House · Democrat

Frank I. Smizik

Former member, served 2015–2018 in the sessions covered here · 15th Norfolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Brookline

First elected

House 2000

Prior public offices

1992-2000: Brookline School Committee; 1984-1986: Housing Advisory Board, Town of Brookline; 1982-1992: Commissioner, Brookline Housing Authority; 1981-present: Town Meeting Member, Brookline Town Meeting

Occupation

Lawyer

Left office

did not seek reelection in 2018 (not a candidate in the 2018 primary or general election for this seat); term ended January 2, 2019

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
Session	Chamber	District	Lines	Note
189th (2015–16)	House	15th Norfolk	2011 lines
190th (2017–18)	House	15th Norfolk	2011 lines

Posts and stipends

Frank I. Smizik was paid $37,500 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2018.

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
Session	Posts	First year	Second year
189th (2015–16)	Chair, House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change	not available	$7,500
190th (2017–18)	Chair, House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change	$15,000	$15,000

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

15th Norfolk on its 2011 lines: 1 city or town, 43,342 residents (2020).

Brookline 100%, 69% of the town

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: 21 for all state aid and 14 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)
Session	District	Dollars	In corrective clauses	Per resident per budget, rank	Without corrective clauses, rank
189th (2015–16)	15th Norfolk	$271,000	$0	$6.24 · 25th of 160	$6.24 · 25th of 160
190th (2017–18)	15th Norfolk	$572,000	$0	$6.60 · 23rd of 160	$6.60 · 23rd 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)
Session	District	Placed in the district	Per resident per budget, rank	Everything placed	Per resident per budget, rank
189th (2015–16)	15th Norfolk	$271,000	$6.24 · 41st of 160	$271,000	$6.24 · 45th of 160
190th (2017–18)	15th Norfolk	$572,000	$6.60 · 48th of 160	$572,000	$6.60 · 55th of 160

Budget amendments

Frank I. Smizik sponsored 15 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $3.8 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

73%

8 of 11

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

59%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 11 with a known outcome, eight were adopted (73%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about seven (59%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Frank I. Smizik filed (strong text matches)
Year	Amount	Enacted budget text (excerpt)	Amendment
FY2019	$642,000	“providers of naturally occurring retirement communities with whom the department of elder affairs entered into service agreements in fiscal year…”	H4400 #1195
FY2018	$642,000	“providers of naturally occurring retirement communities with whom the department of elder affairs entered into service agreements in fiscal year…”	H3600 #672
FY2017	$642,000	“providers of naturally occurring retirement communities with whom the department of elder affairs entered into service agreements in fiscal year 2016…”	H4200 #820
FY2019	$250,000	“the Brookline Community Mental Health Center to expand the Healthy Lives program”	H4400 #1142
FY2018	$125,000 (shared two ways)	“the Brookline Community Mental Health Center, Inc. to expand the Healthy Lives program”	H3600 #586

Strong matches: 8 enacted items, $2.3 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). House attribution is inferred throughout, because the House adopts most amendments inside consolidated amendments.

11 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

Frank I. Smizik filed 57 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; zero were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 0% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 6% 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
Session	Chamber	Lead bills	Folded into an enacted bill	Sent to study	Reported favorably, then died	No action	Enacted rate	Chamber median	Cosponsored
189th (2015–16)	House	26	1	15	10	0	0%	6%	225
190th (2017–18)	House	31	2	20	6	3	0%	7%	186

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

Frank I. Smizik cast 21 yes-or-no votes on the 21 accountability roll calls in this file (four yes, 17 no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
Date	Measure	Vote	Chamber result
January 25, 2017	Recommit the 2017 pay-raise bill (H.58) to Ways and Means	No	Yeas 35, nays 125
January 25, 2017	Amd 3 (Lyons): legislators' raise not effective until next General Court	No	Yeas 40, nays 120
January 25, 2017	Amd 5 (Lyons): cap the increases at 4%	No	Yeas 36, nays 124
January 25, 2017	Engrossment of the pay-raise bill (stipend increases)	Yes	Yeas 116, nays 44
January 26, 2017	Enactment of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 116, nays 43
February 2, 2017	Override of Gov. Baker's veto of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 116, nays 43
February 2, 2017	Amendment 1.0 (Geoff Diehl): Text of the proposed House amendment (Representative Diehl) to the House Bill relative to Rank and File (House, No. 2017)	No	Yeas 34, nays 124
February 2, 2017	Sustain the Chair's ruling (point of order, Mr. Mark) against Diehl amd 2, Speaker term limits	Yes	Yeas 123, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 3.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): 24 Hour Time Frame for Bills to Be Acted On	No	Yeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017	Amendment 4.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Access to Information	No	Yeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017	Amendment 9.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Emergency Scheduling of Hearings	No	Yeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017	Amendment 10.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Equal Representation on Ethics Committee	No	Yeas 35, nays 124
February 2, 2017	Amendment 15.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Inoculators	No	Yeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017	Amendment 16.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid Resolution	No	Yeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017	Amendment 27.0 (James J. Lyons, Jr.): Defining and Limiting Informal Session	No	Yeas 34, nays 124
February 2, 2017	Amendment 20.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to House financial accounts audits	No	Yeas 34, nays 125
February 2, 2017	Amendment 21.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to committee votes	No	Yeas 41, nays 118
February 2, 2017	Amendment 5.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Local Aid Resolution	No	Yeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017	Amendment 11.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Committee Roll Calls on Website	No	Yeas 38, nays 121
February 2, 2017	Amendment 13.0 (Bradley H. Jones, Jr.): Reports of Conference Filing Deadline	No	Yeas 37, nays 122
February 2, 2017	Amendment 14.0 (Shaunna L. O'Connell): Public access to committee votes	No	Yeas 38, nays 121

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

Frank I. Smizik’s committee reported $3,400 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2018.

By year (years in the Legislature)
Year	Contributions
2015	$1,650
2016	$1,250
2017	$500
2018	$0

By kind of contributor
Kind	Total	Share
Unions and associations	$2,750	81%
Political committees and PACs	$650	19%

Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reported	Share

Not counted as contributions: $2,010 in other receipts of $250 or more in the same years (candidate loans and the candidate’s own money, transfers, refunds, bank interest and aggregated small receipts).

The same committee also reported $0 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2019), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organization	Kind	Total	Contributions
MA & NO NEW ENGLAND LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL	union or association	$1,000	2
BOSTON TEACHERS UNION PAC	union or association	$500	1
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM	union or association	$500	1
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS MA PAC	union or association	$500	1
MA ASSOC OF REALTORS POL ACTION COMM - MA RPAC	committee or PAC	$400	1
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES	union or association	$250	1
LAWYERS FOR ACTION POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$250	1

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Smizik Committee (CPF 13508). 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.