Bill
H 3354
Massachusetts bill H.3354 prohibits members of the General Court from receiving or requesting compensation related to CPCS duties.
Note on sources and scope
- The materials provided contain two different legislative texts combined into one document:
1) A Massachusetts House bill labeled H.3354 (Rep. Steven S. Howitt) titled “An Act relative to CPCS reimbursement,” and
2) A draft South Carolina statutory addition (Section 2‑1‑260) requiring large nonprofit corporations to report certain benefits when they conduct major layoffs.
- Below are concise summaries of each text, their key provisions, affected parties, and procedural/timeline elements. Confirm the authoritative bill language and jurisdiction with the originating legislative website for final legal detail.
Title: An Act relative to CPCS reimbursement
Purpose and intent
- To prohibit members of the General Court (Massachusetts Legislature) from accepting or requesting compensation in connection with duties related to the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS).
Key provisions
- Amends Section 6B of Chapter 211D (Mass. Gen. Laws) by inserting a paragraph that: “No member of the general court shall directly or indirectly receive or request compensation, in relation to the duties prescribed in Section 5.”
- Section 5 (not reproduced) presumably describes duties related to CPCS; the amendment ties the compensation prohibition specifically to those duties.
Who is affected
- Members of the Massachusetts General Court (state legislators).
- Indirectly affects CPCS operations and any third parties who might have previously provided compensation to legislators tied to CPCS duties.
Procedural / timeline
- Introduced and first read 01/14/2025 by Rep. Steven S. Howitt.
- Referred to Committee on Judiciary (dates in the record also show referral to State Administration and Regulatory Oversight; record contains duplicated entries).
- Status in the provided actions: “Referred to committee,” “Senate concurred,” and hearing scheduling entries (see section below).
Potential impact
- Seeks to eliminate potential conflicts of interest or appearance of impropriety by preventing legislators from being paid (directly or indirectly) in connection with CPCS responsibilities.
- Narrow in scope: targets compensation tied to Section 5 duties rather than a broad ban on all outside income.
(Separate jurisdictional text included in the file)
Purpose and intent
- Increase transparency and legislative/local oversight when very large nonprofit corporations impose substantial workforce reductions.
Key provisions
- Applies to nonprofit corporations located in South Carolina with annual gross revenue exceeding $1 billion that impose a reduction in force (RIF) of more than 100 employees in the same year.
- Requires the nonprofit to prepare and deliver, within 30 days of the RIF:
- A report listing all economic and procedural benefits under S.C. law the nonprofit is eligible to use because of its nonprofit status;
- The monetary value of each such benefit;
- Why each benefit is necessary for its operation; and
- An explanation why the RIF was necessary.
- Deliver the report to:
- South Carolina Senate Finance Committee;
- South Carolina House Ways and Means Committee;
- The local governing body of each county where the nonprofit is located.
- Committees/local bodies must place the report on a meeting agenda within 60 days of receipt (or within 60 days after session convenes if received while the General Assembly is out of session).
- The nonprofit must make representatives available to testify at those meetings.
Definitions and scope
- “Economic and procedural benefits” explicitly include tax credits, deductions, exemptions, exclusions, preferential tax benefits, and elimination of administrative requirements.
- “Reduction in force” defined as elimination of a position without intent to replace it.
- Effective upon approval by the Governor.
Who is affected
- Large nonprofit corporations (annual gross revenue > $1 billion) that carry out layoffs of more than 100 employees in a year.
- State legislative oversight committees and local county governments; potentially taxpayers and public stakeholders.
Potential impact
- Increases public disclosure and legislative scrutiny of large nonprofits that receive public tax or administrative advantages but nonetheless conduct major layoffs.
- May impose compliance and reporting costs on affected nonprofits and could prompt public or legislative inquiries/hearings.
- Could influence nonprofit decision‑making around workforce reductions or encourage greater justification/mitigation measures.
If you want, I can:
- Retrieve and compare the official bill text(s) from the Massachusetts and South Carolina legislative websites and produce an updated single-jurisdiction summary; or
- Draft a one‑page explainer focused only on the Massachusetts CPCS amendment or only on the South Carolina nonprofit reporting requirement.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
