Commonwealth Report Legislators Method

Senate · Democrat

Paul R. Feeney

Current member · Bristol and Norfolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Foxborough

First elected

Senate 2017 (special)

Prior public offices

Chair, Foxborough Board of Selectmen (2009 - 2010); Member, Foxborough Board of Selectmen (2007 - 2010)

Occupation

Legislator / Former Union Telecommunications Technician

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
SessionChamberDistrictLinesNote
190th (2017–18)SenateBristol and Norfolk2011 lines
191st (2019–20)SenateBristol and Norfolk2011 lines
192nd (2021–22)SenateBristol and Norfolk2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)SenateBristol and Norfolk2021 lines
194th (2025–26)SenateBristol and Norfolk2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Paul R. Feeney was paid $362,984 in leadership and committee stipends from 2017 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
SessionPostsFirst yearSecond year
190th (2017–18)Chair, Joint Committee on Public Service; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Public Health$3,341$20,200
191st (2019–20)Chair, Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure; Vice chair, Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight$21,881$21,881
192nd (2021–22)Chair, Joint Committee on Financial Services; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure$39,993$39,993
193rd (2023–24)Chair, Joint Committee on Financial Services; Vice chair, Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight$48,032$48,032
194th (2025–26)Assistant Vice Chair, Senate Committee on Ways and Means; Chair, Joint Committee on Financial Services$67,293$52,339 (to date)

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 2021 lines: 7 cities and towns, 181,920 residents (2020).

Attleboro · North Attleborough · Canton · Mansfield · Norton · Foxborough · 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: 41 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
190th (2017–18)Bristol and Norfolk$752,000$12,000$2.25 · 37th of 40$2.22 · 37th of 40
191st (2019–20)Bristol and Norfolk$711,000$0$2.13 · 37th of 40$2.13 · 37th of 40
192nd (2021–22)Bristol and Norfolk$1.1M$0$3.42 · 39th of 40$3.42 · 39th of 40
193rd (2023–24)Bristol and Norfolk$1.7M$0$4.74 · 39th of 40$4.74 · 39th of 40
194th (2025–26)Bristol and Norfolk$1.1M$0$6.01 · 30th of 40$6.01 · 30th 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
190th (2017–18)Bristol and Norfolk$552,000$1.65 · 40th of 40$752,000$2.25 · 40th of 40
191st (2019–20)Bristol and Norfolk$886,000$2.66 · 40th of 40$886,000$2.66 · 40th of 40
192nd (2021–22)Bristol and Norfolk$1.2M$3.72 · 40th of 40$1.3M$3.87 · 40th of 40
193rd (2023–24)Bristol and Norfolk$2.1M$5.90 · 38th of 40$2.1M$5.90 · 39th of 40
194th (2025–26)Bristol and Norfolk$1.4M$7.71 · 30th of 40$32.4M$178 · 1st of 40

Budget amendments

Paul R. Feeney sponsored 224 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $67.3 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

224

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

46%

103 of 224

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

49%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 224 with a known outcome, 103 were adopted (46%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 110 (49%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Paul R. Feeney filed (strong text matches)
YearAmountEnacted budget text (excerpt)Amendment
FY2024$3M“sustain low-threshold sponsor-based leasing that had been previously linked to the pay-for-success projects funded through the Social Innovation…”S3 #231
FY2022$733,000 (shared three ways)“not less than $2,200,000 for municipalities hosting department of correction facilities”S3 #661
FY2021$733,000 (shared three ways)“not less than $2,200,000 for municipalities hosting department of correction facilities”S4 #316
FY2023$500,000“the Economic Empowerment Trust Fund established in section 35QQ of chapter 10 of the General Laws”S4 #274
FY2020$500,000“a statewide permanent supportive housing program to serve people experiencing long-term homelessness and who have complex medical and behavioral…”S3 #774

Strong matches: 87 enacted items, $10.7 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). A further three weaker text matches are not listed; attribution is inferred from amendment text and is less certain there.

For 24 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

Paul R. Feeney filed 373 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; five were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 1% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 1% to 3% 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 actionPending (session open)Enacted rateChamber medianCosponsored
190th (2017–18)Senate100000100%3%15
191st (2019–20)Senate561123186702%3%349
192nd (2021–22)Senate7611292941201%2%186
193rd (2023–24)Senate1011148490201%1%282
194th (2025–26)Senate1392044010921%*1%171

