Skip to main content

The Massachusetts General Court - Finding 2

In comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states, the Massachusetts General Court website lacks apparent content and ease of website navigation regarding pending and enacted legislation.
Skip table of contents

Table of Contents

You skipped the table of contents section.

Overview

To determine whether and to what extent the Massachusetts General Court is communicating information regarding pending and enacted legislation to the public, we reviewed the Massachusetts General Court website to assess the extent of available information regarding the legislative process, and pending and enacted legislation, as well as the ease of website navigation. We then compared these elements to those of the sample states—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, and Oregon (see Appendix B). During our review, we found that, in comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states, the Massachusetts General Court website lacks apparent content and ease of website navigation regarding pending and enacted legislation. More specifically, we found that in comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the Massachusetts General Court website, and the homepage in particular, provides insufficient information, and has a less intuitive structure of information on committees, Massachusetts General Court proceedings, and the overall legislative process, as well as less intuitive website navigation68 to the information and records that are available. These issues are described in further detail in our sub-findings below. If the Massachusetts General Court does not improve its website to increase content and ease of website navigation regarding pending and enacted legislation, then it limits the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.

Before discussing the sub-findings, we note that Massachusetts has been generally ranked as less transparent than other states regarding legislative information. According to its website, Open States69 “aggregates legislative information from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and US Congress.” On March 11, 2013, Open States published an Open Legislative Data Report Card that evaluated states on transparency of publicly available data using the following six criteria: completeness, timeliness, ease of access, machine readability, use of commonly owned standards, and permanence.70 Open States converted qualitative data to numeric scores and coinciding letter grades.71 Massachusetts was one of four states to ultimately receive an “F” grade, the lowest grade possible.72 There were 11 states that received an “A” grade in the final report card, including 3 of our sample states—Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. We developed the map below using data from the Open Legislative Data Report Card.73

This object is a map showing the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii in the lower left quadrant. A color-coded shading is used to indicate the grade received for the states reviewed in the Open States’ Open Legislative Data Report Card. The color spectrum used is as follows: deep green for an A grade, light green for a B grade, grey for a C grade, orange-red for a D grade, and deep red for an F grade.

Another assessment by the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research ranked the states on financial transparency.74 According to the Pioneer Institute, of the 49 states requiring financial interest disclosure reports in 2024, Massachusetts ranked as the least transparent.75

This object is a map showing the United States, including Alaska in the upper left quadrant and Hawaii in the lower left quadrant. A color-coded shading is used to indicate financial transparency. The color spectrum used is as follows: deep green for very transparent, light green for somewhat transparent, orange-red for somewhat untransparent, and deep red for very untransparent. This object also includes the following text: “Only Idaho does not require candidates to file Statements of Financial or Economi

Source: The Pioneer Institute

a.  In comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the MGC website provides less apparent information & records regarding committees & committee proceedings, & less intuitive website navigati

During our review of the Massachusetts General Court website, we found that, in comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, and Oregon—the Massachusetts General Court website provides significantly less detailed information on committees and committee proceedings, and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available. According to the Massachusetts General Court's Rules, specific committees are intended to help determine legislative proceedings and initiate legislation that appears before the Massachusetts General Court for consideration. A lack of apparent information and records regarding committees and committee proceedings, combined with less intuitive website navigation, contributes to a lack of transparency concerning pending and enacted legislation. This limits the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.

Although the Massachusetts General Court website and the sample state legislative websites all provide hyperlinks to their committees, either in their homepage toolbars or as first-degree hyperlinks or tabs from their toolbar hyperlinks, the extent of the resulting information when following the website breadcrumbs76 differs significantly.77 Navigating within the Massachusetts General Court website, the Committees & Commissions toolbar hyperlink leads to the various legislative committees of the current session, descriptions of committee jurisdiction, members, bills, hearings calendar, bill history, amendments, and videos of hearings, if available.78 In addition to the foregoing, the Kentucky General Assembly website’s Committees hyperlink leads to lists of committee staff, meeting materials, and prior years’ information.79 The resulting bill hyperlinks from the meeting materials lead to documentation regarding a bill’s original presentation, final presentation, summary, fiscal impact statement(s), amendment(s) with changes tracked against the bill, amendment summary, and vote history.80 The Pennsylvania General Assembly website’s Senate and House hyperlinks similarly lead to committee information, including prior years’ information, meeting materials, bill and amendment text in various formats, fiscal notes, and vote history.81 The Virginia General Assembly website’s Members and Session hyperlink also leads to more committee information than the Massachusetts General Court website, including hyperlinks to committee staff with contact information, bill summaries, bill and amendment text with tracked changes, impact statements, and vote history.82 The Connecticut General Assembly website and Oregon State Legislature website continue this trend.83 See the following figures.84 The Massachusetts General Court’s deficit in committee records and lack of clear navigation undermines the transparency of legislative processes in Massachusetts.

