Senate · Democrat

Stanley C. Rosenberg

Former member, served 2015–2018 in the sessions covered here · Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Amherst

First elected

House 1986; Senate 1991 (special)

Occupation

Legislator

Left office

resigned (May 4, 2018)

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
Session	Chamber	District	Lines	Note
189th (2015–16)	Senate	Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester	2011 lines
190th (2017–18)	Senate	Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester	2011 lines

Posts and stipends

Stanley C. Rosenberg was paid $109,153 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2017.

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
Session	Posts	First year	Second year
189th (2015–16)	President	not available	$35,000
190th (2017–18)	President (to Dec 2017)	$74,153	$0

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

Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester on its 2011 lines: 24 cities and towns, 159,261 residents (2020).

Amherst 25% · Northampton 19% · South Hadley 11% · Greenfield 11% · Montague 5% · Orange 5% · Hadley 3% · Deerfield 3% · Sunderland 2% · Hatfield 2% · Northfield 2% · Bernardston 1% · Leverett 1% · Shutesbury 1% · Erving 1% · Whately 1% · Colrain 1% · Gill under 1% · Pelham under 1% · Royalston under 1% · New Salem under 1% · Wendell under 1% · Warwick under 1% · Leyden under 1%

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: 42 for all state aid and 72 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)	Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester	$531,000	$0	$3.34 · 18th of 40	$3.34 · 18th of 40
190th (2017–18)	Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester	$1.4M	$0	$4.38 · 17th of 40	$4.38 · 17th 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)	Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester	$761,000	$4.78 · 13th of 40	$986,000	$6.19 · 10th of 40
190th (2017–18)	Hampshire, Franklin and Worcester	$2.1M	$6.66 · 12th of 40	$2.3M	$7.13 · 10th of 40

Budget amendments

Stanley C. Rosenberg sponsored one budget amendment in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $300,000 in all.

Amendments sponsored

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

100%

1 of 1

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

43%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the one with a known outcome, one was adopted (100%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, less than one (43%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Stanley C. Rosenberg filed (strong text matches)
Year	Amount	Enacted budget text (excerpt)	Amendment
FY2018	$150,000 (shared two ways)	“the Opioid Task Force in Franklin county and the North Quabbin region of the commonwealth”	S3 #987

Strong matches: 1 enacted item, $150,000 (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause).

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

Stanley C. Rosenberg filed 6 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; two were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 33% 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	Reported favorably, then died	No action	Enacted rate	Chamber median	Cosponsored
189th (2015–16)	Senate	4	1	3	0	25%	4%	11
190th (2017–18)	Senate	2	1	0	1	50%	3%	7

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

S2227 (189th): An Act relative to the retirement benefits of certain employees of the town of Erving · Chapter 168 of the Acts of 2016
S2512 (190th): An Act authorizing the city of Northampton to release a certain conservation easement · Chapter 172 of the Acts of 2018

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

Stanley C. Rosenberg cast two yes-or-no votes on the eight accountability roll calls in this file (two yes, zero no); recorded as not voting on six.

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	Not voting	Yeas 38, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time to consider matters in an informal	Not voting	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Provided with text of bills prior to poll	Not voting	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Special orders by majority instead of two-thirds (contested meaning)	Not voting	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	Not voting	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timely Local Aid Notification	Not voting	Yeas 7, nays 32
February 2, 2017	Senate override of the veto of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 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

Stanley C. Rosenberg’s committee reported $880,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2018.

By year (years in the Legislature)
Year	Contributions
2015	$280,000
2016	$287,000
2017	$309,000
2018	$3,861

By kind of contributor
Kind	Total	Share
Individuals	$788,000	90%
Political committees and PACs	$75,000	9%
Unions and associations	$18,000	2%

Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reported	Share
A named employer	67%
Self-employed	17%
Retired	7%
Not employed	1%
Homemaker or at home	4%
Not reported or withheld	6%

Not counted as contributions: $34,000 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).

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
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MA	individuals, by employer	$10,000	26
MINTZ LEVIN	individuals, by employer	$10,000	18
UMASS	individuals, by employer	$9,250	16
HORIZON BEVERAGE GROUP	individuals, by employer	$8,700	15
BAYSTATE HEALTH	individuals, by employer	$6,250	18
BLUE CROSS	individuals, by employer	$6,000	13
TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER	individuals, by employer	$5,800	9
COMM MA	individuals, by employer	$5,750	12
NEW BOSTON VENTURES	individuals, by employer	$5,000	5
RUBY WINES	individuals, by employer	$5,000	10

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Rosenberg Committee (CPF 11155). 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.