Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

House · Republican

Bradford Hill

Former member, served 2015–2021 in the sessions covered here · 4th Essex

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Ipswich

First elected

House 1998

Prior public offices

Former Ipswich Selectman; Former Member Hamilton Zoning Board of Appeals

Occupation

Legislator

Left office

resigned (September 15, 2021); successor elected in special election November 30, 2021

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
189th (2015–16)House4th Essex2011 lines
190th (2017–18)House4th Essex2011 lines
191st (2019–20)House4th Essex2011 lines
192nd (2021–22)House4th Essex2011 lines

Posts and stipends

Bradford Hill was paid $189,884 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2021.

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
189th (2015–16)Assistant Minority Leadernot available$15,000
190th (2017–18)1st Assistant Minority Leader$35,000$35,000
191st (2019–20)1st Assistant Minority Leader$37,912$37,912
192nd (2021–22)Title not in the roster records; a stipend was paid$29,060not available

Posts: the Legislature’s leadership and roster records as compiled for this project; where those name no post, the member’s committee chair, vice-chair and ranking roles from the Legislature’s member profiles. Stipends: additional compensation in the Comptroller’s payroll data (CTHRU dataset 9ttk-7vz6), 2016–2026; 2026 is the year to date. Stipends for 2015 are not available. Base salary is not included.

The district

4th Essex on its 2011 lines: 6 cities and towns, 44,450 residents (2020).

Ipswich · Hamilton · Topsfield · Rowley · Manchester-by-the-Sea · Wenham

Percentages are each place’s share of the district’s 2020 residents; for a town split between districts, the share of the town inside this one follows.

Population-weighted Fairness Index of the district’s cities and towns: 32 for all state aid and 35 for discretionary money (50 is a fair share).

Local earmarks are counted three ways. District money uses the first, clauses that name a place in the district; the second table adds organizations located in the district (placed in the district) and state facilities located there (everything placed). Three ways to count a local earmark.

District money, first measure: enacted earmarks in clauses naming a place in the district, by session (district money, not the member’s)
SessionDistrictDollarsIn corrective clausesPer resident per budget, rankWithout corrective clauses, rank
189th (2015–16)4th Essex$50,000$0$1.12 · 127th of 160$1.12 · 126th of 160
190th (2017–18)4th Essex$290,000$0$3.26 · 104th of 160$3.26 · 104th of 160
191st (2019–20)4th Essex$368,000$0$4.14 · 69th of 160$4.14 · 65th of 160
192nd (2021–22)4th Essex$565,000$0$6.36 · 82nd of 160$6.36 · 81st of 160

District money is where enacted earmarks land, by the place a clause names, mapped to districts by 2020 population; it is not attributed to the member and does not include leadership’s base-text money that names no place. Ranks are of district money per resident among the chamber’s districts, 1 = most. “In corrective clauses” is the part carried by a Ways and Means chair’s corrective amendments, which is leadership’s money; the last column gives the per-resident figure and rank without it. Sessions are labeled by the General Court that enacted each budget. Per-resident figures use the district as drawn for each session (2011 lines through the 192nd General Court, 2021 lines from the 193rd), so they will not equal a session’s dollars divided by the resident count above.

The same district on the other two measures, by session (enacted; includes any corrective-clause money)
SessionDistrictPlaced in the districtPer resident per budget, rankEverything placedPer resident per budget, rank
189th (2015–16)4th Essex$50,000$1.12 · 133rd of 160$50,000$1.12 · 135th of 160
190th (2017–18)4th Essex$290,000$3.26 · 111th of 160$290,000$3.26 · 116th of 160
191st (2019–20)4th Essex$368,000$4.14 · 96th of 160$368,000$4.14 · 98th of 160
192nd (2021–22)4th Essex$565,000$6.36 · 102nd of 160$565,000$6.36 · 109th of 160

Budget amendments

Bradford Hill sponsored 37 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $59 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

37

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

50%

11 of 22

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

52%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 22 with a known outcome, 11 were adopted (50%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 11 (52%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Bradford Hill filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2020$100,000“a green crab trapping program as for applied research and product development”H3800 #1251
FY2022$50,000 (shared two ways)“not less than $ 100,000 shall be expended for marsh restoration and revitalization, including, but not limited to, a green crab trapping program…”H4000 #283
FY2017$50,000“a Great Marsh green crab trapping program”H4200 #154
FY2022$25,000“a public safety grant in the town of Topsfield”H4000 #303
FY2022$25,000“a public safety grant in the town of Rowley”H4000 #305

Strong matches: 8 enacted items, $312,000 (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). House attribution is inferred throughout, because the House adopts most amendments inside consolidated amendments.