This object is a screenshot showing the Massachusetts General Court’s webpage for the Joint Committee on Education. This object demonstrates what information the webpage includes, such as committee member names, pictures of the Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs, bills, and hearings, as well as general contact information for the Senate and House This object also includes the following text from OSA: “Massachusetts General Court provides limited information for committees, bills sponsored by members of the co
This object is a screenshot showing the Connecticut General Assembly’s webpage for the Education Committee. This object demonstrates what information the webpage includes, such as a description of the Education Committee’s jurisdiction, general contact information, records of bills (including those reported out of the committee), committee meeting agendas and minutes, public hearings , vote tally sheets, other events, and a section of related information and forums. This object also includes the following

Authoritative Guidance

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.18(h) of the 2018 Yellow Book, an example of acceptable performance audit criteria includes “benchmarks against which performance is compared, including performance of other entities or sectors.” As such, best practices emerging from the review of the legislative websites of the sample states include the following:

  • information and records regarding committees and committee proceedings, such as sponsored bills, committee meetings, meeting minutes, journals, and drafts, that are available to the public on the website; and
  • intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available to the public on the website.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Massachusetts Constitution states the following in part:

All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.85

Reason for Issue

The Legislature refused to participate in this audit; therefore, we were unable to obtain a reason why the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding committees and committee proceedings, and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available, in comparison to the sample states.

b.  In comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the MGC website provides less apparent information & records regarding pending & enacted bills, & less intuitive navigation to the info

During our review of the Massachusetts General Court website, we found that, in comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, and Oregon—the Massachusetts General Court website provides limited content and is more difficult to navigate when it comes to information and records regarding pending and enacted bills. As discussed above regarding committees and committee proceedings, the extent of additional information accompanying bills associated with committee hyperlinks is noticeably greater on the sample state legislative websites, including easily accessible bill summaries, amendments with summaries and tracked changes, impact statements, and vote history. A lack of apparent information and records regarding pending and enacted bills, combined with less intuitive website navigation on the Massachusetts General Court website, contributes to the lack of transparency and limits the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.

The Massachusetts General Court website provides a hyperlink (Bills & Laws) on its homepage, as do the websites of the Kentucky General Assembly (Bills), Pennsylvania General Assembly (Legislation), Connecticut General Assembly (Bill Info), and Oregon State Legislature (Bills and Laws). The Virginia General Assembly provides a banner hyperlink called Click for Bill Tracking, Meetings, Who’s My Legislator? at the top of its homepage, to access the “most requested information quickly, all in one place.”86 However, the Massachusetts General Court website’s corresponding hyperlink (Bills & Laws) leads to the same limited presentation of bill information as Committee hyperlinks—bill text, amendment text, bill history, and identity of petitioners. In comparison, the Pennsylvania General Assembly website’s corresponding hyperlink (Legislation) leads to more robust bill information that includes summaries and fiscal notes. See the following figures.87

This object is a screenshot showing the Massachusetts General Court’s webpage for Bill H.1008, An Act Requiring Licensed Auto Insurance Damage Appraisers to Provide Safety Notices to the Owners of Damaged Motor Vehicles. This object demonstrates what information similar webpages include, such as the bill’s number, title, text, presenter, status, history, and petitioners; users also have the option to print a preview and download a PDF of the bill. Additionally, the webpage includes hyperlinks to similar bil
This object is a screenshot showing the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s webpage for House Bill 1 from Regular Session 2023–2024; its short title is A Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Further Providing for Courts to be Open and Suits Against the Commonwealth. This object demonstrates what information similar webpages include, such as the bill’s number, title, text, prime sponsor, last action, history, and votes. Users also have the following opt

