BOSTON (SHNS) - Lawmakers are poised to dive into a Right to Shelter Law debate this year after Gov. Maura Healey recommended reforms aimed at a return to the statute's "original intent." Decades ago, the so-called right to shelter was not headline material, although costs concerns were raised. Healey last week unveiled her reforms in a letter to top legislative Democrats, including a requirement that all shelter-seeking family members be Massachusetts residents and prove an intention to remain in the state. The governor wrote that the changes "ensure the long-term sustainability of the state shelter system in a way that aligns with the original intent of the law." The videotape archive of House and Senate sessions does not extend back to the mists of 1983, when the bill (H 6694 / Chapter 450 of the Acts of 1983) emerged from incoming Gov. Michael Dukakis' inaugural pledge to help "those in desperate need." News Service session summaries can instead be used to fill the gaps and show contemporaneous legislative intent on a bill. Rep. Joseph DeNucci, the future state auditor who co-chaired the Human Services Committee and was serving his seventh year in the House, was a central figure as planning meetings hosted by Dukakis got underway. "Shelter alone is not the only answer. We need a multi-disciplinary approach to the problem. Shelter without rehabilitation is not enough," DeNucci told the press after the first homelessness huddle in January 1983. After a signature bill responding to the crisis was locked up in committee for months, it hit the House floor in October for an initial vote and was enacted within 20 days. Media coverage often led with provisions that would extend General Relief cash assistance to people without fixed addresses, and would pay up to four months of rent, fuel, or utility debts for families at risk of eviction or losing utilities. A review of coverage did not turn up stories on the "right to shelter," which now makes Massachusetts unique among states. The most controversial part of the law was the rent and utility payment assistance, DeNucci said at the time. He called rent arrearage payments the "hardest thing to sell to the membership," according to SHNS coverage. Rep. Royall Switzler kicked off the debate that fall by contending that it created an "open-ended welfare enhancement program" offering aid to deinstitutionalized patients who were eligible for separate state aid, according to a News Service summary. "We have to be very, very careful on where we are going with these programs, identifying who should get aid. This bill sounds like an apple pie and motherhood bill, but how far does government go? We will have people coming in from out of state without a domicile applying for aid," the Wellesley Republican said. He was joined in his opposition by a South Boston Democrat, Rep. Michael Flaherty Sr., who said the bill would bolster state programs but "it is not clear the problem will be addressed." DeNucci emphasized safeguards against fraud and abuse, said the bill would finally "address the problem of homelessness, for the first time," and focused on how it would extend emergency assistance eligibility to pregnant women who did not yet have children. "Domicile requirements are a Catch 22," DeNucci said, according to the SHNS summary. "How can people get assistance if they don't have the money for a home anyway?" "I am a Democrat because a society can only be judged on how it treats vulnerable people," the Newton rep shot back to another salvo from Switzler. "It must step in and help. If that makes me a liberal, so what. It establishes money for shelters for the homeless: it is important for government to address that problem. It prevents evictions. [The Department of] Public Welfare must verify all eligible people." A week later, the House adopted amendments including one "relative to definition of a resident" before passing the bill without any debate on a landslide 138-3 roll call. What is now the "Right to Shelter Law" generated comment from four senators the following week, when a Ways and Means redraft was approved and the bill was engrossed on a voice vote. Senate Minority Leader John Parker asked questions about the practicality of the bill, and about residency requirements. "To do the job for the homeless that has to be done will cost much more than this bill calls for," he said of the pending $1.6 million package. " ... I don't know how you are going to figure out who came to this state just to benefit from this. Many don't have cars or registration or identification. This is one more bureaucracy that is being set up to correct deinstitutionalization." Sen. Gerard D'Amico, a Worcester Democrat, was the only senator to speak in favor of the bill, according to the News Service coverage. The summary does not record a direct answer to Parker's question about residency requirements, though D'Amico stressed the compromise nature of the bill and how it emerged from talks with organizations on the ground. Just 20 days after the bill first hit the House floor, the Senate sent it to Dukakis' desk with little fanfare: "By voice vote and without debate the Senate enacted the $1.6 million homeless bill," the News Service reported. Former Gov. Edward King had approved $600,000 in emergency shelter funding, which was estimated in early 1983 to open up 1,200 beds, while Senate President William Bulger estimated 2,000 to 4,000 homeless people were living in Boston alone. In October 1983, the News Service said there were around 9,000 homeless people in Massachusetts. Politicians pointed to the recent deinstitutionalization of patients from mental health facilities, along with a lack of available housing and a poor economy. Healey said earlier this month that around 48,000 people have lived in state-run emergency family shelters over the past three years. Her pending shelter bill seeks $425 million in added spending to keep the shelter system afloat for half a year. If anything, Sen. D'Amico had a good handle on the future. "This is an initial step," he said before the Senate gave the 1983 bill initial approval, according to a News Service summary. "Down the road this is going to cost us much, much, much, much more."