15

THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2025 Page 15 align with state protocols and the standards of the American Library Association. They argued that for school liBy Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562 THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of November 10-14. There were no roll calls in the House last week. DIGITAL AND PRINT MATERIALS IN LIBRARIES (S 2710) Senate 37-0, approved and sent to the House a bill that would establish a commission to study the challenges public libraries face with digital resources, including costs, access, privacy and licensing differences between digital and print materials. The commission would be required to submit a report with recommendations to improve digital resource sustainability, protect patron data and ensure equitable access across the state. “E-books, audio books and other digital resources are increasingly in demand by the public, but providing these resources is cost prohibitive for libraries and often come with unwieldy sets of restrictions,” said sponsor Sen. Michael Moore (D-Millbury). “The commission established by this bill will help streamline the process for libraries to license books and other digital materials, expanding access to knowledge to more Bay Staters.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes PROTECT ALL PUBLIC TRANSIT WORKERS FROM ASSAULT AND BATTERY (S 2697) Senate 38-0, approved legislation that would expand the current law which punishes anyone who commits assault and battery against a public employee. The bill ensures that all transit workers are covered, including those who are not directly employed by the state, such as workers employed by Keolis, the state’s contracted commuter rail operator. The bill would also add “assault and battery by means of a bodily substance including saliva, blood or urine” to the current law. “Transit workers are among the most essential employees of our commonwealth, carrying out the steady and often unseen work that allows tens of thousands of people to travel safely and reliably each day,” said sponsor Sen. Nick Collins (D-South Boston). “Their commitment keeps our cities moving, even under challenging and unpredictable circumstances. When the rights and safety of these workers are impinged upon, it is an aff ront to the invaluable service they provide and the trust the public places in them.” Collins continued, “We must remain vigilant in safeguarding their wellbeing, as they encounter nearly every facet of public life in this line of work. Legislation like this, which strengthens protections and expands the defi nition of what constitutes an assault against a transit worker, sends a clear message that we do not take their hard work for granted and that we stand fi rmly behind those who keep our commonwealth connected.” The House already approved a different version of the measure, and the Senate version now goes to the House for consideration. (A “Yes” vote is for the bill.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes BANNING SCHOOL LIBRARY BOOKS AND MATERIALS (S 2696) Senate 35-3, approved and sent to the House a bill that supporters said would require that school library materials be age-appropriate, serve an educational purpose and be chosen based on a teacher or employee’s professional training—leaving aside personal, political or doctrinal views which could aff ect their decision to place the book on the shelf. Supporters noted that the bill would give local school districts and municipal public libraries the fl exibility to craft their own policies that braries, an appropriate process for considering whether to remove a book would include assurance that a challenged book remains available to library patrons while the process plays out, guarding against frivolous or unfounded complaints. They said the bill would protect librarians and school employees from retaliation over their selection of library books, ensuring that they do not suff er professional, civil or criminal penalties if they have acted in good faith and followed their library materials policy. “I am thrilled that the Senate has taken decisive bipartisan action to push back against cowardly attempts to ban books in our schools and public libraries,” said Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Truro), the lead sponsor of the bill. “Massachusetts is not immune from the un-American panic gripping the nation in recent years. Today, the Senate defends the right to read and ensures that decisions about library materials are made by trained professionals, not political actors. This bill is about protecting the people who make our libraries and schools places of discovery, inclusion and belonging.” “I’m proud to stand with my Senate colleagues today in support of this bipartisan bill to protect values we hold so dear: the freedom to create, to think for one’s self, to explore ourselves and our world through books and art and pass the legacy of free expression to our children and grandchildren,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (DAshland). “This bill is just one of many that the Senate is prioritizing and passing this session as part of our Response 2025 initiative to protect our residents, defend our values and lead Massachusetts during these dark days when our basic civil and constitutional rights are under constant attack.” “I don’t believe in restricting knowledge, as long as it’s age appropriate, and believe in setting up a process where adults can deliberate on the appropriateness,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), one of three senators who voted against the bill. “The Senate’s fi nal version of the bill restricts parental notifi cations and involvement, diminishes the school committee as the ultimate authority of school policy and will certainly lead to increased legal costs for school districts. It is essential that school committees retain the authority to make final determinations—by vote— on whether challenged materials should remain in or be removed from school library collections. If parents or students disagree with a school committee’s decision, the appropriate recourse should be through democratic engagement—by advocating for, electing or re-electing school committee members and offi - cials who refl ect their educational values, and not through costly and complex litigation.” “We strongly oppose [the bill] because it would keep vulgar and sexually explicit books on public school library shelves, where minors can easily access them,” said Michael King, President of Massachusetts Family Institute. “The bill strips local school committees of their ability to protect students and would expose districts to lawsuits simply for doing what parents reasonably expect — keeping children safe. This is not about ‘banning books.’ It’s about safeguarding childhood innocence, respecting parental rights and preserving local control.” (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes AUTHORS AND CREATORS CAN CHALLENGE A SCHOOL BOARD’S DECISION (S 2696) Senate 37-0, approved an amendment to the section of the bill that gives students, parents and guardians the legal right to challenge a school board’s decisions to remove materials from a school library. The amendment extends that right to the authors and creators and also creates a right for residents, authors and creators to go to court to challenge the removal. “I fi led this amendment because authors deserve the right to defend both their livelihoods and their freedom of expression when their work is removed from libraries,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton). “Book bans suppress voices, erase perspectives and ultimately undermine our democracy, which relies on open access to ideas. By allowing creators to challenge these removals in court, we strengthen the bill’s protections for free expression and ensure that those most directly harmed have a path to justice.” Creem continued, “This issue is personal to me as my son-in-law, Rob Sharenow, is the author of ‘The Berlin Boxing Club,’ an award-winning novel that was banned for featuring a minor, but historically accurate, transgender character. Freedom of expression should be an unmovable cornerstone of our democracy.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes 90-DAY TIME PERIOD (S 2696) Senate 7-30, rejected an amendment that would have implemented a 90-day time period for a determination on whether challenged material in school libraries is devoid of any educational, literary, artistic, personal or social value, or is not age appropriate. As written, the bill itself does not include a time period for a determination. “If a parent has a concern about whether a book being taught to their child is age appropriate, that is not a concern that should be allowed to linger,” said Sen. Michael Moore (D-Millbury). “The timeframe … would set guidelines to help push offi - cials to determine whether a book is appropriate within a reasonable period — quickly eliminating any uncertainty for students, parents and teachers.” Sen. Jake Oliveira (D-Ludlow) said he voted against the amendment because it is an administrative redundancy. He noted that all policies adopted by school committees are adopted in accordance with the guidelines set by the Massachusetts General Laws, which are reviewed by the school committees when adopting policies. He said there was no need to add another administrative burden. Sen. Peter Durant (R-Spencer), the sponsor of the BHRC | SEE Page 16

16 Publizr Home