Moreover, the bill history that is provided by the Massachusetts General Court website is limited when compared to the sample state legislative websites. It is more difficult to follow as the text of amendment language is provided but not tracked against the relevant bill. When changes are made to a bill, a new bill number is issued, and viewers are sent to a new webpage with a separate bill history. As one example, Pennsylvania’s bill history provides a complete, centralized record of a particular piece of legislation, including tracked changes. See the following figures.88

This object is a screenshot showing the Massachusetts General Court’s webpage for Bill S.2481, An Act to Increase Access to Disposable Menstrual Products. This object demonstrates what information similar webpages include, such as the bill’s number, title, text, sponsor, history, amendments, roll call, and cosponsors; users also have the option to print a preview and download a PDF of the bill. Additionally, the webpage includes hyperlinks to similar bills. This object also includes the following text from
This object is a screenshot showing the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s webpage for House Bill 804 from Regular Session 2023–2024; its short title is An Act Amending the Act of December 15, 1982 (P.L. 1266, No. 287), Entitled “An Act Conferring Limited Residency Status on Military Personnel, Their Dependents and Civilian Personnel Assigned to an Active Duty Station in Pennsylvania,” Further Providing Residency of Students. This object demonstrates what information similar webpages include, such as the bill’

Regarding website navigation, the sample states all incorporate some free bill tracking in the services provided to the public by their legislative websites. Kentucky provides free, unlimited tracking of legislation through Bill Watch, the hyperlink which is located on the Bills webpage.89 Pennsylvania provides updates regarding legislation and committee activity through PaLegis Notifications, the hyperlink which is located on the Legislation webpage.90 Virginia provides legislative tracking to the public through its Legislative Information System, the banner hyperlink which is located directly at the top of its legislative homepage.91 Connecticut provides its bill-tracking hyperlink as a drop-down option under Bill Info, located in its legislative homepage toolbar. Oregon provides the hyperlink to its e-Subscribe service, including Bill Alerts, on its Bills and Laws webpage.92 The Massachusetts General Court also provides bill tracking; a hyperlink to MyLegislature can be found under Quick Links at the bottom of the Massachusetts General Court homepage.93 Without attaching the hyperlink to the Bills & Laws drop-down menu, however, the purpose of a MyLegislature account is unclear to the website user unless they happen to land on that webpage and then click on Learn More Here.94

Authoritative Guidance

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.18(h) of the 2018 Yellow Book, an example of acceptable performance audit criteria includes “benchmarks against which performance is compared, including performance of other entities or sectors.” As such, best practices emerging from the review of the legislative websites of the sample states include the following:

  • information and records regarding pending and enacted bills, such as bill summaries, amendments with summaries and tracked changes, impact statements, and vote history, that are available to the public on the website; and
  • intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available to the public on the website.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Massachusetts Constitution states the following in part:

All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.95

Reason for Issue

The Legislature refused to participate in this audit; therefore, we were unable to obtain a reason why the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding pending and enacted bills and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available, in comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states.

c.  In comparison to the sample state legislative websites, the MGC website provides less apparent information & records regarding legislative sessions, & less intuitive navigation to the information

During our review of the Massachusetts General Court website, we found that, in comparison to the legislative websites of the sample states—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, and Oregon—the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding legislative sessions, and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available.

We assessed legislative session information and records availability and navigability by determining where session information was initially located on the Massachusetts General Court website and the sample state legislative websites, and by following the hyperlinks to determine the end results of available information. The Massachusetts General Court website provides session information through the Hearings & Events hyperlink in its homepage toolbar.96 Selecting Senate, House, or Joint Sessions leads to the chambers’ respective calendars, and selecting a particular session leads to the video recording of that session (and certain procedural roll call votes, which record both the name of the member and their vote).97 For the Massachusetts General Court, journals, which are the official record of chamber proceedings, are not directly hyperlinked to sessions, but instead are located under the Legislators hyperlink in the homepage toolbar, and then under the Senate Clerk and House Clerk hyperlinks.98

