 Good evening and welcome back to Byline. This is a public affairs show here at Amherst Media co-sponsored by the Amherst League of Women Voters. And we've been visiting with a lot of our town council members and town officials. Today we're going to meet for the second time with our new state representative, Mindy Dom. Welcome Mindy. Thank you very much. It's great to be back. Thank you. You did such a great job the first time. I've been getting all kinds of comments and people saying, when is she coming on again? And I think they actually would like you to replace me here on this side as well. No. We're all comfortable where we are. Where we are for the moment. Very good. So let's dig in. You're in about, oh let's see, when we're taping this show, which isn't, it's a little bit a few weeks before it's going to be broadcast, but you're in about 120 days now. Yes. How's it feeling? It feels great. It is the most fascinating job I've ever had. The pace is very hectic, which is great. There's no room for boredom. And I feel like I'm getting an opportunity to advocate for the district and for issues that are of concern to the district. And I'm also getting a chance to touch base and come back and kind of get replenished by the district. So it feels good. Yeah. Well, that's the great thing about coming home and putting your feet back on the ground here. Absolutely. And seeing your constituents and your supporters and your friends to get energized to go back there for battle. That's right. Very good. So we want to cover a few things tonight because just a couple of weeks ago, you folks were in the throes of the budget debate, and that was your first budget debate. So I'd like to talk with you a little bit about that experience. Tell us what it felt like to be in that fishbowl and with 160 members running around trying to pursue 100, I guess it was 1500 amendments or so or even more. Yeah. Tell us. I loved it. I loved budget week. So as many of your viewers may know, that's our main job at the state legislature is creating a budget, right? And passing it on to the governor for the next fiscal year. And in the house, it occupies everybody for this period of time. And so we all get a chance to submit amendments. The budget comes out on Wednesday. We have three days to submit amendments. I submitted four amendments. Many people submit a lot more. Some don't submit any. And then the week following our submission of amendments, the House Ways and Means staff are putting together and organizing all these amendments into different subject areas. And then we come back the next week, and we have what you call a debate. I actually, I'm not sure it was actually a debate. It was more like a conversation about what amendments people support and don't support and what's actually going to go into the budget. And I loved it. And when you say it was more like a conversation than a debate, explain that because I think I know what you mean, but people who don't know the process in terms of how the House handles the amendments may not understand what that means. Well, even before we submitted amendments, House Ways and Means holds statewide hearings, as you know, being the former chair of that committee, where they hear from the administration as to what they want, advocacy organizations and individuals as to what they want. They also, the chair of House Ways and Means gives his schedule to members for like two months saying that if you want to meet with them for 15 minutes and give them like a 15 minute pitch on what your district needs or what your statewide concerns are, you can do that, which I did. I went and met with the chair and I brought two letters. One was specific to the district and one was about statewide issues that are of concern to the district. And then that staff takes all that information and creates a draft budget. And then we look at that budget as members and we get to say they didn't include the things I wanted, so I'm going to go in and try to amend it. Then during budget week, each of those subject areas, education, energy and the environment, transportation has a set time where we go into room 348. It's not mysterious, it's actually just a room. And the House Ways and Means leadership is there as well as the chairs from these committees and every member who wants to speak on an amendment goes into that room and has their time to say, you know, I hope that you'll consider putting this amendment back in and give a little explanation why. Some members do it about one amendment, maybe their own. Other people will go in and give a slew of amendments. And I love that part because we really get to see not only what my colleagues are concerned about and what their districts want and what projects are important to them, but what their advocacy style is and what their priorities are. And nobody is adversarial in the room. So it's really just advocacy without animus. I loved it. I went to every single meeting from start to finish. I scheduled myself to talk at the end after I heard everybody and I'm still junior and I want to see what people do. And I felt like I really walked away with a better understanding of the common wealth and about the specific members in the room. How long was that meeting? Those meetings, well, it depends on what the subject area is, but it could go up to about an hour, an hour and 15 minutes. So it wasn't really debate in that way. It was more like a conversation. A colleague of mine said it felt like being at a Thanksgiving table, because we're around a round table. And people come forward and say, here's what is of