THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.
This week, with the end of the 2016 session only weeks away, Beacon Hill Roll Call, in the first of a series of special reports, looks at some of the bills that were approved by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Charlie Baker in the 2016 session.
OPIOID ABUSE PREVENTION (H 4088)
House 155-0, Senate 37-0, approved a new law aimed at reducing the opioid abuse crisis in the Bay State. It is designed to reduce the number of opioid pills in circulation by working with many parties involved in the process including schools, doctors, insurance companies and pharmacists. Key provisions require all public schools to have a policy regarding substance abuse prevention; to advise students about the dangers of substance abuse, and to perform an annual verbal screening of pupils for substance use disorders. Parents can opt their children out of the screening requirement.
Other provisions include limiting initial opioid prescriptions by doctors to a seven-day supply except for chronic pain management, cancer and palliative care; requiring drug manufacturers to create a program to secure, transport and safely dispose of unwanted drugs; establishing a rehabilitation program for registered pharmacists, pharmacy interns and pharmacy technicians who have a substance abuse issue and allowing them to volunteer for the program instead of being subject to disciplinary action; and requiring patients admitted to the emergency room for an overdose to be subject to a detailed substance abuse evaluation within 24 hours before discharge.
Supporters, noting there were 1,256 accidental drug-related deaths in 2015, said this new law is a balanced and practical approach that will improve schools’ approach to teaching kids about drug prevention and increase access to treatment for those who are addicted. They argued it will save lives and spare the heartache of many families by helping to stem the rising tide of drug addiction and drug-related deaths across the state.
(A “Yes” vote is for the new law.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Yes
DRUG OFFENSES AND DRIVER’S LICENSES (S 1812)
House 157-0, Senate 38-0, approved a new law that repeals a 1989 law that required anyone convicted of a nonviolent drug crime to have his or her license suspended, regardless of whether the crime itself involved driving a vehicle. The new law does allow automatic license suspension for anyone convicted of trafficking in illegal drugs, except for marijuana. The new law is retroactive and applies to all people who are without a license because of the 1989 law.
Supporters said 1989 law is outdated, illogical and counterproductive because it prevents many offenders from driving to work, getting a new job, driving their children to school, traveling to a doctor and using their car for the things necessary in day-to-day life.
(A “Yes” vote is for the new law.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Yes
$200 MILLION FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (H 4133)
House 151-0, Senate 35-0, approved authorizing the state to borrow $200 million in one-time funding for the maintenance and repair of local roads and bridges in cities and towns across the state.
Supporters said this helps cities and towns improve their roads and bridges and keep them safe.
(A “Yes” vote is for the $200 million.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg President rarely votes
PUBLIC RECORDS (H 4333)
House 154-0, Senate 40-0, approved a new law designed to ensure that the state and local municipalities comply in a timely way with requests for public records. It also reduces costs to people making the requests.
This new law requires each state agency and municipality to appoint at least one public records access officer to serve as the point of contact for all public records requests; limits to $25 per hour the fees municipalities and state agencies can charge for time spent responding to requests; allows municipalities to request additional time for compliance and the right to charge higher fees to cover reasonable costs; enables courts to award attorneys’ fees when government agencies wrongly deny access to public records; and requires agencies and municipalities to make documents available in electronic form.
Supporters said this is the first update to the state’s public records laws in 40 years and noted that it makes state and local government more transparent. They argued it is not acceptable for members of the news media or for ordinary citizens to face unreasonable delays and high costs to gain access to information that is supposed to be public. They argued that the new law balances access to public records with protection for local municipalities from unreasonable procedures and unfunded mandates.
(A “Yes” vote is for the new law.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Yes
$39.15 BILLION FISCAL 2017 STATE BUDGET (H 4450)
House 150-3, Senate 38-1, approved a conference committee’s compromise version of a $39.15 billion fiscal 2017 state budget. The conference committee reduced expected revenues by $750 million and cut $413 million in proposed spending. Those actions were in response to warnings about unexpected ever-decreasing revenue projections.
Supporters of the budget said it is a balanced one that makes vital investments in the state while continuing fiscal responsibility.
Some opponents said that the budget does not make sufficient cuts and argued that state spending has grown too much over the past few years. Others noted they opposed spending taxpayer money on government services given to illegal immigrants.
(A “Yes” vote is for the budget. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Yes
PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSGENDER PEOPLE (S 2407)
House 118-36, Senate 33-4, approved a new law that expands prior law prohibiting discrimination against transgender people by adding “gender identity” to existing Massachusetts civil rights laws that already prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, religion and marital status. Public accommodations are defined as “a place, whether licensed or unlicensed, which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public.” This includes hotels, restaurants, retail stores, malls, theaters, parks, medical offices, libraries and public transportation. The major controversy centered around the fact that the new law also allows access to legally gender-segregated public facilities, including restrooms and locker rooms, based on a person’s gender identity rather than on their sex.