In comparison, the Pennsylvania General Assembly provides its session information through the Session Info hyperlink in its homepage toolbar, which leads directly to current session videos, calendars, session reports and notes, committee meeting schedules, journals, roll call votes, and floor amendments.99 The Connecticut General Assembly similarly provides its session information through the Session Items hyperlink in its homepage toolbar, which leads directly to calendars, journals and transcripts, and the list of bills taken up during the session, which then leads to the supporting information attached to the bills as previously described in Finding 2a.100 The Virginia General Assembly’s Session hyperlink under Members and Session leads to session videos, floor calendars, and minutes.101 The Oregon State Legislature provides its session information through the Bills and Laws hyperlink in its homepage toolbar, which leads to options for current and previous sessions, and then to extensive session details, including committee meetings, the list of bills taken up during the session (and supporting information), and daily and cumulative session publications.102

The common denominator among these four of the five sample states, as contrasted to the Massachusetts General Court website, is the direct hyperlinking of the written record of each chambers’ actions to the particular session, in addition to the breadth of available information pertaining to bills. A lack of apparent information and records regarding legislative sessions combined with less intuitive website navigation on the Massachusetts General Court website contributes to the perceived lack of transparency and limits the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.

Authoritative Guidance

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.18(h) of the 2018 Yellow Book, an example of acceptable performance audit criteria includes “benchmarks against which performance is compared, including performance of other entities or sectors.” As such, best practices emerging from the review of the legislative websites of the sample states include the following:

  • information and records regarding legislative sessions, such as current session videos, calendars, session reports and notes, committee meeting schedules, journals, roll call votes, and floor amendments, that are available to the public on the website; and
  • more intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available to the public on the website.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Massachusetts Constitution states the following in part:

All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.103

Reason for Issue

The Legislature refused to participate in this audit; therefore, we were unable to obtain a reason why the Massachusetts General Court website provides less apparent information and records regarding legislative sessions, and less intuitive website navigation to the information and records that are available, in comparison to the sample states.

d.  When compared to the legislative website homepages of the sample states, the MGC website homepage lacks apparent content & ease of website navigation regarding pending & enacted legislation.

We found that the Massachusetts General Court website homepage has less apparent information specific to the legislative process and less intuitive navigation in comparison to the homepages of the legislative websites of the sample states—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Connecticut, and Oregon. As noted regarding bill tracking, the hyperlink to the bill-tracking services provided by Massachusetts is included at the bottom of the homepage with no context to indicate the purpose of the hyperlink. Similarly, the FAQ hyperlink on the Massachusetts General Court homepage hyperlinks to questions focused on specific constituent concerns without apparently addressing questions related to the legislative process.104 The Connecticut General Assembly homepage’s FAQs hyperlink, in comparison, directly responds to questions related to the legislative process and the work of the Connecticut General Assembly.105 (See the following figures.) While addressing constituent concerns is a critical function of the Legislature, the homepage could be improved to provide the people of the Commonwealth with a better understanding of the legislative process and increase public engagement.

This object is a screenshot showing the Massachusetts General Court’s webpage for frequently asked questions, or FAQs. This object demonstrates what is on the webpage, such as hyperlinks to information regarding career development, child support enforcement, education, health and public safety, housing, and jury duty. This object also includes the following text from OSA: “Links within the FAQ page redirect the users to Massachusetts Executive Branch services, as opposed to the business of the Massachusetts
This object is a screenshot showing the Connecticut General Assembly’s webpage for frequently asked questions, or FAQs. This object demonstrates what information the webpage includes, such as general topics about the Connecticut General Assembly, the lawmaking process, bill information and status, and Connecticut statutes. This object also includes the following text from OSA: “Information within the FAQ page directs the users to the business of the Connecticut General Assembly.”

The foregoing sub-findings are a logical extension of the first impression of the Massachusetts General Court website for new users through its homepage. A lack of apparent information specific to the legislative process combined with less intuitive website navigation limits the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.

Authoritative Guidance

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.18(h) of the 2018 Yellow Book, an example of acceptable performance audit criteria includes “benchmarks against which performance is compared, including performance of other entities or sectors.” As such, some best practices emerging from the review of the legislative website homepages of the sample states include the following:

  • information that is specific to the legislative process is available to the public on the website homepage; and
  • more intuitive website navigation to the information that is available to the public on the homepage.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Massachusetts Constitution states the following in part:

All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.106

Reason for Issue

The Legislature refused to participate in this audit; therefore, we were unable to obtain a reason why the Massachusetts General Court website homepage lacks apparent information specific to the legislative process and intuitive navigation, in comparison to the sample state legislative website homepages.

