Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Pensions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Rep. Marsi files 'Souza's Law' to move MassDOT highway workers to Group 4 of state retirement system

5832610 · September 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representative John J. Marsi filed House No. 2908 on Jan. 10, 2025, proposing to reclassify Massachusetts Department of Transportation highway workers from Group 1 to Group 4 under Chapter 32 of the General Laws; two additional representatives were later added as petitioners.

Representative John J. Marsi of Dudley filed a bill Jan. 10, 2025, that would place Massachusetts Department of Transportation highway workers in Group 4 of the state contributory retirement system instead of Group 1. The bill, filed as House No. 2908 and titled "An Act Souza's Law - Change MassDOT Highway workers from Group 1 to Group 4," would amend Section 3 of Chapter 32 of the General Laws by inserting the phrase "Massachusetts Department of Transportation Highway workers;" after the word "agent;" in the statute's enumerated list. The measure's stated change is procedural: it adds the listed highway workers to Group 4 of the contributory retirement system as described in Chapter 32. The docket text does not specify the practical effects of that reclassification (for example, benefit formulas, contribution rates, or eligibility rules) nor does it state any committee referral or further legislative action in the docket entry. Representative Marcus S. Vaughn (9th Norfolk) and Representative Angelo J. Puppolo Jr. (12th Hampden) were added as petitioners on Feb. 11, 2025, according to the docket. The bill was submitted to the General Court and entered on the House docket as House No. 2908; subsequent steps such as committee assignment, hearings, or votes are not specified in the filed docket text. Because the filing is a legislative petition rather than a finalized law, any change to the retirement classification would require further legislative action through the General Court and, if enacted, implementation by the relevant state agencies.