In 2011, the Legislature approved and former Gov. Deval Patrick signed a law that added “gender identity” to the state’s non-discrimination laws, to prohibit discrimination in employment, education, housing and credit against transgender persons. That law, however, did not prohibit discrimination in private accommodations.
Supporters, noting 17 other states have approved similar laws protecting transgender people, said this is a new civil rights law that helps many transgender people lead safe and more productive lives. They argued that transgender individuals still face the threat of discrimination in many public accommodations. They noted that under prior Massachusetts law, there was no protection ensuring that transgender people cannot be turned away from a restroom, locker room, hotel, restaurant, retail store and many other places simply because they are transgender.
Opponents said the privacy rights of children matter and asked how they might react to a transgender classmate using the same bathroom. They argued that bathroom and locker room use should be based on the gender on one’s birth certificate, not on an inner sense of feeling or expression. They said that male predators could use this law as cover to excuse their presence in women-only spaces.
Opponents have gathered the necessary signatures to put the law on the 2018 ballot and let voters decide whether to repeal it.
The Senate did not have a roll call on the final version of the law. The Senate roll call listed is on an earlier version.
(A “Yes” vote is for the new law. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Yes
SUPPORT FOR VETERANS (H 4278)
House 153-0, Senate 39-0, approved a new law that helps veterans by improving their access to housing and education and protecting them from discrimination. Provisions include establishing the new Office of State Veterans’ Homes and Housing; giving veterans preference in public housing; allowing cities and towns to permit property taxpayers to check off a box on their property tax bill and donate money, above their tax liability, to help local veterans with food, transportation, heat and oil expenses; and making all children of all prisoners of war eligible for the Public Service Scholarship. Prior to passage of this new law, the scholarship was limited to children of Vietnam War POWs.
Supporters said the state should provide these additional benefits and opportunities to the thousands of Bay State veterans who have served and are still serving our nation. They noted that one in three homeless people in the nation are veterans. They pointed out that one in five Massachusetts veterans suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and 11 percent suffer traumatic brain injuries.
(A “Yes” vote is for the new law.)
Rep. Stephen Kulik Yes
Rep. Paul Mark Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps Lee Yes
Sen. Benjamin Downing Yes
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg Yes
DELAY IN LEGALIZING MARIJUANA — In November, voters approved the ballot question legalizing, licensing, regulating and taxing marijuana for adults over 21 effective Dec. 15. Now word is that it is possible the official results of the four ballot questions may not be certified by the Governor’s Council by Dec. 15 and there may be a delay in implantation of the law. The Dec. 15 effective date applies to the legalization of the possession by anyone over 21 of ten ounces of marijuana in their home, one ounce outside the home and the right to grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences. The regulations for the actual retail sale of marijuana won’t happen for some time.
Results of all state elections must be certified by local officials, Secretary of State William Galvin’s office and finally the Governor’s Council. Galvin’s office has not yet certified the results.
At last week’s Governor’s Council meeting, Councilor Robert Jubinville said that he has heard from residents who are getting a feeling that the state’s certification of the ballot question legalizing marijuana is getting dragged out because of “people in high places that were against it.” Gov. Baker, Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh all opposed the legalization.
Michelle Tassinari, the Director of the Elections Division in Galvin’s office, said the delay in certifying the results is because it is time-consuming, not because of some policy position. “Since the election itself, we’ve been working diligently with the cities and towns for their certification process,” she said.
Brendan Moss, Deputy Communications Director for Gov. Baker, when asked about Jubinville’s comment about the delay told Beacon Hill Roll Call, “Gov. Baker looks forward to working with lawmakers, educators, and public safety and public health professionals to develop a responsible and timely approach that honors the will of the voters while also addressing public safety and health issues in our communities.”
“Our position is clear,” said Jim Borghesani Director of Communications for “Yes on 4,” the campaign to legalize marijuana. “The possession and home grow provisions should go into effect on Dec. 15, and we will vigorously oppose all attempts to alter or delay those provisions.”
CHANGE DATE OF HALLOWEEN — A late-filed bill would move the date of Halloween from Oct. 31 to the last Saturday in October.
Supporters say that Oct. 31 often falls on a weekday when children are in school and their parents are at work and trick or treating doesn’t begin until after dark. They argue that a Saturday celebration would allow trick-or-treating in the day time and be a lot safer for children.
Some opponents hesitate to destroy the traditional date of Halloween. Others say that there is currently an increase in violence and trouble when the holiday falls on a weekend night.