Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 7, § 52 (2026)

Privatization contracts; need to regulate

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 52. The general court hereby finds and declares that using private contractors to provide public services formerly provided by state employees does not always promote the public interest. To ensure that citizens of the commonwealth receive high quality public services at low cost, with due regard for the taxpayers of the commonwealth and the needs of public and private workers, the general court finds it necessary to regulate such privatization contracts in accordance with sections fifty-three to fifty-five, inclusive. The general court does not intend to restrict the use of community facilities to provide care for clients of state agencies, if any privatization contract relating to such facilities otherwise complies with the provisions of said sections fifty-three to fifty-five, inclusive.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 509 v. Dep't of Mental Health, 14 N.E.3d 216 (Mass. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 509 v. Dep't of Mental Health, 14 N.E.3d 216 (Mass. 2014). · cites it 3× “” G. L. c. 7, § 52. See MBTA, supra at 787, quoting Senate Committee on Ways and Means, Fiscal Year 1994 Budget Recommendations 2-21 (June 1993) (noting that “some privatization has indeed come at the citizens’ expense”).”

Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Auditor of the Commonwealth, 724 N.E.2d 288 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 2× “” G. L. c. 7, § 52. Section 53 defines “privatization contract” as “an agreement or combination or series of agreements by which a nongovernmental person or entity agrees with an agency to provide services, valued at one hundred thousand dollars or more, which *786 are…”

Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 509 v. Dep't of Mental Health, 63 N.E.3d 1097 (Mass. 2016). “To ensure that citizens of the [CJommon-wealth receive high quality public services at low cost, with due regard for the taxpayers of the [C]ommonwealth and the needs of public and private workers, the [GJeneral [C]ourt finds it necessary to regulate such privatization contracts…”

Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 509 v. Auditor of the Commonwealth, 64 N.E.3d 257 (Mass. 2016). “” See G. L. c. 7, § 52. Here, there was ample evidence before the Auditor that DMH controlled the procedure, criteria, and outcome of the solicitation process.”

Rob Sand, Auditor of the State of Iowa v. John Doe, in His Off. Capacity & Unnamed State Agency, State of Iowa (Iowa 2021). “See Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 7 §§ 52–55 (West, Westlaw current through chapter 3 of 2021 1st Ann.”

Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 509 v. Massachusetts Dep't of Mental Health, 33 Mass. L. Rptr. 51 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2015). “” These procedures include solicitation of competitive sealed bids and certification to the state auditor (the Auditor) that the contract cost will be less than the estimated expense of such services if provided by regular agency employees.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.