shira.photo.jpg

State Sens. Karen Spilka, Stan Rosenberg and Tom McGee talk to reporters at the Statehouse on April 16, 2015.

(The Republican photo by / Shira Schoenberg )

BOSTON - The Massachusetts Senate will not be as quick as the House to adopt a policy that would make it easier for the MBTA to privatize state services, top senators said Thursday.

A task force examining the problems at Boston's public transit agency recommended eliminating the Pacheco Law, a law that makes it harder to privatize services, as it applies to the MBTA. Gov. Charlie Baker, at a press conference, suggested that additional flexibility could be used, for example, to contract with private bus companies that have different size buses in order to increase bus service along shorter routes.

The House Ways and Means Committee included a provision in its version of the state budget released Wednesday that would suspend the Pacheco Law for five years at the MBTA.

On Thursday, however, State Sen. Thomas McGee, D-Lynn, the chairman of the Joint Committee on Transportation and chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, said he wants to have a discussion with the MBTA task force before adopting all of its recommendations, including the elimination of the Pacheco Law.

"If you look at what the Pacheco Law's all about, it is about making sure services by current employees that can provided well and efficiently aren't outsourced to other areas where there wouldn't be savings," McGee said.

Senate President Stan Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said he too would like more data on whether the Pacheco Law is actually hampering reforms at the MBTA. The Pacheco Law also gets into an ideological debate about whether services can be provided more efficiently through government or the private sector. "The Pacheco Law is really a political target," Rosenberg added. "We ought to be driving policy based on outcomes and data and how things actually work and what makes sense."

Rosenberg said he would prefer to see a bill to eliminate the law filed as its own bill, so it can be debated and considered through public hearings and committee deliberations, rather than being one of hundreds of budget amendments.