concern to me. I thought it was a really- How many members were in the typical? And it's only members, correct? It's only members of the house and so it wasn't 160 people. But the really packed room could be probably about, at any given time, maybe 30 to 40 people. And then after most people, after they gave their speech, they left. A lot of the newly elected and I did not. I stayed there for the whole time. And so I got to see also how veteran legislators and non-veteran legislators would approach the leadership and how they would make their pitch. And then what happens after that one hour or so meeting is over? Then the leadership sort of takes in all that information. And I saw the spreadsheet that they used to sort of record our presentations, which was really intricate. And they develop a consolidated amendment where they take in some of the amendments and they create a whole new amendment to that section, which includes some of the things that members had asked for and wanted. And that's what we debate and discuss and vote on. And at that point, your amendment might be still left out. Right. It might be put in in part. Right. Or it may put in exactly as you wanted. Right, and so I'm going two for three. So I asked for two local amendments, and I did not get them in full. I got them in part, which is good because it's something. Now that budget goes to the Senate, so maybe they'll add in a little bit more. And one of my amendments I didn't get at all, which was and was kind of statewide, but also had direct local impact. It was to increase the UMass budget by $10.2 million to freeze undergraduate tuition for the next year. And that was not put in. But who knows, maybe the Senate will put it in. Well, they've typically looked to the Senate to add higher education spending. It's been a pattern for decades, decades. Occasionally, the House will match the governor's number and the Senate will match that number. But for the most part, the governor has the low number. The House has one that's a little bit higher. And then the Senate adds. Well, add some more. And then they'll have to figure between the House and the Senate. At that point, they'll have to come up with their identical. What the compromise number is going to be. So let's talk before we go into the detail about the other amendments that you filed and that you got in whole or part. A lot of people criticize the consolidated amendment process because it's all behind the scenes. And the public doesn't get to hear a debate on each of the amendments. And it doesn't get to see a vote on each of the amendments. When a vote is taken, it's taken on a whole pile of amendments at the same time. So there could be 10, 20, 50, 100 amendments embedded in that one vote. Absolutely. So tell me your perspective on that because, again, we're very big on transparency around here. And people really want to understand how that works and how you feel as a representative using that process. This particular budget, I felt okay about it. Because I also thought that the budget that House Ways and Means provided us with initially was a really pretty good budget. Like it increased money for housing and homelessness services. It increased money for adult education. It increased money for libraries, HIV AIDS funding. There were a lot of pieces of the budget that we were originally given that I thought really focused on vulnerable populations and increased support for those folks. People with developmental disabilities, the programs that serve them were increased a great deal. So that left me with a lot of feeling of trust to tell you the truth to leadership. And I do like the people who are in leadership in ways of means. They come to that from the mental health field, the drug and alcohol treatment field, the nursing field. And I'm new, so I know I can't write a budget because I'm still figuring that out. If the budget had been very different, I probably might feel very different about the process. But because I felt like the budget really lived up to a lot of expectations, it really did a great job with childcare and early education. Before we even touched it, that made me feel like I could have faith. Plus, I don't really want to sit and have 30 minute debates on all the amendments that I heard about in room 348. The dog park in another community, the fire hydrant that needs to be repaired. I think it's fine that they had an opportunity that my colleagues had an opportunity to say this is what my constituents need. And that I got a chance to learn about it, but debate it for 30 minutes. I don't know if that's the best time for members of the house. In a different scenario, I might feel very differently about the process. This time around for my first one, I liked it. And it also, like I said, it gave me an opportunity to hear information from other members that I can use in building future coalitions that I otherwise would not have had. Would not have. Okay, and how about the actual debate and vote on the consolidated amendment? Was there debate on most of those? Well, there wasn't debate, but there was a couple of sections where people pulled things out and were able to debate it. Okay, and that's because they were not satisfied and wanted another bite at the end. Exactly, and so there is an opportunity if you want, if you're like, I'm mad that they didn't do $10.2 million for UMass for a freeze. I could have taken that and called for a roll call vote on it. I decided not to do that with that because I really just wanted a conversation to happen and maybe that conversation will continue onto the Senate. But