Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

Senate · Democrat

James E. Timilty

Former member, served 2015–2017 in the sessions covered here · Bristol and Norfolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Walpole

First elected

Senate 2004

Occupation

Legislator

Left office

resigned (April 28, 2017); successor elected in special election October 17, 2017

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
189th (2015–16)SenateBristol and Norfolk2011 lines
190th (2017–18)SenateBristol and Norfolk2011 lines

Posts and stipends

James E. Timilty was paid $25,731 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2017.

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
189th (2015–16)Chair, Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Revenuenot available$15,000
190th (2017–18)Title not in the roster records; a stipend was paid$10,731not 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

Bristol and Norfolk on its 2011 lines: 9 cities and towns, 166,850 residents (2020).

Attleboro · Walpole · Mansfield · Norton · Foxborough · Seekonk · Medfield · Rehoboth · Sharon

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: 39 for all state aid and 23 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)Bristol and Norfolk$297,000$0$1.78 · 35th of 40$1.78 · 35th of 40
190th (2017–18)Bristol and Norfolk$752,000$12,000$2.25 · 37th of 40$2.22 · 37th of 40

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)Bristol and Norfolk$147,000$0.88 · 39th of 40$297,000$1.78 · 38th of 40
190th (2017–18)Bristol and Norfolk$552,000$1.65 · 40th of 40$752,000$2.25 · 40th of 40

Budget amendments

James E. Timilty sponsored 35 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $5.4 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

35

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

40%

14 of 35

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

33%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 35 with a known outcome, 14 were adopted (40%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 11 (33%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment James E. Timilty filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2017$1.1M (shared two ways)“not less than $2,200,000 for municipalities hosting department of correction facilities”S4 #1031
FY2017$150,000“the creation of a roadway at the former Medfield State Hospital property in the town of Medfield”S4 #883
FY2017$50,000“not less than $50,000 to develop a pilot program in Norfolk county to incentivize independent home health care nurses to work with patients with rare…”S4 #398
FY2017$25,000 (shared four ways)“the Children's Advocacy Center of Worcester County”S4 #399

Strong matches: 4 enacted items, $1.3 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). A further two weaker text matches are not listed; attribution is inferred from amendment text and is less certain there.

For 2 amendments the sponsor is the first mover named in the amendment text, because the Legislature’s record listed none. 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

James E. Timilty filed 196 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; one was enacted on its own. In completed sessions, 0.5% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 3% to 4% 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)Senate971140421121%4%75
190th (2017–18)Senate99016631010%3%62

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

James E. Timilty cast eight yes-or-no votes on the eight accountability roll calls in this file (five yes, three no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
January 26, 2017Senate engrossment of the pay-raise billYesYeas 31, nays 9
February 2, 2017Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Matters considered in an informal sessionYesYeas 38, nays 0
February 2, 2017Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time to consider matters in an informalYesYeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Provided with text of bills prior to pollYesYeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017Special orders by majority instead of two-thirds (contested meaning)NoYeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consentNoYeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timely Local Aid NotificationNoYeas 7, nays 32
February 2, 2017Senate override of the veto of the pay-raise billYesYeas 31, nays 9

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

James E. Timilty’s committee reported $58,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2018.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2015$28,000
2016$16,000
2017$7,100
2018$7,050
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$34,00058%
Political committees and PACs$22,00037%
Unions and associations$2,7505%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer69%
Self-employed14%
Retired6%
Homemaker or at home8%
Not reported or withheld4%

Not counted as contributions: $600 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 $6,050 in years the member was not in the Legislature (2019, 2020), for example while running for another office. Those receipts are not in the totals above.

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organizationKindTotalContributions
MA STATE POLICEindividuals, by employer$9,00018
NORFOLK COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICEindividuals, by employer$2,0004
COHEN AND MULSTEINindividuals, by employer$2,0002
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMMcommittee or PAC$1,5003
BEER DISTRIBUTORS' PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002
BOSTON FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 718 PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002
CHAPTER 25 ASSOCIATED THE NAT'L DRIVE PAC OF THE INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERScommittee or PAC$1,0002
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS LOCAL 4 PEOPLE'S CTTEEcommittee or PAC$1,0002
MA CORRECTION OFFICERS FEDERATED UNION PAC M C O F U PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PACcommittee or PAC$1,0002

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Timilty Committee (CPF 13244). 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.