There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. This week Beacon Hill Roll Call reports on five conference committees that have been charged by the Legislature to hammer out compromise versions of different versions of five major bills approved by the House and Senate.
The committees were appointed in July and August by House Speaker Bob DeLeo, D-Winthrop, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, who each appoint three members to each conference committee — two Democrats and one Republican.
The five bills deal with climate change, economic development, transportation, policing and health care.
According to House and Senate rules, all meetings of conference committees must be open to the public, unless a majority of the committee votes to close the meetings. All five conference committees have voted to bar the public and the media from their meetings.
The 26 members of the conference committees include:
Reps. Thomas Golden, D-Lowell; Patricia Haddad, D-Somerset; Brad Jones, R-North Reading; Ann-Margaret Ferrante, D-Gloucester; Donald Wong, R-Saugus; Claire Cronin, D-Easton; Carlos Gonzalez, D-Springfield; Tim Whelan, R-Brewster; William Straus, D-Mattapoisett; Mark Cusack, D-Braintree; Norman Orrall, R-Lakeville; Ron Mariano, D-Quincy; John Mahoney, D-Worcester; and Randy Hunt, R-Sandwich.
Sens. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington; Cindy Creem, D-Newton; Patrick O’Connor, R-Weymouth; Eric Lesser, D-Longmeadow; Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport; Will Brownsberger, D-Belmont; Sonia Chang-Diaz, D-Boston; Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester; Joseph Boncore, D-Winthrop; Dean Tran, R-Fitchburg; Cindy Friedman, D-Arlington; and Julian Cyr, D-Truro.
Despite repeated attempts by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking all 26 legislators on the five committees if they would provide a list of how many meetings the committee has held and the length of each meeting, only one responded — Sen. Tran, a member of two of the conference committees.
On the conference committee on a bill sponsors say will increase access to health care, protect patients and enhance quality care, Tran said, “I am anxiously awaiting for the chairs of the Health Care Financing Conference Committee to convene a meeting of the members for this important legislation. I’m looking forward to discussing the similarities and differences of the bills, and hopefully assist with the passage of the legislation.”
On the conference committee on a bill sponsors say will allow the state to borrow an estimated $16.9 to $18 billion to spend on transportation projects and infrastructure, Tran said, “I and members of the Transportation Conference Committee met in July and the meeting ended in executive session. I very much look forward to continuing the conversation in passing a compromise bill to address the infrastructure needs of our transportation system.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call also made repeated attempts asking each member of the conference committees for information on how the talks were going, what the major differences are between the House and Senate versions of the bills, why a compromise hasn’t yet been reached and whether they think there will be a compromise before the end of the 2020 session.
Only three legislators — Cronin through her staff director Stephanie Leone, Brownsberger and Golden — responded, and all declined to discuss the conference committees’ work.
Here are the details about the five conference committees, the issues involved and how legislators voted on the version of the bill that was approved several months ago by the branch (House or Senate) in which he or she serves:
In conference committee since Aug. 6.
House members: Co-chair Thomas Golden, Patricia Haddad and Brad Jones
Senate members: Co-chair Michael Barrett, Cindy Creem and Patrick O’Connor
The House, 142 to 17, and the Senate, 36 to 2, approved different versions of a climate change bill. Both bills include a key section that makes the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal net zero by 2050.
“The science is clear: to avoid the devastation of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to net zero by 2050,” said Rep. Joan Meschino, D-Hull, following passage of the House version of the bill on July 31. “This goal will only be met by a comprehensive planning process, which locks in key milestones now to get us there in 30 years.”
Some believe the bill goes too far.
“Both bills are equally as bad, it’s only a question to what degree of bad are they,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “They both will result in negligible environmental benefit and very high costs. At the end of the day, this debate is not about improving the environment, but instead about imposing a carbon tax, which is a new way of taxing Massachusetts residents on a wide variety of everyday activities.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
In conference committee since July 30.