there were a couple of members who pulled things out and we debated them. And they were voted down, in some cases they were voted down. I'm trying to think if there was one that was, I think there was one that was approved, but I forget what it was. And so that worked out well. And was that on a roll call vote? Yes, and so that worked out well for that member. And was that against leadership's intention? Well, it was just against the budget as it existed. As it existed. There was also- You mean that amendment as it existed? I think that happened twice, that there were two amendments that were brought up. So that means that the people who are bringing them up don't agree with what leadership and ways it means did. And their amendments actually passed. So that meant that the body could weigh in on that. And there were a couple amendments that didn't pass. Okay, so let's talk about the specific amendments of yours that did pass. Let's start with one that's really critical, which is Craig's Door, which has been something that this community has made available, which very few communities do, which is a winter shelter for people with substance abuse problems. And most shelters are what are called dry shelters. This one is not, you cannot be using in the shelter. But you can stay there even if you're not in recovery at the moment. Right, and if you're not sober at the moment. And if you're not sober at the moment. And so it's a well-staffed and well-managed facility. And for years, we've been getting an earmark. Starting with you, I think, yes. Yes, and Representative Ellen's story was actually the one who started that with earmarks in the House budget, and then I picked it up in the Senate. And we made sure that it got done. But we ran into a little bit of a problem last year. And so a new scenario was worked out, which is now actually being implemented through this budget. Yep, hopefully. So why don't you describe that for us? So I think that we all thought that homeless services shouldn't be subject to an earmark, right? If we think that everybody should have a place to stay at night, especially in the winter, then it shouldn't be subject to this special appeal. It should be part of the program, right? And I think what's happened in the past year is when it was an earmark, depending on what our revenues were in the end of the calendar year, sometimes it would be dangled and we're not sure if we can fund it. Right in the middle of the winter, right in the middle when organizations like Craig's Doors need certainty and stability. It was always maybe yes, maybe no. So when I came in, I also didn't want one of my earmark requests to always be for only one non-profit or human service organization, because we have a lot of them in the Third Hampshire. And I think that I really want to be able to sort of spread the love. So when I came in, what had already been in works by you as well as my predecessor was trying to see if we could get it within the line that the governor's budget has. And right now that's where it is. And so one of my earmarks was just to make sure that that happened in that line. But that means that the House doesn't have to add money into that line. And that's a big plus. And to the administration's credit, they included it in their budget. Absolutely. To House Ways and Means credit. And to your credit, it's included in the House budget. And now hopefully Senator Comerford will be able to hold that in place in the Senate budget. And that will be a permanent solution to this problem. Not an annual fight to get the earmark. So that's terrific. And isn't this also going to involve a partnership with another agency? I think that hasn't yet happened. But I think that this potentially gives sort of more support if that was an option that people wanted to choose to do. And I think that the other piece of making sure that it's in there is that the House budget, because the original House budget increased the line for housing and homelessness services. That actually protected the Craig Storrs Fund. So that's a great thing. Terrific. OK, what was the other budget amendment? And the two other ones that I did that were very local was a request for the John Musanti Health Center, which I got a part of, which is terrific, as a new access point for medical care for not only Amherst and Pelham and Granby, but the whole area. And the other piece was a part of funding that the towns of Amherst and Pelham were looking for to be able to do a feasibility study on congregate energy and choice, and community choice around energy. And they're doing that in partnership with Northampton to not only do an aggregation around energy just to be able to save folks' money, but they want to have this extra element of save money and reduce fossil fuels. Fantastic. And so I'm really excited about that. I'm very excited about that, too, because I put the municipal aggregation language in the bill that created the utility deregulation, which then led to a number of places, but not yet here, aggregating energy purchase for savings. So your work continues. Well, it takes a long time for some of these things to actually get implemented. So I'm really glad that here you are. Let's see, you're the fourth state rep after me, and you're actually bringing that to life. So thank you. Thanks to the towns of Amherst and Pelham for wanting to do it. That's great. OK, so let's shift gears here for a second. You had some very interesting constitutional amendments that you proposed. I did. And by the time the viewers are watching this, the deadline will have come and gone