broken structure of utilities is a necessary long-term fix that Montigny’s bill would address. But the priority must also be short-term relief, he argued. 

    Gov. Maura Healey’s proposed Energy Affordability, Independence and Innovation Act could provide that. The proposed bill could save energy customers an estimated $10 billion over 10 years through new approaches. For instance, it would allow companies to finance some upgrades through bonds, rather than monthly surcharge increases. 

    It would also allow customers to pay for residential upgrades, like window replacements and heat pumps, in small increments.

    Sylvia and Hendricks say passing these bills is a priority, but with changes to further address consumers’ concerns. “There are some things the DPU can do now, but we may want to consider including those as requirements in any final bill,” said Sylvia.

    How much does Mass Save cost customers?

    Another point of contention amid rising utility hikes is the Mass Save program — a statewide energy efficiency program funded by utility companies through customer surcharges — which has proven to be a double-edged sword for consumers.

    It aims to decrease monthly costs by subsidizing upgrades like heat pumps and insulation for homeowners, but passes the cost to all consumers, even nonparticipants, via surcharges.

    In February, the DPU approved a $500 million reduction to Mass Save’s budget. The cut was designed to decrease the amount consumers paid to their providers, but some legislators say it was not enough.

    “The Mass Save program needs to be reformed,” said Rep. Antonio Cabral, a Democrat from New Bedford and another co-sponsor of Montigny’s bill. “I’m not sure, at this point, if it really makes sense that utilities are the major runners of the program.”

    A major criticism of Mass Save is that it is inaccessible for many, posing an equity issue for ratepayers. Owners of some old homes in New Bedford may find that they can’t afford certain upgrades, even with a Mass Save subsidy.

    And though renters can participate in Mass Save, their access is limited, and sometimes dependent on landlord approval. Nearly 60% of New Bedford residents are renters. 

    “I know some renters take part in it; others complain that they can’t get the OK from the landlord,” said Cabral.

    Renters are entitled to certain green energy benefits, such as guides to assess their energy usage, and rebates for using energy-saving products like advanced power strips and air cleaners. The more financially worthwhile structural upgrades, like windows, heating, and air-conditioning systems, are only accessible to owners.

    A recent report by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s office found that residents in gateway cities such as New Bedford pay 24% more per person to Mass Save than residents in non-gateway cities, but get little to no return on that investment.

    DiZoglio’s audit recommends that the Legislature created new incentives to increase landlord participation on behalf of their renters. It suggests transferring Mass Save’s administration — which currently collaborates with utilities — to an independent entity.

    The audit also recommends more legislative oversight and transparency around MassSave.

    “Doesn’t matter how sophisticated you are, look at that bill and try to figure out what it means,” said Cabral. “I think we need to make it plain English.”

    There is no definitive finish line for these bills, but legislators hope to see solutions later this fall, especially as households brace for high usage this winter.

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.

    Editor’s note: This story was updated on Oct. 10, 2025, to delete a comparison of New Bedford’s utility rates to other rates and an incorrect reference to the DPU’s relationship with Mass Save. The update also corrects and clarifies details about Healey’s proposed legislation and clarifies details about DiZoglio’s audit.  

  • Corporate tax fight hits home for New Bedford residents as federal cuts loom

    NEW BEDFORD — “Disgusting.” “Angry.” “Unfair.” 

    Those were words New Bedford residents scrawled onto notecards Thursday night when asked what corporate tax evasion made them think of. Their responses reflected frustration as Massachusetts braces for the impacts of the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

    At Protect Our Care’s town hall, organized by several local progressive groups, constituents spoke before lawmakers about impending federal cuts to health care, education and food assistance. To offset the losses, advocates are pushing a “Corporate Fair Share” bill in Massachusetts, which would require multinational corporations to pay more state taxes.

    “We can’t evade our taxes, so these multinational corporations shouldn’t be either,” said Tracy Albernaz, representing one of the meeting’s sponsors, Massachusetts United Interfaith Action.

    About 100 people attended the meeting, held at the Greater Southeastern Massachusetts Labor Council’s office.

    The Trump administration’s bill, signed in July, is set to slash federal funding for Medicaid, SNAP food assistance, and student loans by over $1 trillion nationwide over the next several years. Massachusetts is facing an up to $3.5 billion reduction, threatening over 350,000 SNAP and Medicaid users.

    “People are going to die because of this bill,” said Teia Searcy, a political organizer for 1199 SEIU, a health care union and local meeting sponsor.

    The advocacy coalition Raise Up Massachusetts wants to soften the blow by targeting billionaire corporations such as Amazon, McDonald’s and Apple that use offshore tax havens.

    The proposal builds on the state’s 2022 “Fair Share” amendment, or the millionaires tax, which added a surtax on income above $1 million to fund improvements to public education and transportation.

    Advocates say the new legislation could raise over $400 million in state revenue. They also propose spending $1.2 billion from Massachusetts’ $8 billion stabilization fund to plug gaps left by federal cuts — though they support leaving a balance in the fund to “protect access to critical public services,” organizers said. 

    “I think this is a no-brainer,” said Rep. Chris Hendricks, D-New Bedford, a long-time supporter and co-sponsor of the Corporate Fair Share bill.

    About half of MassHealth, the state’s public health care program, is federally funded. Cuts are expected to strip $1.75 billion from the state’s Medicaid budget, according to Gov. Maura Healey’s administration. Two million of the state’s seven million residents are enrolled in MassHealth, including most patients of Southcoast Health, which serves New Bedford.

    “There’s times that I couldn’t even get my own medication because they stripped my MassHealth away,” said Casey Vega, a caretaker and representative of 1199 SEIU. “I shouldn’t have to pick and choose what medications to get.”

    Rep. Antonio Cabral, D-New Bedford, said the state’s rainy-day fund must be used carefully.

    “We spend on MassHealth, anything from $22 to $24 billion, so $8 billion in the midst of that doesn’t even cover for that,” he said.

    Residents also worried about cuts to education and food assistance. Michelle Willis, president of the New Bedford Federation of Paraprofessionals, relies on public safety nets like housing assistance, SNAP benefits and MassHealth.

    “My job, my career is at risk,” she said. “The services that public schools provide for my students are possible because of public health insurance funds, speech, occupational therapy and adaptive physical education.” 

    Local business owners said the cuts could ripple through the economy. Jenny Arruda, city councilor-at-large candidate and small business owner, said she is already seeing fewer customers.

    “A lot of my customers, I’m sure, are afraid to spend money right now because they are all worried about what these cuts might do to impact them,” she said.

    All six state representatives on the panel expressed support for the Corporate Fair Share bill, though some warned that revenue from offshore taxes would only go so far. Rep. Carol Faiola, D-Fall River, said the state needs to prioritize allocation of its rainy-day fund.

    “Eight billion won’t be enough to fill a gap, so the $400 million that you anticipate from this offshore tax, believe it or not, is a small amount of money,” she said.

    Faiola, the only non-co-sponsor on the panel, noted that the federal cuts remain projections, and the true severity of them is still uncertain. She said she plans to sign on as a co-sponsor once the bill moves forward.

    Cabral urged constituents to keep perspective. Rep. Mark Sylvia, D-Fairhaven, said the Legislature may have to consider plugging the funding gaps with multiple bills. He mentioned one signed last week reserving $234 million for the Health Safety Net hospitals — community health centers that receive state funding for essential care — in anticipation of impacts from federal cuts.

    “I can tell you that we will keep fighting hard to make sure that we can turn around what’s happening federally,” said Sylvia.

    The Corporate Fair Share bill is scheduled for a joint hearing on Oct. 3.

    Isabelle Oss is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.