THE MALDEN ADVOCATE–Friday, July 24, 2020 Page 13 BHRC | FROM PAGE 11 Association is opposed to the limits placed on qualified immunity. “To be clear, qualified immunity is a bedrock protection extended to all public employees,” tweeted the BPPA. “Not just police officers. It does not protect bad cops. In fact, it only protects police officers who act reasonably and within the rules and regulations of their respective departments.” (A “Yes” vote is for the study. A “No” vote is against the study). Sen. Jason Lewis No BAN ALL CHOKEHOLDS (S. 2800) Senate 16-23, rejected an amendment that would completely ban police officers from using a chokehold under any circumstances. The amendment would replace an existing section of the bill that was a compromise reached by the working group that helped draft the measure. That compromise section allows chokeholds as long as they are not performed “with the intent of or with the result of causing unconsciousness or death.” The measure defines chokehold as “the use of a lateral vascular neck restraint, carotid restraint or other action that involves the placement of any part of law enforcement officer’s body on or around a person’s neck in a manner that limits the person’s breathing or blood flow with the intent of or with the result of causing unconsciousness or death.” “The … bill as it exists now contains a loophole,” said Sen. Jim Welch (D-West Springfield), the sponsor of the amendment. “It would allow police officers to continue to use chokeholds on people if they claim their intent was to do anything other than cut off the individual’s air supply or blood flow and they don't render the person unconscious or dead. This amendment would truly ban the use of chokeholds by law enforcement, an action necessary to guarantee all members of our community are protected against these dangerous and often deadly tactics.” Amendment opponents said the amendment goes too far and deviates from the chokehold compromise the working group achieved. The compromise prohibits chokeholds except for ones that are not performed with the intent of or with the result of causing unconsciousness or death. “This amendment would have created an overbroad definition of chokehold,” said Sen. Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont), a leading proponent of the bill “In the course of a pitched struggle, it is entirely possible that an officer would have to put their arm around someone’s neck. Let’s stick with the balance [compromise] we got and let’s vote against this amendment.” (A “Yes” vote is for a complete ban on chokeholds. A “No” vote is against a complete ban.) Sen. Jason Lewis No ALLOW CHOKEHOLDS (S. 2800) Senate 3-36, rejected an amendment that would allow the use of a chokehold if the officer reasonably believes that his or her life is “in immediate jeopardy of imminent death or serious bodily injury." “Police officers encounter dangerous situations daily,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Dean Tran (R-Leominster). “They should be allowed to use all necessary tools available to protect themselves and when their lives are at risk especially if the perpetrators are bigger and stronger. Not all police officers are 6 feet 2 inches and weigh 200 pounds. Many are smaller. Now when a female officer, who is let’s say 5 feet 2 inches and weighs 115 pounds, goes up against someone who is twice her stature, we want her and all of the officers to have all the necessary tools available to them for self-defense including the use of chokeholds.” “This amendment would have weakened the ban to a greater extent than necessary to assure officer safety,” said Sen. Brownsberger. “Let's stick with the balance we got and let’s vote against this amendment.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Jason Lewis No $16.9 BILLION IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (S. 2813) Senate 36-4, approved an estimated $16.9 billion bond bill authorizing spending on transportation projects and infrastructure. Provisions include $5.6 billion for federal highway system projects, $2 billion for the design, construction and repair of non-federally aided roadway and bridge projects and another $1.25 billion for construction, resurfacing and improvements of bridges and approaches. The package is a bond bill under which the funding would be borrowed by the state through the sale of bonds. A controversial section of the bill allows cities and towns and regions to raise local taxes to fund transportation projects outside of Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases in cities and towns. The package also includes earmarks for hundreds of millions of dollars for hundreds of projects in legislators’ districts across the state—many of which will never be funded. The Baker administration is required to adhere to the state’s annual bond borrowing cap and ultimately decides which projects are affordable and actually get funded. Sometimes a legislator will immediately tout the inclusion of local projects in these types of bond bills, especially in an election year to show he or she “brought home the bacon.” But be warned that none of the projects in this package have yet been funded and most will end up never being funded because of the borrowing cap and the power of the governor’s office to pick which projects actually get the green light. The House has already approved an $18 billion transportation package which includes an estimated $522 million to $600 million tax hike to fund improvements to the state’s transportation system. None of the hikes are included in the Senate version. Hikes include a 5 cents-per-gallon increase in the motor vehicle gas excise tax; a 9 cents-per-gallon increase in the diesel fuel tax; an increase in the aviation fuel tax BHRC | SEE PAGE 15 ~ LEGAL NOTICE ~ INVITATION FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS CITY OF MALDEN - OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER The City of Malden invites sealed price, and non-priced proposals, in accordance with M.G.L. c.30B, §6, from Vendors for: AMERICAN SOLDIER BRONZE STATUES RFP Proposals will be received until 10:00 a.m., Thursday August 20, 2020 at the Office of the Controller, 215 Pleasant Street 2nd Floor, Malden, MA 02148. Proposals will not be accepted nor may submitted proposals be corrected, modified or withdrawn after the deadline for proposals. Contract Documents will be available by email request at purchasing@cityofmalden.org after: 10:00 a.m., July 30, 2020. July 24, 2020 ~ LEGAL NOTICE ~ INVITATION FOR BID CITY OF MALDEN - OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER The City of Malden invites sealed bids in accordance with M.G.L. Ch. 30, Sec. 39M from Vendors for: 2020 WATER-SEWER-DRAIN ON-CALL CONTRACT Contract Documents will be available by email request at purchasing@cityofmalden.org after: 10:00 A.M., July 30, 2020. Bidders are requested to email the Controller’s Office their Company Name, Address, Email address, & Phone and what bid they are requesting. Bids must be submitted to the Office of the Controller, 2nd Floor; 215 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148 by 2:00 P.M. on or before Thursday August 20, 2020; bids will be publicly opened at this time. All bidders must be prequalified by Mass DOT. The contract will only be awarded to a Mass DOT prequalified contractor. All bids must be accompanied by a bid deposit in an amount that is not less than five percent (5%) of the value of the bid. July 24, 2020
14 Publizr Home