Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Upton Property Disposition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Massachusetts Senate orders Upton property bill to third reading after committee report

3723663 · June 9, 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

The Massachusetts Senate suspended its rules by unanimous consent and ordered to a third reading a bill reported "ought to pass" by the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight concerning disposition of certain property in the town of Upton.

At a session of the Massachusetts Senate, the chamber ordered to a third reading a bill reported "ought to pass" by the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight that would provide for the disposition of certain property in the town of Upton.

Senator Dumas, speaking for the committee, reported a petition accompanied by bills described in the record as settlement 2135 relating to Ryan C. Fatman and David K. Marie and said the committee recommended the bill "ought to pass." The chair then sought and received unanimous consent from both sides to suspend the rules so the matter could be considered forthwith.

After the rules were suspended, the Senate voice-voted to order the bill to a third reading; the record shows the clerk announcing, "The ayes have it," and the bill was ordered to a third reading by voice vote. No roll-call vote or recorded tally was entered in the transcript.

The action advances the measure to a third-reading stage on the Senate calendar; the transcript does not specify a calendar date for that reading or any substantive changes to the bill's text. The committee report and the Senate's procedural move were the only substantive actions recorded in the transcript concerning the Upton property matter.

No amendments, fiscal notes, or implementation dates for the disposition were specified in the recorded remarks, and the transcript does not record any public testimony or debate on the substance of the property disposition provision.