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

Paul R. Feeney cast 60 yes-or-no votes on the 63 accountability roll calls in this file (22 yes, 38 no, three for a named candidate).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
DateMeasureVoteChamber result
January 31, 2019Amendment 1.1 (Bruce E. Tarr): Posting of Committee Roll Call VotesYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 1.0 (Walter F. Timilty): Improving Access to RecordsYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Informal SessionYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Conference Committee ReportNoYeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Audit of accountsYesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableJoint rules (S9), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 1.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Non disclosure agreementsYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 7.1 (Rebecca L. Rausch): anti-harassment and assaultYesYeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Numbers of bills considered at a hearingYesYeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019Amendment 17.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Matters considered in an informal sessionNoYeas 6, nays 33
January 31, 2019Amendment 25.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consentNoYeas 6, nays 33
not availableSenate rules (S8), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableSenate President election (contested meaning)Voted for Karen E. Spilkanot available
February 11, 2021Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Members receiving SWM GAA recommendationNoYeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnightNoYeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pmNoYeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 8.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive formal sessionsNoYeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 15.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Anti-harassment and bystander intervention trainingNoYeas 10, nays 29
February 11, 2021Amendment 20.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Amendments to other appropriations billsNoYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Accessibility; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021Supplier diversity; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021Amendment 42.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Consideration of further and redrafted amendmentsNoYeas 7, nays 32
February 11, 2021Amendment 44.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): HearingsNoYeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021Amendment 49.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Adoption amendment - Rule 24NoYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Minority Leader appointments to committees (partisan allocation) (contested meaning)NoYeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021Amendment 24.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Notice of legislative mattersNoYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): New items on the calendarNoYeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of conference committee reportNoYeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021Amendment 14.0 (James B. Eldridge): Lengthening public notice period for legislative hearingsYesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableSenate President election (contested meaning)Voted for Karen E. Spilkanot available
February 9, 2023Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive Legislative DaysNoYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time of recess for consideration of new mattersNoYeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pmNoYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnightNoYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Manner of how member votedNoYeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023Amd 23 (Rodrigues) strikes Rule 11B, the 8-year term limit on the Senate President; adopted 32-6YesYeas 32, nays 6
February 9, 2023Strike remote-participation rules 57C/57D (contested meaning)NoYeas 3, nays 35
February 9, 2023Remote voting conditions (contested meaning)NoYeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023Senate rules (S17), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 37, nays 1
February 9, 2023Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of Conference Committee ReportNoYeas 4, nays 35
February 9, 2023Amendment 12.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Adding a Minority ReportNoYeas 3, nays 36
not availableJoint rules (S18), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
not availableSenate President election (contested meaning)Voted for Karen E. Spilkanot available
February 12, 2025Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Number of bills to be heardNoYeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025Amendment 9.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Minority conference committee reportNoYeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): 48 Hours for conference committee reportsNoYeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timeline for review of conference committee reportsNoYeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025Amendment 22.0 (John F. Keenan): Considering Conference ReportsNoYeas 9, nays 29
February 12, 2025Amendment 26.0 (John F. Keenan): Preventing Unjustified Financial Gain for Members and Their FamilesYesYeas 38, nays 0
February 12, 2025Amendment 29.0 (John F. Keenan): Limiting Joint Committee ExtensionsNoYeas 6, nays 32
not availableJoint rules (S15), rules package: question on passing the bill to be engrossed (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
February 13, 2025In-person voting conditions (contested meaning)NoYeas 5, nays 32
February 13, 2025Amendment 36.0 (John F. Keenan): Continuing Beyond MidnightNoYeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025Shorten period in which a matter can be laid on the table (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)NoYeas 5, nays 33
February 13, 2025Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10PMNoYeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025Amendment 19.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Virtual vote designationNoYeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025Legislative days for Rule 24 (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)NoYeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025Senate rules (S19), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)YesYeas 39, nays 0
June 26, 2025Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: question on acceptance of conference committee report (contested meaning)YesYeas 40, nays 0
May 28, 2026S.3104 resolutions limiting the Senate's response to the Auditor to the SJC-defined 4 requests; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny; contested (contested meaning)YesYeas 33, nays 6
July 30, 2026Press shield amendment to S.3200; adopted 40-0; not about the Legislature's records (contested meaning)YesYeas 40, nays 0
July 30, 2026Amd 18 (Tarr): apply the public records law to the General Court more fullyNoYeas 6, nays 33
July 30, 2026Senate passage of H.5469 34-6; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny (too weak); contested (contested meaning)YesYeas 34, nays 6

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

Paul R. Feeney’s committee reported $397,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2017–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
YearContributions
2017$99,000
2018$97,000
2019$30,000
2020$36,000
2021$13,000
2022$45,000
2023$25,000
2024$30,000
2025$17,000
2026$5,550
By kind of contributor
KindTotalShare
Individuals$139,00035%
Unions and associations$132,00033%
Political committees and PACs$126,00032%
Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reportedShare
A named employer65%
Self-employed13%
Retired7%
Not employed6%
Homemaker or at home6%
Not reported or withheld3%

Not counted as contributions: $17,000 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 organizationKindTotalContributions
LOCAL 103 I B E Wunion or association$15,0003
MASSACHUSETTS NURSES ASSOCIATIONunion or association$15,0001
IBEW LOCAL 2321union or association$10,0003
I U P A T DISTRICT COUNCIL 35union or association$7,0003
IBEW LOCAL 2325union or association$5,8471
IBEW LOCAL 2323 TELEPHONE DIVunion or association$5,5002
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 17union or association$5,0001
MASSACHUSETTS AFL-CIO WORKING PEOPLE'S FUNDunion or association$4,75010
1199 SEIU MA PACcommittee or PAC$4,5009
IBEW LOCAL 2325 CTTEE FOR POLITICAL EDUCATION PACcommittee or PAC$4,5009

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Feeney Committee (CPF 14532). 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.