for legislative action. But tell us about the hearing and the prognosis today about what you think is likely to happen on those. So today, the hearing that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary had was terrific. I had two amendments. One would allow everybody, not just people who identify as Quakers, who are public officials, to not only swear in their oath, but if they chose, they could affirm their oath. Right now, according to the Massachusetts Constitution, that choice is only reserved for people who are Quakers. Everybody else has to swear in their oath. So the amendment for that is to give the choice to everybody. And the second amendment was to. And that one's moving positively. And that one's moving along. So as a result of the hearing, the committee took that in. They amended it a little bit in a really good way, which I'll talk about in a moment. And they have, I guess, reported it out with an ought to pass piece. And so actually, as we speak right now, next week, I expect that the House will be voting on that. Because May 8th is the deadline to vote on constitutional amendments. Constitutional amendments have very specific, complicated, and long journey. And it starts not only with the hearing, but it has to be taken up very early in the session. The vote has to happen pretty early. It has to go to a constitutional convention. And the process has to happen again the next session. And we should clarify what the vote in the House is next week. Has the clerk, have you talked with the clerk about the actual vote? I think in what way? So on most bills, when it appears on the House floor, it's for a vote up or down, yes or no. We agree with it. This vote is shall it appear on the constitutional convention calendar. So it moves it along. It moves it along, but it's not the House voting on the substance. Oh, that's a very good point. It's voting on moving it to the next stage of the process. Right. So that's a great point, because it means that members can actually vote for it without saying I support it. They're just saying I think that the constitutional convention can do it. So it's kicking that can down the road. And there's one other little twist here. And that is that it doesn't automatically come to the floor for that action. A member has to request that it go to that next stage. So I think I've done that. I think that's the report out on request. And it's coming up with other constitutional amendments. There's like maybe 10 or 12 of them. One of them is the fair share amendment. That's terrific. I think there's also a constitutional amendment that I spoke in favor of that will be before us to vote. And that's to allow no excuse absentee voting, because that's also something that has to amend the Constitution. My second amendment, however, was reported out not to pass. And that was the one that struck all the he's and replaced them with days. And I decided not to pursue it. I could have. But I thought, you know what? If and when I get it re-elected, hopefully when, I'll bring it back the next session. And I actually flagged it for the chair of the judiciary committee and said, I won't push it now, but I'll be coming back with it. But they did something with the oath amendment that was really terrific. In that section, it refers to public officials as he. And so when they amended it, they took out the he, and they replaced it with the person. So they've already started to chisel away at the language. You've already gotten a little toe in the water. That's right. So next time maybe it won't be the he's to the days. It'll be the he's to the person, because we'll have already done this one. Well, it's very unusual for a first term legislator to propose a constitutional amendment. And it's even more unusual for it to advance, to actually get on the calendar. So that's very exciting to hear that you took that initiative and that you're building support for it. OK, so now let's go to something else. I read recently in the Daily Hampshire Gazette that you and Natalie Blay, a new state representative from Franklin County, co-authored a letter talking about the use of campaign funds for daycare. Yes, child care expenses. Could you talk about that a little bit? Sure. On the federal level, you can use your campaign funds to pay for campaign-related child care expenses. So this is really about supporting parents who have small children to be able to run for public office. Because if they can't pay for the amount of campaign funds, it's either a personal expenditure or they're bringing their kids along with them, which may be fine, but in not all cases. And also, sometimes parents get sort of subject to judgment about that. Why are they bringing their kids around with them? And so on the state level, though, you still can't use campaign-related funds for campaign-related child care expenses. And so this bill would allow that to happen. And I think some people think, oh, it's really important for moms and women. It's just really important for parents who are thinking about running to know that they can raise funds that then can help them care for their kids so they can be able to turn their attention fully to the campaign and not be at a disadvantage from that. And so I think it's a great bill. I'm happy to have supported it, both Repley and myself supported it very early on. We wrote the letter, actually in response to another letter that sort of inferred maybe that we weren't supporters. So we thought, well, we should take the opportunity and let people know. Right now, that bill has not been scheduled for a hearing. It