14

Page 14 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2020 more information on the subject before taking any action. “We don’t have enough information,” said Sen. John Velis (DWestfield), the sponsor of the study amendment. “We need to do a deep-dive.» “We need to hear from stakeholders,» continued Velis. «Our job is not to watch CNN or Fox News to get informed, it’s our job to vote in the best interest of constituents.” Opponents of the study said THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of July 1317. There were no roll calls in the House last week. CHANGES IN POLICING (S. 2800) Senate 30-7, approved and sent to the House a bill making major changes in the state’s policing system. The measure creates a Police Offi cer Standards and Accreditation Committee (POSAC)—an independent state entity composed of law enforcement professionals, community members and racial justice advocates—to standardize the certifi - cation, training and decertifi cation of police offi cers. Other provisions ban chokeholds that are performed with the intent of or with the result of causing unconsciousness or death; ban other deadly uses of force except in cases of imminent harm; require the use of de-escalation tactics when feasible; create a duty to intervene for offi cers who witness abuse of force; limit qualifi ed immunity defense for offi cers whose conduct violates the law; expand and strengthen police training in de-escalation, racism and intervention tactics; and ban racial profi ling, require racial data collection for all police stops and require reporting and analysis. “We have lots of wonderful police offi cers, and I am grateful for their service,” said Sen. Will Brownsberger (D-Belmont). “But we cannot turn a blind eye to the problems that do exist in the state which have been so recently documented by the United States Department of Justice. Nor should we pretend that those problems are the only problems in the state. This legislation is long overdue and I’m glad we are moving forward.” “I voted no because the bill that was brought before the Senate was hastily written and then pushed through to a vote in less than a week,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton). “These actions result in a fl awed product with multiple unintended consequences. For example, the language in this bill signifi cantly dilutes and diminishes qualifi ed immunity, not just for law enforcement offi cers, but for all municipal employees. Additionally, the bill would make it illegal for police and school administrations to communicate about gang and drug-related activity occurring in the school district, in turn making our schools and students less safe.” “This bill is a vital step towards a new vision of public safety: one that’s built on accountability, deescalation, and care,” said Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz (D-Boston). “It begins the long, necessary work of shifting power and resources to black communities and communities of color who have, for too long, faced criminalization and punishment instead of investment.” “In my opinion, we don’t know enough about how changing these standards of qualifi ed immunity and collective bargaining will aff ect law enforcement, municipal employees, court systems, and labor unions in our state,” said Sen. John Velis (D-Westfi eld). “I believe we need subject-matter experts to help inform us and make recommendations, in order to be absolutely certain that we are meeting the goals of our legislation without any unintended consequences. That being said, I also believe that there is a lot of good work accomplished in this legislation, and I fully intend and hope to vote for a conference committee bill that accomplishes our goals and will be signed by the governor.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Joseph Boncore Yes STUDY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY (S. 2800) Senate 16-24, rejected an amendment striking a section of the bill which sets new limits on qualified immunity protections that currently shield police and other government offi cials from civil suits. The amendment would replace the section with a special commission to study the state’s current qualifi ed immunity and report back to the Legislature within six months. Qualifi ed immunity is a judicially-created legal doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under current qualified immunity, police offi cers and other government offi cials can only be held accountable in civil suits for violating someone’s rights if a court has previously ruled that it was “clearly established” those precise actions were unconstitutional. Supporters of the study said they are not saying that qualifi ed immunity should exist without some change nor that it should be abolished. They are simply saying that the Senate needs BAN ALL CHOKEHOLDS (S. 2800) Senate 16-23, rejected an amendment that would completely ban police offi cers 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 offi cer’s body on or around a person’s neck in a manner that limits the person’s breathing or blood fl ow 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 Springfi eld), the limits the bill places on qualified immunity are reasonable and fair and are a compromise between doing nothing and abolishing qualified immunity outright. Critics say that qualifi ed immunity has shielded violent police offi cers from being personally responsible for their actions. Supporters of it say that limiting qualifi ed immunity puts police offi - cers at risk of frivolous lawsuits. Carol Rose of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts said setting some limits on qualifi ed immunity is a start. “In order to make any laws about excessive use of force meaningful, it is absolutely essential to reform qualifi ed immunity,” said Rose. “While the ACLU and many of our allies still wish to see qualifi ed immunity eliminated, we commend the Senate for taking this critical action and urge the House to do the same. The Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association is opposed to the limits placed on qualifi ed immunity. “To be clear, qualifi ed immunity is a bedrock protection extended to all public employees,” tweeted the BPPA. “Not just police offi - cers. 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. Joseph Boncore No the sponsor of the amendment. “It would allow police offi cers 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 fl ow 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 offi - cer 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. Joseph Boncore No ALLOW CHOKEHOLDS (S. 2800) Senate 3-36, rejected an amendment that would allow the use of a chokehold if the offi cer reasonably believes that his or her life is “in immediate jeopardy of imminent death or serious bodily injury.» “Police offi cers 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 offi cers are 6 feet 2 inches and weigh 200 pounds. Many are smaller. Now when a female offi - cer, 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 offi cers 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 offi cer 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. Joseph Boncore 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 21/2, 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 offi ce 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-pergallon increase in the motor vehicle gas excise tax; a 9 cents-pergallon increase in the diesel fuel tax; an increase in the aviation fuel tax from 5 percent of the average price per gallon to 7.5 percent of the average price per gallon; elimination of the sales tax exemption on vehicle purchases for traditional rental car companies; replacing the current fl at $456 minimum corporate excise tax with a nine-tiered sliding scale ranging from $456 if the corporation’s total sales are less than $1 million to $150,000 if the corporation’s sales total $1 billion; and increasing the 20 cents-per-trip fl at fee to $1.20 for each non-shared Uber and Lyft ride and $2.20 for every luxury ride. The bill includes language aimed at preventing Uber and Lyft from passing those hikes directly onto riders. Supporters said the bill funds important transportation projects across the state and unlike the House version, does not raise taxes. “In an increasingly hectic end to the fi scal year, I am pleased

15 Publizr Home