House members: Co-chair Aaron Michlewitz, Ann-Margaret Ferrante and Donald Wong
Senate members: Co-chair Eric Lesser, Michael Rodrigues and Patrick O’Connor
The House, 156 to 3, and the Senate, 40 to 0, approved different versions of an economic development package. One of the major differences is that only the House version legalizes sports betting.
The packages include $20 million for financial and capital assistance grants to restaurants impacted by the pandemic; $10 million for grants to promote marketing and advertising for in-state cultural and tourist activities during the reopening process; $40 million to redevelop blighted buildings; $50 million for local economic development projects; $10 million for climate-resilient affordable housing developments; and $15 million for community college high-demand workforce grants.
A “Yes” vote is for the package.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
In conference committee since July 27.
House members: Co-chair Claire Cronin, Carlos Gonzalez and Tim Whelan
Senate members: Co-chair Will Brownsberger, Sonia Chang-Diaz and Bruce Tarr
The House, 93 to 66, and the Senate, 30 to 7, approved different versions of a bill making major changes in the state’s policing system.
In July, the newly created non-partisan Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University released a report outlining the framework for understanding key differences between the two bills and highlighting the choices and trade-offs involved in achieving common ground. A copy of the analysis can be found at bit.ly/3oALwqI.
A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — No
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — No
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
In conference committee since July 27.
House members: Co-chair William Straus, Mark Cusack and Norman Orrall
Senate members: Co-chair Joseph Boncore, Michael Rodrigues and Dean Tran
The House, 150 to 1, and the Senate, 36 to 4, approved different versions of an estimated $16.9 to $18 billion package authorizing spending on transportation projects and infrastructure. The package is a bond bill under which the funding would be borrowed through the sale of bonds.
The Senate version of the bill includes a controversial section that allows cities, towns and regions to raise local taxes to fund transportation projects outside of Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases. The section is not in the House bill.
“It’s clear that more and better public transit is needed across the state, and it is important to give local communities and regions the ability to raise funds when they identify particular needs,” said Sen. Cindy Creem, D-Newton, when the bill was approved on March 5. “Improving access to business districts that are not currently accessible by public transit is good for workers, small businesses and the overall economy. We are giving communities this option if the voters choose to use it.”
“Audacious end-runs around Proposition 2½ do not belong in a bond bill,” said Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “If CLT’s property tax limitation, which celebrates its 40th anniversary in less than two weeks, is to be assaulted it should be done openly, in the light of day, not buried in an unrelated must-pass bill — and certainly not by stealth in a transportation bond bill.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
In conference committee since July 31.
House members: Co-chair Ron Mariano, John Mahoney and Randy Hunt
Senate members: Co-chair Cindy Friedman, Julian Cyr and Dean Tran
The House, 158 to 0, and the Senate, 38 to 0, approved different versions of a bill that sponsors say will increase access to health care, protect patients and enhance quality care. The measure requires insurance carriers, including MassHealth, to cover telehealth services in any case where the same in-person service would be covered, and requires reimbursement rates to match in-person services over the next two years. It also eliminates “surprise billing,” the practice of charging unsuspecting patients who received health care services outside of their insurance plan’s network for costs that insurers refuse to pay.
Other provisions would allow registered nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists and psychiatric nurse mental health specialists who meet specific education and training standards to practice independently; recognize pharmacists as health care providers, enabling them to integrate more fully into coordinated care teams; and create a new professional license for “dental therapists,” who will be authorized to provide oral health services.
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
Rep. Natalie Blais — Yes
Rep. Paul Mark — Yes
Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Sen. Joanne Comerford — Yes
Sen. Anne Gobi — Yes
Sen. Adam Hinds — Yes
The Senate approved and sent to the House a bill that would require all hospitals to meet minimum criteria and standards that ensure safe, timely and accessible patient access to hospital emergency departments and rooms. The regulations, which would be crafted by the Department of Public Health, would include having legible indoor and outdoor signs and lighting such as wayfinding signs that are designed to help a person find their way to the emergency room without lengthy explanations or complicated maps; monitoring of all emergency department access points; requiring proper security monitoring of any prominent hospital door or entrance that is locked at night and through which a patient might enter; and any other safety feature that the department deems necessary to ensure daytime or nighttime entry to an emergency room or department.
The measure is called “Laura’s Law,” in memory of Laura Levis, a 34-year-old woman who, on Sept. 16, 2016, went to CHA Somerville Hospital while suffering an asthma attack.
Peter DeMarco, Levis’ husband, has led the campaign for passage of the legislation. He is a journalist who wrote about Laura’s death almost two years ago for the “Boston Globe” in a story called “Losing Laura.”
According to DeMarco’s story, “Laura chose a locked door to try to access the emergency room because the correct door was not properly marked. Though Laura was on surveillance video, the hospital security desk was left unattended all night, so no one saw her. When a nurse from the emergency department eventually looked out the door for Laura, she did not see her, as the spot where Laura collapsed was in near darkness.”
Laura had called 911 but by the time first responders found her, she had collapsed in cardiac arrest and died a few days later on Sept. 22.
“I don’t think there’s any way anyone can question the need for Laura’s Law after learning about all the safety failures that lead to Laura’s death,” DeMarco said following the Senate vote last week. “With the uncertainty of the pandemic there was a real chance all the efforts we’ve put into getting this bill this far would have been for nothing. … I am grateful that the Senate has passed this bill, and I very much hope the House of Representatives doesn’t take too much more time to do the same.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call looks at several bills that were shipped off to a study committee and are dead for the 2020 session. We asked the sponsors whether they will be refiling the measure for consideration in the 2021 to 2022 session, which begins in January.
Sen. Nick Collins, D-Boston, said he intends to refile his bill that would require any person, group or business applying for tax credits from the state to submit a plan for diversity and inclusion, including representation of women, veterans and people of color in their ownership, financing, development, administration and contracting. The plan would be submitted to the Supplier Diversity Office and the Office of Access and Opportunity, and must be considered in determining eligibility if the tax credits are given.
A bill filed by Sen. Cindy Creem, D-Newton, would allow cities and towns to impose up to a 2 percent tax on the sale of alcohol in restaurants, bars and stores. The bill would require cities or towns that impose the tax to establish and put all the revenue in a Municipal Substance Abuse Prevention and Public Health Fund.
“I originally filed this bill to provide another revenue source for cities and towns to address increasing public health and substance abuse concerns,” Creem said. “I will continue to look at ways to help municipalities deal with these ever-increasing costs.”
“The bill was filed before the COVID-19 pandemic and we will be reconsidering (whether to refile it) it in light of the economic impact the pandemic has had on the restaurant industry,” Creem’s chief of staff Richard Powell told Beacon Hill Roll Call.
This proposal would require eligible voters to cast a ballot in any November general election or face a fine of $15 that would be added to the non-voter’s state tax liability for each election missed. The measure also clarifies that the voter does not have to actually vote for anyone and is allowed to leave the ballot blank.
“There are two schools of thought when filing legislation,” said the bill’s sponsor Rep. Dylan Fernandes, D-Falmouth, who intends to refile the proposal. “One is filing a bill that is rigorously vetted, that has been combed line by line and that you hope only receives marginal edits through the committee process. The other is filing an idea that you believe is worthy of a robust public debate that will reshape the bill. Although it won’t pass this session and may never pass at all, I believe mandatory voting is an idea worth debate and consideration.”
“If politicians can ‘fine’ voters for not voting, they will feel empowered to penalize voters for not voting for their preferred candidate,” argued Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “This legislation should be rejected at every step of the way.”
Sen. Patrick O’Connor, R-Weymouth, intends to refile his legislation that would allow cities and towns to exempt licensed commercial fishermen, lobstermen, oyster farmers and other types of fish farmers from up to 100 percent of the municipality’s property tax.