16 outcomes are inferred by matching amendment text to the House’s consolidated amendments, because the House records most amendments only as “Consolidated A–G.” Ask size is the larger of the earmark dollars and the line-item change an amendment requests; bands: no dollar amount, under $50,000, $50,000–$250,000, $250,000–$1 million, $1–5 million, $5 million or more. Leadership’s unattributed base-text and corrective-amendment money is never assigned to a member. The comparison describes outcomes; it is not a measure of merit.

Bills sponsored

Bradford Hill filed 131 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; eight were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 6% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 3% to 7% for the same sessions.

Most bills die in every legislature, and many policies pass inside other bills; the chamber median for the same session is the fair comparison.

Bills filed as lead sponsor, by session and outcome
SessionChamberLead billsEnactedFolded into an enacted billSent to studyReported favorably, then diedReported adversely or withdrawnNo actionEnacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
189th (2015–16)House2201163020%6%169
190th (2017–18)House2421192008%7%99
191st (2019–20)House35402461011%4%285
192nd (2021–22)House50203414004%3%42

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

Outcomes are the furthest point each bill reached in the record. “Folded into an enacted bill” means the history names the enacted bill that absorbed it. “Passed both branches; no chapter recorded” means the bill was enacted by both branches and laid before the Governor, with no chapter or veto in the history; in the 194th General Court such bills are shown as laid before the Governor (pending). The 194th General Court is in session until January 2027, so its open bills are pending, not dead, and its rates (*) are not comparable with completed sessions. Chairs and leaders control the calendar, which raises their rates. Source: malegislature.gov bill histories.

Recorded votes on accountability measures

Bradford Hill cast 61 yes-or-no votes on the 61 accountability roll calls in this file (49 yes, 12 no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
January 25, 2017Recommit the 2017 pay-raise bill (H.58) to Ways and MeansYesYeas 35, nays 125
January 25, 2017Amd 3 (Lyons): legislators' raise not effective until next General CourtYesYeas 40, nays 120
January 25, 2017Amd 5 (Lyons): cap the increases at 4%YesYeas 36, nays 124
January 25, 2017Engrossment of the pay-raise bill (stipend increases)NoYeas 116, nays 44
January 26, 2017Enactment of the pay-raise billNoYeas 116, nays 43
February 2, 2017Override of Gov. Baker's veto of the pay-raise billNoYeas 116, nays 43
February 2, 2017Amendment 1.0 (Geoff Diehl): Text of the proposed House amendment (Representative Diehl) to the House Bill relative to Rank and File (House, No. 2017)YesYeas 34, nays 124
February 2, 2017Sustain the Chair's ruling (point of order, Mr. Mark) against Diehl amd 2, Speaker term limitsNoYeas 123, nays 33
February 2, 2017Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): 24 Hour Time Frame for Bills to Be Acted OnYesYeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 4.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationYesYeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsYesYeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017Amendment 10.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Equal Representation on Ethics CommitteeYesYeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 15.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): InoculatorsYesYeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017Amendment 16.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionYesYeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017Amendment 27.0 (James J. Lyons, Jr.): Defining and Limiting Informal SessionYesYeas 34, nays 124
February 2, 2017Amendment 20.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to House financial accounts auditsYesYeas 34, nays 125
February 2, 2017Amendment 21.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to committee votesYesYeas 41, nays 118
February 2, 2017Amendment 5.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionYesYeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Roll Calls on WebsiteYesYeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017Amendment 13.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Reports of Conference Filing DeadlineYesYeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017Amendment 14.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to committee votesYesYeas 38, nays 121
January 30, 2019Amendment 1.0 (Jonathan Hecht): Time to review billsYesYeas 55, nays 103
January 30, 2019Amendment 2.0 (Jonathan Hecht): Time to review amendmentsYesYeas 47, nays 111
January 30, 2019Amendment 3.0 (Jonathan Hecht): Committee materials and votesYesYeas 49, nays 109
January 30, 2019Collective bargaining for House employees (curb on leadership control of staff); not a disclosure/power-of-leadership rule in the narrow sense (contested meaning)NoYeas 9, nays 149
January 30, 2019Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationYesYeas 40, nays 118
January 30, 2019Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsYesYeas 35, nays 123
January 30, 2019Amendment 14.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Polls – 2 HoursYesYeas 44, nays 114
January 30, 2019Amendment 16.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): House AuditsYesYeas 35, nays 123
January 30, 2019Amendment 17.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): HWM Reports on BillsYesYeas 33, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 19.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid ResolutionYesYeas 32, nays 126
January 30, 2019Amendment 20.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsYesYeas 32, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 22.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Votes on WebsiteYesYeas 44, nays 113
January 30, 2019Fingerprint remote voting from committee rooms (contested meaning)YesYeas 32, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 25.0 (Marc T. Lombardo): Matters considered in an informal sessionYesYeas 32, nays 125
January 30, 2019Amendment 31.0 (John H. Rogers): Relative to Rule 18CYesYeas 43, nays 113
January 30, 2019Amendment 32.0 (Patrick Joseph Kearney): relative to Rule 100 ( c ) 3NoYeas 5, nays 152
January 30, 2019Amendment 33.0 (Patrick Joseph Kearney): relative to Rule 20A and Rule 33ANoYeas 5, nays 152
January 30, 2019Equitable office space (leadership allocates offices) (contested meaning)NoYeas 11, nays 146
January 30, 2019Amendment 38.0 (Denise Provost): To assure adequate time to prepare and file amendmentsYesYeas 44, nays 113
January 30, 2019Amendment 41.0 (Russell E. Holmes): Equal Pay Amendment IINoYeas 5, nays 152
January 30, 2019House rules (H2019), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)NoYeas 125, nays 32
January 30, 2019Conference-committee appointment deadline; adopted 157-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 157, nays 0
January 30, 2019Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Roll Calls on WebsiteYesYeas 47, nays 110
January 30, 2019Amendment 12.0 (Marc T. Lombardo): Informal SessionYesYeas 36, nays 121
January 30, 2019Joint rules (H2021), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)YesYeas 157, nays 0
February 24, 2021Amendment 8.0 (Erika Uyterhoeven): Public Committee Votes and TestimonyYesYeas 36, nays 122
February 24, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Electronic PollYesYeas 38, nays 121
February 24, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Procurement AmendmentYesYeas 34, nays 125
February 24, 2021Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Conference Committee ReportYesYeas 35, nays 123
February 24, 2021Joint rules (H68), rules package: on adoption of the Order (contested meaning)NoYeas 128, nays 31
July 7, 2021Remote voting for members on military duty; adopted 160-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 160, nays 0
July 7, 2021Amendment 2.0 (Tami L. Gouveia): Speaker Term LimitsYesYeas 35, nays 125
July 7, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of HearingsYesYeas 30, nays 129
July 7, 2021Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Polls - 2 HoursYesYeas 35, nays 124
July 7, 2021Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to InformationYesYeas 33, nays 126
July 7, 2021Amendment 13.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Review of Consolidated AmendmentsYesYeas 32, nays 127
July 7, 2021Amendment 12.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Votes on WebsiteYesYeas 38, nays 121
July 7, 2021Amendment 16.0 (Erika Uyterhoeven): Public Committee VotesYesYeas 41, nays 117
July 7, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Christopher M. Markey): Review Period for Released BillsYesYeas 39, nays 119
July 7, 2021House rules (H3930), rules package: on adoption of the order (contested meaning)NoYeas 129, nays 29

Votes marked “contested meaning” are rules-package and public-records passage votes; reform advocates were on both sides of them. Descriptions are the project’s plain summaries of each question, or the question as recorded for rules-package roll calls; the official record is on malegislature.gov. Votes are facts; no score is computed.

Campaign money in

Bradford Hill’s committee reported $47,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2018.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2015$2,650
2016$5,300
2017$5,800
2018$33,000
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Political committees and PACs$24,00051%
Individuals$23,00049%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer51%
Self-employed21%
Retired25%
Not reported or withheld3%
Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
MASSACHUSETTS REPUBLICAN PARTYcommittee or PAC$19,0001
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$2,0004
GARDEN CITY PEDIATRICSindividuals, by employer$1,5003
GENERAL ELECTRICindividuals, by employer$1,5003
JOHN GAULT SERVICESindividuals, by employer$1,0004
PRIME LANDSCAPINGindividuals, by employer$8002
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PACcommittee or PAC$6002
MA ASSOC OF REALTORS POL ACTION COMM - MA RPACcommittee or PAC$6002
TOWN OF IPSWICHindividuals, by employer$5502
FOX RELOCATION MANAGEMENTindividuals, by employer$5001

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Hill Committee (CPF 12623). Individuals are grouped by the employer they reported; no individual contributor is named, and an employer field that is a person’s name is withheld. Massachusetts bars business contributions to candidates. Employer shows affiliation, not instruction.

Sources

Every figure traces to a public record.

Facts only: posts, stipends, sponsored amendments, enacted items, roll-call votes and district money. No score or grade is computed. Associations shown here are not evidence of cause. Method.