Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Massachusetts Question 2, Limits on State Consultant Contracts and Spending Initiative (1990)
| Massachusetts Question 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Administrative organization |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Massachusetts Question 2 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Massachusetts on November 6, 1990. It was defeated.
A “yes” vote supported this ballot initiative to regulate the state's use of consultants by limiting allowable costs, capping contract amounts and durations, requiring competitive bidding for larger contracts, restricting consultants from supervising or replacing state employees, setting annual spending limits for state entities, and requiring annual reporting on consultant contracts to the legislature and Inspector General. |
A “no” vote opposed this ballot initiative to regulate the state's use of consultants by limiting allowable costs, capping contract amounts and durations, requiring competitive bidding for larger contracts, restricting consultants from supervising or replacing state employees, setting annual spending limits for state entities, and requiring annual reporting on consultant contracts to the legislature and Inspector General. |
Election results
|
Massachusetts Question 2 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 1,038,174 | 45.44% | ||
|
|
1,246,739 | 54.56% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Question 2 was as follows:
| “ | Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives before May 2, 1990? | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
The proposed law would place restrictions on the State's use of consultants. It would place various limits on the amount of profit, overhead charges and expenses that the State could pay consultants. It would limit the duration of consultant contracts to two years and any extension to one year, and it would limit the degree to which such contracts could be changed to require payments in excess of the original contract. The proposed law would limit to $100,000 the amount the State could pay on a consultant contract with an individual and would require all other consultant contracts in excess of $25,000 to be sought through competitive bidding. It would prohibit consultants from supervising State employees, and it would limit the use of consultants as substitutes for State employee positions. In addition, the proposed law would place limits on the total amount of money State agencies, departments and Authorities could spend on consultants each year. Subsidiary provisions would also establish a method for these entities to gradually come into compliance with the new spending limits and would give authority to the State Secretary of Administration and Finance, on request, to permit some spending in excess of the new limits. The proposed law would also require State agencies, departments and Authorities as well as the Secretary of Administration and Finance to submit yearly reports concerning the State's consultant contracts to certain legislative committees and to the Inspector General. Finally, the proposed law provides that any of its provisions, if found by a court to be unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, would be severed from the law and the remaining provisions would continue in effect. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.
While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.
In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Massachusetts also has a distribution requirement that requires no more than 25% of the certified signatures on any petition can come from a single county.
The state Legislature has until the first Wednesday of May in the election year to pass the statute. If the legislature does not pass the proposed statute, proponents must collect a second round of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The Legislature also has the power to place an alternative measure alongside the proposed statute via a simple majority vote of the state legislature.
A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. However, the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 30% of the votes cast in the election.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