sits before the Joint Committee on Election Laws. And if people are interested, they should write to the Joint Committee and say, let's have that up for a hearing so that we can bring it to the floor and allow it to be voted on. Great. Okay, so let's shift gears here for a second. And I'm gonna ask you a two-part question. Part one is, what's been the biggest disappointment so far in your whole 120 days as a state representative from the Third Hampshire District? It's gonna sound kind of hokey, but the biggest disappointment is how little work I get done on the commute back and forth. I would so much rather be able to, I mean, there are a lot of people do phone meetings and all sorts of ways to maximize their time and I don't seem to be able to do that. So that's part of my disappointment. Is that because you're driving yourself? I'm driving myself and I end up wanting to catch up on the news during that time because otherwise I don't know when I would. And so it becomes, it's great time to listen to podcasts and news, but not great time to be distracted with the meeting when I can't take notes from it. But I, you know, there haven't been too many disappointments. It's not like everything's lived up to my expectations because I'm not sure what my expectations were, but it's still incredibly fascinating and everything is an opportunity to learn. So it's going through that filter in terms of low points. Next time, I might give a little bit more thought to some juicy low points, but right now I think that's my major disappointment is that I'm not as productive in the commuting time and I would like to be. If we had a train, I could be very productive. If only we had the train. I could be very productive. And I appreciate the conversations you and I have had about East West Rail and your openness to the idea that we should be connecting both on Northern and Southern routes. Let's do it all. Yeah, because we need to be able to get people not just from Boston to Springfield to Pittsfield, but also from Boston to Greenfield to Northampton out to North Adams. Everywhere, and I actually had the opportunity to talk about that a little bit in my committee on bonds this week because we were talking about rail improvement. And so I was able to talk about creating rail for Western Massachusetts. And you know, what's interesting is, I don't know if this was there when you were there, Stan, but at the beginning of every committee meeting now, colleagues are complaining about how long it took them to get into Boston. People who live within 128, oh, it took me an hour and a half to get in, it took me two hours. And I think that's great, because I think it's also pressing the issue of if it's taking you that long, now you can get a better understanding of why we need communal rail in Western Massachusetts. It's a given people real life experience. Yes, when I started, it was under two hours all the time. From here? From here, under two hours. Of course you've got the pedal to the metal or whatever the expression is, but it's still, and now how long is it typically? Depends on what time, but generally two to two and a half. Yeah. And when I used to go in on Sunday evening and stay over at the apartment in Boston Sunday evening, I'd get there an hour and three quarters. I know, then it's like nothing. And then it was like nothing. And as you say, the ride back and forth was decompression time. And now because of cell phones and Bluetooth, meetings constantly, on the phone constantly. And keeping track of those meetings when you're driving can be hard. It's gonna be very difficult. So let's end on a high note. What's in these 120 or so days was the highlight that you're most excited about and most grateful for? I think, so in the beginning, a lot of the veteran legislators are saying, ask me anything you need. If you have a question, ask me. And you don't really want to ask, but as the session is moving along, it's really impressive to me how incredibly generous my colleagues are that they meant it. Like if I go back and ask them a question, they give me exactly what they think. They don't hold back. And I appreciate their very direct feedback and the advice. And it's a funny thing, right? Cause coalitions are built on shared values, but it also can just be shared experience. So having the conversations with people around different topics, even if we don't come out with the same issue, is giving me an anchor sort of to go back to folks. And I'm appreciating the fact that at least for now, everyone's making themselves available to that conversation. That's terrific. And so you've got the support of your constituents here. And when you're in Boston, you've got support and guidance from the veterans who can tell you, and you don't have to follow their direction or advice, but at least you get the... And they're not expecting you to follow it or not. And I have to say, the flip side of that is working in conjunction with like, Webb Lay and Senator Cumberford, and having this sort of regional partnership is quite amazing and wonderful. I really, I feel that the delegation cohesiveness is key. I don't know how we'd be doing it without it. If you don't stick together here, you're not gonna be effective there. That's right. Thank you very much for being with us. Thank you. And this is our state representative, Mindy Dom. And you can get her online. You can text her, email. She has many ways that you can reach her. You can attend her office hours. They're published. So Mindy, keep up the great work. Thank you, Steph. And thank you very much for joining us. Thank you.