Massachusetts lawmakers proposed holding back more than $100 million for county sheriffs’ offices in a spending bill released Tuesday, citing “questionable spending practices” after months of negative headlines and increased scrutiny over the elected office.
In the $2.25 billion spending bill, lawmakers proposed withholding “a majority” of the $162 million Governor Maura Healey originally proposed to fill a budget deficit and asked the state inspector general to investigate spending and issue a report.
In a statement, budget chiefs Representative Aaron Michlewitz and Senator Michael Rodrigues said their decision comes amid “serious questions and concerns” that have been raised about spending at sheriffs’ offices across the state.
“It is clear that the Legislature must act to rein in questionable spending practices and restore public confidence in the sheriffs’ operations,” they said.
The supplemental budget is meant to cover excess spending by the 14 county sheriff’s departments beyond the $737.2 million they received in the governor’s annual budget last year.
While sheriffs have said the excess costs were driven in part by salary increases and covering the state’s so-called no-cost calls program, legislators in both the House and Senate had asked the sheriffs for a more detailed breakdown, the Globe has reported.
The inspector general’s report, due at the end of February, would include investigations into sheriffs’ spending, compliance with state finance law, and recommendations, lawmakers proposed.
The sheriffs have faced increased scrutiny in recent months from lawmakers, state regulators, and prosecutors.
Since last fall, sheriffs in Norfolk, Hampden, and Suffolk counties have been accused of misusing campaign funds, drunken driving, and extorting a cannabis company, respectively.
Steve Tompkins, Suffolk County’s sheriff and a Democrat in his second full term, pleaded not guilty to the federal extortion charges and sought to have them dismissed. He agreed in August to “step away” from his post amid his federal criminal case.
Patrick McDermott, Norfolk County’s sheriff, last week stepped down as head of a state-funded sheriffs’ group, saying he wanted to “focus my full attention” on his office. The move came weeks after he agreed to pay $36,300 under a deal with state campaign finance regulators, who said he unlawfully used campaign money to further his business interests.
The Globe reported last week that McDermott tapped his taxpayer-funded office for thousands of dollars in online tutorials, including on how to grow a business, launch a podcast, and craft his own digital courses. He has not created a course or podcast within his office, but began advertising an outside venture promising a “game-changing membership” that — for a $670 annual fee — offered advice to subscribers to help them take their “real estate business to the next level.”
Separately, a state commission established last year has been examining how state-run correctional facilities and sheriff-run county jails could be reshaped or even consolidated. The sheriffs’ offices also help enforce evictions, serve summons, and handle other civil process duties.
Several sheriffs have defended their offices, arguing that, unlike appointed bureaucrats, they are accountable to local voters.
In a statement, Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald Jr. said supplemental budgets have “historically been used” to fund the sheriff’s annual budgets and that his office “will continue to work in good faith with full transparency.”
The Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association said in a statement that sheriffs “respect the Legislature’s responsibility” and “share that commitment to responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”
“We welcome any review that strengthens public confidence and supports our continued focus on operating safe, efficient facilities that help people rebuild their lives,” the group wrote.
While the bill holds back most funds for sheriffs’ offices, lawmakers included $14 million for an alcohol and substance use treatment program and $12.5 million for free prison and jail calls.
The bill proposed Tuesday is smaller than the $2.45 billion version filed by the governor in August, and tucked in several policy measures, including creating a fund to help the state withstand unexpected funding cuts from President Trump’s Washington and language that gives the Department of Public Health the power to determine which vaccines pharmacists can administer in Massachusetts, regardless of guidance coming out of Washington.
It also included $15 million to spend on sports and entertainment, including $10 million for costs related to hosting the 2026 World Cup, $12 million for free school meals, $10 million for a public awareness campaign about new Medicaid work requirements, and $5 million in grants to reproductive health care providers who lost federal funding.
Samantha J. Gross can be reached at samantha.gross@globe.com. Follow her @samanthajgross. Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout.