BOSTON – After months of discussion and weeks of debate, the state's supplemental budget finally passed both the House and Senate Monday before being signed by Gov. Maura Healey.


What You Need To Know

  • The House called in representatives from all over the state to pass the supplimental budget with a supermajority

  • The Senate called for a formal session and debate, before a standing vote passed the supplimental budget

  • The $3 billion year-end budget was signed by Gov. Maura Healey Monday night

Formal sessions are done for the year, which allowed Republicans to hold up passing the 2023 closeout budget Thursday, Friday and Saturday because they wanted more debate about the state’s handling of the shelter crisis.

“I’m really happy we were able to get this done," said state Rep. Jim O'Day, D-Worcester. "A little bit of wrangling because of the informal status that we are in, but I’m happy we were able to work through that."

Democratic House leaders called in representatives on Monday so a quorum was present and were able to pass the bill by a margin of 105-14.

“The last option was to bring in a quorum and that’s what they finally decided to do,” said House Minority Leader Rep. Bradley Jones, R-Middlesex. “We’re glad that they finally took up one of our ideas and brought in a quorum to work on Monday and we realize apparently Thursday and Friday aren’t workdays but Mondays so that’s good. Now it’s over to the Senate and we’ll see when the Senate takes it up and what their game plan is and take a look at it when it comes back.”

The supplemental budget includes $250 million to fund shelters largely filled with migrant families and includes money to help communities rebuilding from disasters.

“I think I think it’s highlighted that dysfunction on Beacon Hill,” Jones said. “We realize that at the end of the day getting the contracts done is important from a fiduciary standpoint.”

It also includes pay raises for contracted state workers, a raise promised months ago, causing some former collogues O’Day to reach out to him.

“There was a process and yes, did this process take a little longer than folks at hope for unfortunately,” O’Day said. “But it’s done.”

The Senate went about it a different way. They called for a formal session, suspending the rules so that they could get this passed by a standing vote.

That was passed unanimously so when it went to a vote, it passed with ease. Despite a bill they didn’t want passed going through, state Sen. Ryan Fattman, R-Worcester, said it's still a win for the Republican party because they had the opportunity to be heard. 

“Otherwise, we would have stopped the bill from happening," he said. "We want to make sure we have the opportunity to debate, to vote, and that can bring forward a budget. Short of that we will procedurally stop it, and today we have procedurally won. “

It’s been months of discussion over how to handle families overcrowding the state’s shelter system. Andrea Park and Kelly Turley have been pleading with lawmakers to pass the supplemental budget funding for months, even rallying on Halloween for progress.

“It was very frustrating,” said Park, of the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “It’s difficult that every single day there are families that are really struggling and suffering because this funding was held up.”

Now as Christmas approaches and migrant families are still seeking shelter in the state, advocates are desperate to find safe places to house them, and they need state money to do it.

“As of the end of last week there was still more than 100 families on the waiting list trying to access shelter who have already been approved many of them with no safe place to go in the meantime,” said Turley, with Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless. “So, we are grateful that this supplemental budget is moving along so that families have a safe place to stay while they are experiencing homelessness.”

House Republicans objected to the state's handling of the shelter crisis and cited it as part of their reasoning for opposing the 2023 closeout budget.

“We think we made a good attempt the last few days to highlight in a responsible way some of the shortcomings without being obstructive, I know our Democratic colleagues would disagree,” Jones said. “Our very existence to them is disruptive I disagree. I think it’s necessary for a healthy democracy to have two parties and I think we showed that today.”