Recommendations

1.    To increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws, the Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website to include and simplify website navigation to all information and records regarding committees and committee proceedings.

2.    To increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws, the Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website to include and simplify website navigation to all information and records regarding pending and enacted bills.

3.    To increase transparency and the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws, the Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website to include and simplify website navigation to all information and records regarding legislative sessions.

4.    The Massachusetts General Court should work to improve its website homepage to include more information specific to the work of the Legislature and should evaluate its presentation to simplify navigation, prioritizing the inclusion of and access to information and records that will increase transparency and the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for an equitable mode of making laws.

5.    To help address the above referenced recommendations, the Massachusetts General Court should review the legislative websites of other states, particularly those of states that have ranked higher in government transparency and accountability.107

Auditee’s Response

The Massachusetts General Court was given the opportunity and refused to participate in this audit. 

Auditor’s Reply

We continue to make ourselves available to the Massachusetts General Court and encourage it to comply with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the General Laws, to help make government work better.

68.     According to Medium's "Navigate to the top: Essential strategies for creating intuitive navigation." "Intuitive navigation is critical to the success of a website or [application]. It helps users to find what they are looking for quickly and easily, and it guides them through the user journey in a logical and seamless manner."

69.      Open States is a transparency initiative. The Sunlight Foundation ran Open States from 2009 through 2016. It was then independently run from 2016 through 2021, and finally adopted by Plural Policy in 2021. The Sunlight Foundation was a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, whose goal was “to achieve changes in the law to require real-time, online transparency for all government information.” https://sunlightfoundation.com/about/ . Static archive website (last accessed August 2, 2024). Plural Policy is an “[Artificial intelligence]-powered legislative tracking tool,” whose mission is “to make policy creation more transparent, responsive, and inclusive. And to make full participation possible.” See https://pluralpolicy.com/; https://pluralpolicy.com/about/our-mission/ (last accessed August 2, 2024).

70.      Four other original criteria were determined not to present serious differences between states. See https://sunlight ​ foundation.com/2013/03/11/openstates-report-card/. Static archive website (last accessed August 2, 2024).

71.      See id.; see also the “Open Legislative Data Report Card Methodology” subsection in Appendix A.

72.      The other three states to receive an “F” grade were Alabama, Kentucky, and Nebraska. See https://open. ​ pluralpolicy.com/reportcard/ (last accessed August 2, 2024) for underlying criteria ratings and all state grades; see also the “Open Legislative Data Report Card” subsection in Appendix A. We cannot verify the accuracy of the data since we did not audit this information. Although Kentucky, one of our sample states, received an “F” grade, we retained them in the sample to illustrate instances of greater transparency in comparison to Massachusetts.

73.      See https://open.pluralpolicy.com/reportcard/ (last accessed August 2, 2024); see also the “Open Legislative Data Report Card” subsection in Appendix A. We cannot verify the accuracy of the data since we did not audit this information.

74.      See Ranking the States on Financial Transparency, Pioneer Institute (2019).  https://pioneerinstitute.org/state-rankings-financial-disclosure/ (last accessed August 2, 2024).

75.      See id.

76.      A breadcrumb is a “component of web development that aids in navigation and readability of a website.” Mark Levene (18 October 2010). An Introduction to Search Engines and Web Navigation. 2nd ed. Wiley. p. 221.

77.    See https://malegislature.gov/; https://legislature.ky.gov/Pages/index.aspx; https://www.legis.state.pa.us/ to Senate and House links; https://virginiageneralassembly.gov/index.php to Members and Session link; https://www.cga.ct.gov/; https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/ (last accessed August 4, 2024).

78.    See, e.g., https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Detail/S51; https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Detail/H34 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

79.    See, e.g., https://legislature.ky.gov/Committees/Pages/Committee-Details.aspx?CommitteeRSN=74&CommitteeType= ​ Senate%20Standing%20Committee; https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/CommitteeDocuments/71/ (last accessed August 4, 2024).

80.    See, e.g., https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24RS/HB122.html (last accessed August 4, 2024).

