Senate · Democrat

James T. Welch

Former member, served 2015–2020 in the sessions covered here · Hampden

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

West Springfield

First elected

House 2004; Senate 2010

Prior public offices

West Springfield City Council

Occupation

Legislator, Realtor

Left office

defeated in the 2020 Democratic primary; term ended January 6, 2021

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
Session	Chamber	District	Lines
189th (2015–16)	Senate	Hampden	2011 lines
190th (2017–18)	Senate	Hampden	2011 lines
191st (2019–20)	Senate	Hampden	2011 lines

Posts and stipends

James T. Welch was paid $161,657 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2020.

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
Session	Posts	First year	Second year
189th (2015–16)	Chair, Joint Committee on Health Care Financing	not available	$15,000
190th (2017–18)	Assistant Majority Whip	$35,200	$35,200
191st (2019–20)	Chair, Joint Committee on Financial Services; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure	$38,129	$38,129

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

Hampden on its 2011 lines: 3 cities and towns, 159,804 residents (2020).

Springfield 70%, 72% of the town · West Springfield 18% · Chicopee 12%, 34% 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: 73 for all state aid and 48 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)	Hampden	$1.5M	$0	$9.54 · 1st of 40	$9.54 · 1st of 40
190th (2017–18)	Hampden	$3.2M	$5,000	$9.92 · 1st of 40	$9.90 · 1st of 40
191st (2019–20)	Hampden	$2.4M	$0	$7.44 · 4th of 40	$7.44 · 4th 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)
Session	District	Placed in the district	Per resident per budget, rank	Everything placed	Per resident per budget, rank
189th (2015–16)	Hampden	$2.1M	$13.25 · 1st of 40	$2.2M	$13.81 · 1st of 40
190th (2017–18)	Hampden	$4.5M	$14.17 · 4th of 40	$4.5M	$14.17 · 4th of 40
191st (2019–20)	Hampden	$3.7M	$11.69 · 6th of 40	$3.8M	$11.84 · 6th of 40

Budget amendments

James T. Welch sponsored 169 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $109 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

169

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

37%

62 of 169

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

48%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 169 with a known outcome, 62 were adopted (37%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 80 (48%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment James T. Welch filed (strong text matches)
Year	Amount	Enacted budget text (excerpt)	Amendment
FY2018	$1M	“in a one-time payment to a western Massachusetts regional academic health system to address regional physician shortages and enhance access to rural…”	S3 #191
FY2019	$500,000	“a western Massachusetts academic medical center with 3 community health centers for the costs associated with the intake, assessment, treatment and…”	S4 #606
FY2019	$125,000	“the Family Resolutions Specialty Court at the Hampshire probate and family court department”	S4 #1009
FY2017	$100,000	“Square One Daycare, Inc. in the city of Springfield”	S4 #485
FY2018	$75,000	“the Irish Cultural Center, Inc. of Western New England in the city known as the town of West Springfield”	S3 #709

Strong matches: 32 enacted items, $2.8 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 28 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 T. Welch filed 92 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; two were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 2% 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
Session	Chamber	Lead bills	Enacted	Folded into an enacted bill	Sent to study	Reported favorably, then died	Reported adversely or withdrawn	No action	Enacted rate	Chamber median	Cosponsored
189th (2015–16)	Senate	22	1	0	6	12	1	2	5%	4%	44
190th (2017–18)	Senate	31	0	1	8	18	0	4	0%	3%	39
191st (2019–20)	Senate	39	1	0	20	11	6	1	3%	3%	154

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

S2506 (189th): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Nereida Prats, an employee of the Department of Developmental Services · Chapter 417 of the Acts of 2016
S2672 (191st): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Angelica Rodriguez, an employee of Department of Children and Families · Chapter 103 of the Acts of 2020

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 T. Welch cast 20 yes-or-no votes on the 20 accountability roll calls in this file (13 yes, seven no).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
Date	Measure	Vote	Chamber result
January 26, 2017	Senate engrossment of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 31, nays 9
February 2, 2017	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Matters considered in an informal session	Yes	Yeas 38, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time to consider matters in an informal	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Provided with text of bills prior to poll	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Special orders by majority instead of two-thirds (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timely Local Aid Notification	No	Yeas 7, nays 32
February 2, 2017	Senate override of the veto of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 31, nays 9
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.1 (Bruce E. Tarr): Posting of Committee Roll Call Votes	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.0 (Walter F. Timilty): Improving Access to Records	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Informal Session	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Conference Committee Report	No	Yeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Audit of accounts	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Joint rules (S9), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Non disclosure agreements	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 7.1 (Rebecca L. Rausch): anti-harassment and assault	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Numbers of bills considered at a hearing	No	Yeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019	Amendment 17.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Matters considered in an informal session	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
January 31, 2019	Amendment 25.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
not available	Senate rules (S8), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0

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 T. Welch’s committee reported $141,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2020.

By year (years in the Legislature)
Year	Contributions
2015	$14,000
2016	$16,000
2017	$16,000
2018	$58,000
2019	$20,000
2020	$16,000

By kind of contributor
Kind	Total	Share
Individuals	$81,000	57%
Political committees and PACs	$57,000	41%
Unions and associations	$3,250	2%

Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reported	Share
A named employer	64%
Self-employed	22%
Retired	2%
Homemaker or at home	5%
Not reported or withheld	7%

Not counted as contributions: $14,000 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).

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organization	Kind	Total	Contributions
BAYSTATE HEALTH	individuals, by employer	$6,000	15
1199 SEIU MA PAC	committee or PAC	$3,500	7
CHICOPEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS	individuals, by employer	$3,050	6
CROSS AND SHIELD POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	committee or PAC	$3,000	6
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$3,000	6
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PAC	committee or PAC	$3,000	6
PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS OF MA PEOPLE'S CTTEE	committee or PAC	$2,500	5
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS MA PAC	committee or PAC	$2,000	4
NISOURCE INC PAC OF MA	committee or PAC	$2,000	5
MA POL ACTION COMM FOR RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH CARE	committee or PAC	$1,900	5

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Welch Committee (CPF 14191). 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.