81.    See, e.g., https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/CteeInfo/StandingCommittees.cfm?CteeBody=S; https://www.legis.state. ​ pa.us/cfdocs/CteeInfo/index.cfm?Code=1&CteeBody=S&SessYear=2023; https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/CMS/ ​ ArchiveDetails.cfm?SessYear=2023&MeetingId=3831&Code=1&Chamber=S; https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/ ​ billinfo.cfm?syear=2023&sind=0&body=S&type=B&bn=840 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

82.    See, e.g., https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+com+S5; https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+doc+ ​ S0510304; https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB45; https://committees.lis.virginia.gov/for ​ consideration.aspx?ses=241&bil=HB0045&hou=S (last accessed August 4, 2024).

83.    See, e.g., https://www.cga.ct.gov/hed/; https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGACommBillRecBook/default.aspx?comm_code= ​ hed; https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB00106; https://apps.oregon ​ legislature.gov/liz/2023I1/Committees/HCCP/Overview; https://apps.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023I1/Committees/HCCP/ ​ 2024-05-29-08-30/Agenda; https://apps.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023I1/Committees/HCCP/2024-05-29-08-30/Meeting ​ Materials (last accessed August 4, 2024).

84.    The selection of the Education Committees for both the Massachusetts General Court and the Connecticut General Assembly was done by looking for a comparable committee between both entities.

85.    See Article V of Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution; see Staats, Comptroller General; see footnote 40.

86.    See https://virginiageneralassembly.gov/index.php (last accessed August 4, 2024).

87.    See also, e.g., https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb1.html; https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+ ​ HB134; https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2024&bill_num=182; https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Measures/Overview/SB1507 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

88.    See also, e.g., https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/24rs/hb1.html; https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+ ​ HB134; https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&which_year=2024&bill_num=182; https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/Measures/Overview/SB1507 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

89.    See https://legislature.ky.gov/Legislation/Pages/default.aspx to https://www.kentucky.gov/services/pages/billwatch.aspx (last accessed August 4, 2024).

90.    See https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/bills/ to https://www.legis.state.pa.us/login/ (last accessed August 4, 2024).

91.    See https://virginiageneralassembly.gov/index.php (last accessed August 4, 2024).

92.    See https://www.cga.ct.gov/default.asp to https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/cgabilltracking.asp; https://www.oregon​legislature.gov/bills_laws to https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/citizen_engagement/Pages/e-Subscribe.aspx (last accessed August 4, 2024).

93.    See https://malegislature.gov/ (last accessed August 4, 2024).

94.    See https://malegislature.gov/Account/Login?ReturnUrl=%2FMyLegislature to https://malegislature.gov/MyLegislature/About (last accessed August 4, 2024).

95.    See Article V of Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution; see Staats, Comptroller General; see footnote 40.

96.    See https://malegislature.gov/ (last accessed August 4, 2024).

97.    See, e.g., https://malegislature.gov/Events/Sessions/Detail/4972; https://malegislature.gov/Events/Sessions/Detail/4973 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

98.    See https://guides.loc.gov/state-legislative-journals; https://malegislature.gov/ClerksOffice/Senate; https://malegislature. ​gov/ClerksOffice/House (last accessed August 4, 2024).

99.    See https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/session.cfm (last accessed August 4, 2024).

100.    See https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/clerkdoclist.asp?house=H&doc_type=jnl# (last accessed August 4, 2024).

101.    See https://virginiageneralassembly.gov/membersAndSession.php?secid=1&activesec=0#!hb=1&mainContentTabs=1 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

102.    See https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2024R1/2024-02-05 (last accessed August 4, 2024).

103.    See Article V of Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution; see Staats, Comptroller General; see footnote 40.

104.   See https://malegislature.gov/Statehouse/Faq (last accessed August 4, 2024).

105.   See https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/Content/FAQs.asp (last accessed August 4, 2024).

106.    See Article V of Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution; see Staats, Comptroller General; see footnote 40.

107.      See the “Open Legislative Data Report Card” subsection in Appendix A and the Pioneer Institute’s “Ranking the States on Financial Transparency,” https://pioneerinstitute.org/state-rankings-financial-disclosure/. 

Date published: October 21, 2024

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback