 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Sunday, December 13, 2020
Record State Budget Signed By Gov.
Baker
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow
Commentary)
|
|
The Baker administration now plans to
collect nearly half a billion dollars more from
taxpayers this fiscal year than it did two months ago
when the governor filed his revised budget, money that
could limit a big drawdown on the state's reserves and
support additional spending.
In conjunction with signing a $45.9 billion
fiscal year 2021 budget Friday, Gov. Charlie Baker's budget
office also upgraded its tax revenue assumption by $459
million to $28.44 billion, in part due to fiscal 2021 tax
collections that are running $142 million or 1.3 percent
ahead of fiscal 2020 collections through five months.
The Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said it expects to receive $249 million more in
income taxes and $210 million more in sales taxes than it
estimated in mid-October when Baker filed a revised budget
that assumed $27.592 billion in available tax revenue this
fiscal year. The administration made no change to its
assumptions for business and other taxes....
Baker's budget office expects to be able to
do a couple of things now that it expects to collect more
from taxpayers....
The revenue estimate upgrade also gave the administration
flexibility to file a $107.4 million supplemental budget
Friday ...
Through November, the Department of Revenue
had collected $11.464 billion in tax receipts for fiscal
2021 -- $142 million or 1.3 percent more than had been
collected during the same time period in fiscal year 2020.
State House News Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Sudden Tax Revenue Markup Alters State Budget Dynamics
More Spending, Smaller Reserve Draw Possible
Gov. Charlie Baker signed a $45.9 billion
state budget on Friday that will not raise broad-based taxes
and reflects a more optimistic view of state finances than
once feared early in the pandemic, but the governor sent
back with amendments a key section of the legislation that
would expand access to abortion.
Baker, a pro-choice Republican, said he
supports many of the abortion protections prioritized by
Democratic leaders after the confirmation of Justice Amy
Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court but said he could not
support lowering the age of consent to 16.
And while he said he would support making
abortions available to women after 24 weeks in cases where a
doctor has diagnosed a fatal fetal anomaly, he proposed an
amendment to tighten the language for when an abortion could
be performed to protect the mental health of the mother....
The budget, which is more than five months
overdue, relies heavily on one-time revenue to balance
spending growth of 4.5 percent, including more than $2.76
billion in federal COVID-19 funds and a draw of up to $1.7
billion from the state's "rainy day" fund.
But the administration also planned to
upgrade its revenue projections for the year by $459
million, as some sources of tax revenue, like the sales tax,
continue to perform strongly.
The Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said the combination of strong revenues and money
vetoed from the budget make it likely that the state will
only need to use about $1.35 billion this fiscal year from
its $3.5 billion in reserves.
State House News Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Baker Signs $45.9 Bil State Budget, Returns Abortion Plan
Vetoes $156 Million, Including School Funds
There won't be
much time for the House and Senate budget committees to
relax after finalizing a spending plan for fiscal 2021 and
sending it on Friday to Gov. Charlie Baker for review.
That's because
planning for next year starts Tuesday, when the Legislature
and administration plan to invite economic experts and state
finance officials to testify about their projections for
revenue growth in fiscal year 2022, which that starts in a
little less than seven months....
Every December
legislative leaders and the administration listen to
testimony from economic experts as part of a process for
setting a revenue projection for the next fiscal year. Gov.
Charlie Baker, in turn, will use that revenue projection to
build and file a budget for fiscal 2022 in late January.
State House News
Service
Monday, December 7, 2020
Fiscal 2022 Budget Talks Start With Dec. 15 Revenue Hearing
By governor’s
edict: in reaction to rising COVID-19 cases,
new restrictions – curfews, gathering
limitations, business closings, etc. The actions
are to prevent the health system or
hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In fact,
that’s the only justification for such
limitations on individual liberty. Absent that
threat, people should be able to decide for
themselves whether they want to stay inside
or venture out.
But any
restrictions should be as limited as possible
and must make sense. Some of the governor’s
pronouncements do not....
Always exempt
from restrictions are “essential workers.” This
includes the political class – elected
officials, members of government, etc. It
should be required that when any governmental
restrictions are imposed, the salaries of
politicians and higher-ups in government are
suspended or cut. Let them feel the same
hurt they’re imposing on ordinary folks.
COVID-19
restrictions have caused erosions of freedom,
job losses and financial and psychological
hardships. We understand the governor is
endeavoring to balance freedom vs. responding
to COVID. But he must play fair with the
people – and not impose regulations that are
excessive or illogical.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
New coronavirus restrictions in Massachusetts unreasonable
and excessive
By Avi Nelson
VIDEO
A Government of Laws, Not of Men, Desrosiers v. Baker case
video
Gov. Charlie
Baker's extensive, executive order-fueled pandemic response
is justifiable under state law and did not violate the
constitutional rights of businesses and organizations
affected by mandatory shutdowns, the state's highest court
ruled Thursday.
Six months after
the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued Massachusetts on
behalf of business owners and religious institutions, the
Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Baker administration's
emergency actions, concluding that the governor acted within
the emergency powers afforded to governors under a 1950 law.
The consequential
decision allows the state's COVID-19 strategy to continue
along its current trajectory, avoiding a sudden and dramatic
shift in how leaders approach the public health emergency
amid rapid transmission of the highly infectious virus and
dwindling hospital capacity.
Justices included
a key caveat, though, that their ruling does not give
blanket authorization for future health emergencies and that
the governor's response might need to be curtailed once the
COVID outlook improves.
"I think we've
tried pretty hard to be balanced and to be as reasonable and
fair as we could be in this very difficult time and very
difficult circumstances and I appreciate the SJC's decision
with respect to those issues," Baker said in the wake of the
decision.
Representatives
from NCLA and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which
supported the lawsuit, told reporters Thursday that they are
exploring the possibility of appealing portions of the case
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Massachusetts has
now shepherded the liberty-loving principles of the American
Revolution from cradle to grave," NCLA Senior Litigation
Counsel Michael DeGrandis, who argued the case before the
SJC, said in a statement. "John Adams must be spinning in
his tomb at the news that the colony that he and his fellow
patriots fought so hard to liberate from arbitrary royal
decrees, and establish as a republic grounded in a
government of laws and the consent of the governed, has
become what Adams feared most." ...
However, the court
ruled that Baker's forced business shutdowns and phased
reopening plans do not violate constitutional due process or
free assembly rights....
"The Governor is
not, as the plaintiffs argue, 'donn[ing] the mantle and
crown' to pick winners and losers; he is making difficult
decisions about which types of businesses are 'essential' to
provide people with the services needed to live and which
types of businesses are more conducive to spreading
COVID-19, and basing his emergency orders on those
determinations," [Justice Elspeth Cypher] wrote....
Baker's response
also did not interfere with the Legislature's role in
guiding the state through a crisis, according to the court.
His orders stemmed from legislative authority granted under
the Civil Defense Act, and the court noted that lawmakers
have not exercised their authority under that law to make
the act or any part of it inoperative through the adoption
of a joint resolution.
Justices pointed
to several COVID response bills the House and Senate passed,
including a moratorium on most evictions and foreclosures,
approval for expanded take-out and delivery food and drink,
and an overhaul of voting procedures.
"Therefore, not
only have the emergency orders not precluded the Legislature
from exercising its full authority to pass laws, but the
Legislature also has at its disposal a way to curb the
Governor's powers under the CDA, should it desire to do so,
and it has not done so," they said.
Asked whether
lawmakers are interested in codifying some of the pandemic
restrictions that so far have been doled out through
executive order, [NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Michael
DeGrandis] replied that Massachusetts does not have "a
critical mass of legislators willing to take the political
risk" of passing unpopular laws....
Five out of the
six justices in the SJC's Thursday ruling -- Cypher,
Kimberly Budd, Frank Gaziano, David Lowy and Scott Kafker --
were all appointed by Baker.
The sixth justice
who heard oral arguments and participated in the decision,
Barbara Lenk, had been the last member of the court not
hand-picked by Baker before she hit the mandatory retirement
age of 70 this month.
All seven justices
now on the court, including new members Dalila Wendlandt and
Serge Georges, are Baker appointees.
State House News
Service
Thursday, December 10, 2020
SJC Rejects Challenge to Baker’s Authority in Pandemic
Rules Guv Acting Within Civil Defense Act Powers
Responding to what
he called "disturbing" trends in COVID-19 cases and
hospitalizations since Thanksgiving -- which likely do not
yet show the full impact of spread driven by gatherings on
that holiday -- Baker nudged the state backwards in the
reopening process, regressing from step two of Phase 3 back
to step one.
The move, which
takes effect Sunday, will reduce capacity from 50 percent to
40 percent in retail shops, offices, libraries, museums and
elsewhere, and it will require indoor recreational venues to
once again close....
Exactly nine
months after he first declared a state of emergency around
the coronavirus, the Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday
affirmed Baker's authority to issue such orders limiting
business operations and economic activity, rejecting a
challenge that had argued the emergency executive orders
were improperly rooted in the 1950 Civil Defense Act and
amounted to an overstep of gubernatorial authority.
The SJC will soon
be back at full strength after the September death of Chief
Justice Ralph Gants and the retirement this month of Justice
Barbara Lenk.
State House News
Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Weekly Roundup - Phasing Facts
Gov. Charlie Baker
plans to return to the Legislature landmark legislation that
would impose new accountability standards on police,
proposing a handful of amendments Thursday in the hope that
Democrats will compromise, but making clear he's not afraid
to veto the legislation if lawmakers resist those changes.
Baker, a
Republican, has faced mounting pressure from both sides of
the policing debate since the Legislature finalized its
oversight bill over a week ago. Criminal justice reform
advocates have urged him to sign it, while police unions
have called it an attack on the men and women who wear a
badge.
In an interview
with the News Service, the governor said he was willing to
make concessions, including accepting a civilian-controlled
licensing board and limits on qualified immunity for police
officers, but drew a line on several key issues....
"This is about
making compromise and I'm ready to do that on almost
everything with respect to improving accountability for law
enforcement. But there are parts of this bill that were
never part of that conversation about accountability that I
can't support," Baker said.
A veto could force
the Legislature to revisit the issue from scratch in the
next session, which begins on Jan. 6. Democratic leadership
in the House could not muster a veto-proof majority to pass
the bill last week, voting 92-67 in favor of a conference
report that could not be amended on the floor.
The 28-12 margin
in the Senate was also razor thin, leaving Democrats able to
lose just one vote to be able to override the governor.
Baker could also let the bill become law without his
signature.
State House News
Service
Thursday, December 10, 2020
With Veto Threat, Baker Seeks Policing Bill Changes
Governor to Legislature: "I Want To Sign A Bill"
Massachusetts on
Friday did finally get a signed $45.9 billion annual state
budget - 164 days into fiscal 2021 and five days before
state officials will get briefed on the revenue outlook for
the fiscal 2022 budget. Baker slashed $156 million in
spending through vetoes that Democrats will consider
overriding before the end of the year.
The darkness of
conference committee talks also looms large with less than
four weeks remaining for legislators to finish or fail when
it comes to big bills governing climate change, economic
development, transportation spending and health care policy.
While Beacon Hill
leaders often blame partisanship and bickering for holding
up progress on important issues in Washington, Democrats at
the state level, with a lot less sniping than their federal
counterparts, have been mired in their own quiet deadlocks
for months. The end-of-session deadline could prompt
negotiators to compromise, or just virtually log out of
their talks. House leaders have advised members of the
potential for formal sessions throughout next week. Senate
leaders did not release a session schedule beyond Monday's
informal session.
State House News
Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Advances - Week of Dec. 13, 2020
Hoping to deliver
"a wake-up call" and highlight the urgency of the issue,
Sen. Marc Pacheco this week filed a new bill combining what
he viewed as the best parts of the climate policy bills that
six other lawmakers have been trying to reconcile since
August.
The Senate dean
who chairs its Committee on Global Warming and Climate
Change filed essentially his own vision for a conference
committee report Wednesday and said he wanted to make sure
Beacon Hill is "not losing sight of the urgent need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"The legislature
appointed a conference committee in August to reconcile the
differences between climate bills passed by the Senate and
House earlier this session, but 125 days later, we still
have yet to see that report," Pacheco said.
The late-session
bill, which was not referred to a committee when the Senate
met Thursday, would establish a requirement to get to net
zero emissions by 2050 with interim limits every five years,
increase the state's renewable portfolio standard that
governs the amount of clean energy utilities must purchase,
codify environmental justice policy terms, increase the
state's offshore wind authorization to 6 gigawatts by 2035,
and establish a goal that 100 percent of electricity come
from renewable sources by 2035.
"What we need is
the political will to take urgent action and pass bold
climate legislation here in the Commonwealth," Pacheco
said....
The Senate
overwhelmingly passed a package of climate bills in January
that called for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and set
deadlines for the state to impose carbon-pricing mechanisms
for transportation, commercial buildings and homes. The
House, which had earlier passed a $1.3 billion climate
adaptation bill, in July passed its response to the main
Senate proposal, addressing the 2050 emissions reduction
roadmap, solar energy net metering, grid modernization,
workforce development, energy efficiency, and municipal
electric and light plant clean energy targets. A conference
committee has been trying to iron out the differences in
those bills since early August.
State House News
Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Senator Prods Climate Bill Negotiators With New Bill
Progress at Risk Without Agreement Soon, Pacheco Says
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The State House News Service reported on
Friday ("Sudden Tax Revenue Markup Alters State Budget Dynamics;
More Spending, Smaller Reserve Draw Possible"):
The Baker administration now plans to
collect nearly half a billion dollars more from
taxpayers this fiscal year than it did two months ago
when the governor filed his revised budget, money that
could limit a big drawdown on the state's reserves and
support additional spending.
In conjunction with signing a $45.9 billion
fiscal year 2021 budget Friday, Gov. Charlie Baker's budget
office also upgraded its tax revenue assumption by $459
million to $28.44 billion, in part due to fiscal 2021 tax
collections that are running $142 million or 1.3 percent
ahead of fiscal 2020 collections through five months.
The Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said it expects to receive $249 million more in
income taxes and $210 million more in sales taxes than it
estimated in mid-October when Baker filed a revised budget
that assumed $27.592 billion in available tax revenue this
fiscal year. The administration made no change to its
assumptions for business and other taxes....
Baker's budget office expects to be able to do a couple of things
now that it expects to collect more from taxpayers....
The revenue estimate upgrade also gave the administration
flexibility to file a $107.4 million supplemental budget Friday ...
Through November, the Department of Revenue
had collected $11.464 billion in tax receipts for fiscal
2021 -- $142 million or 1.3 percent more than had been
collected during the same time period in fiscal year 2020.
In the News Services follow-up report ("Baker Signs $45.9 Bil State Budget, Returns Abortion Plan;
Vetoes $156 Million, Including School Funds") it noted"
Gov. Charlie Baker signed a $45.9 billion
state budget on Friday that will not raise broad-based taxes
and reflects a more optimistic view of state finances than
once feared early in the pandemic, but the governor sent
back with amendments a key section of the legislation that
would expand access to abortion....
The budget, which is more than five months
overdue, relies heavily on one-time revenue to balance
spending growth of 4.5 percent, including more than $2.76
billion in federal COVID-19 funds and a draw of up to $1.7
billion from the state's "rainy day" fund.
But the administration also planned to
upgrade its revenue projections for the year by $459
million, as some sources of tax revenue, like the sales tax,
continue to perform strongly.
The Executive Office of Administration and
Finance said the combination of strong revenues and money
vetoed from the budget make it likely that the state will
only need to use about $1.35 billion this fiscal year from
its $3.5 billion in reserves.
Back
on January 25th I wrote:
State House News Service
last summer on July 31, 2019 reported on the passage of the current
state budget ("Baker
okays all spending in record $43.3 Bil budget" by Katie Lannan):
Gov. Charlie Baker on Wednesday accomplished something House
Speaker Robert DeLeo, who joined the Legislature in 1991, said
he does not remember seeing happen before: signing the annual
state budget without issuing a single spending veto.
Placing the bottom
line at $43.3 billion, Baker signed the annual budget just after
10 a.m. Wednesday, nearly a full month after the start of fiscal
2020 on July 1.
This week the governor
proposed spending $44.6 billion in the upcoming fiscal 2021 budget
— an additional $1.3 billion over this
fiscal year's record budget spending.
According to the Baker
administration, "the governor's budget would increase overall state
spending by 2.3 percent above the current fiscal year."
Stop right here and think
of this: Just 2.3 percent of the current fiscal year's
spending amounts to $1.3 billion.
Just ten years ago the
Legislature passed its
FY 2011 budget for $27.6 billion. That was $17 billion less
than Gov. Baker's proposed spending, only ten years later. 2.3
percent of that FY 2011 budget would have been $635 million. 2.3
percent today is $1.3 billion.
This is what happens when
unfettered spending incrementally increases by more than a billion
taxpayers' dollars piled on year after year.
The budget passed by the Legislature on
December 4 and sent to the governor totaled $46.46 Billion. Though
publicized as $46.2, the State House News Service
reported at that time:
While
legislative leaders like [Sen.] Rodrigues have been referring to the
budget as a $46.2 billion spending bill, the bill text itself notes
the total appropriation is for almost $46.46 billion. The
discrepancy, according to a Senate budget official, has to do with
accounting practices and whether certain budget transfers, like a
transfer of funds to MassHealth from the Medical Assistance Trust
Fund, are counted toward the bottom line.
Even if accepting the $46.2 Billion figure,
Gov. Baker reduced the Legislature's proposed budget by $300 Million, to
$45.9 Billion. Amidst the Wuhan China Pandemic and
despite the governor's draconian nine-month economic lockdown response
— but apparently increased revenue collections
nonetheless — still the budget will increase by $1.3 Billion more
than even what Baker initially proposed spending back before the
pandemic: $44.6 Billion.
This belated, current
FY 2021 budget is $2.6 Billion more than the last (FY 2020) $43.3 budget
passed on July 31, 2019.
VIDEO
A Government of Laws, Not of Men, Desrosiers v. Baker case
video
Gov. Baker's installed Supreme
Judicial Court not surprisingly ruled in his favor, finding that his
unbridled pandemic powers are not unconstitutional. The State
House News Service reported on Thursday ("SJC Rejects Challenge to
Baker’s Authority in Pandemic; Rules Guv Acting Within Civil Defense Act
Powers"):
Gov.
Charlie Baker's extensive, executive order-fueled pandemic response
is justifiable under state law and did not violate the
constitutional rights of businesses and organizations affected by
mandatory shutdowns, the state's highest court ruled Thursday.
Six
months after the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued Massachusetts on
behalf of business owners and religious institutions, the Supreme
Judicial Court upheld the Baker administration's emergency actions,
concluding that the governor acted within the emergency powers
afforded to governors under a 1950 law.
The
consequential decision allows the state's COVID-19 strategy to
continue along its current trajectory, avoiding a sudden and
dramatic shift in how leaders approach the public health emergency
amid rapid transmission of the highly infectious virus and dwindling
hospital capacity.
Justices included a key caveat, though, that their ruling does not
give blanket authorization for future health emergencies and that
the governor's response might need to be curtailed once the COVID
outlook improves.
"I
think we've tried pretty hard to be balanced and to be as reasonable
and fair as we could be in this very difficult time and very
difficult circumstances and I appreciate the SJC's decision with
respect to those issues," Baker said in the wake of the decision.
Representatives from NCLA and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance,
which supported the lawsuit, told reporters Thursday that they are
exploring the possibility of appealing portions of the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
"Massachusetts has now shepherded the liberty-loving principles of
the American Revolution from cradle to grave," NCLA Senior
Litigation Counsel Michael DeGrandis, who argued the case before the
SJC, said in a statement. "John Adams must be spinning in his tomb
at the news that the colony that he and his fellow patriots fought
so hard to liberate from arbitrary royal decrees, and establish as a
republic grounded in a government of laws and the consent of the
governed, has become what Adams feared most." ...
However, the court ruled that Baker's forced business shutdowns and
phased reopening plans do not violate constitutional due process or
free assembly rights....
"The
Governor is not, as the plaintiffs argue, 'donn[ing] the mantle and
crown' to pick winners and losers; he is making difficult decisions
about which types of businesses are 'essential' to provide people
with the services needed to live and which types of businesses are
more conducive to spreading COVID-19, and basing his emergency
orders on those determinations," [Justice Elspeth Cypher] wrote....
Baker's response also did not interfere with the Legislature's role
in guiding the state through a crisis, according to the court. His
orders stemmed from legislative authority granted under the Civil
Defense Act, and the court noted that lawmakers have not exercised
their authority under that law to make the act or any part of it
inoperative through the adoption of a joint resolution.
Justices pointed to several COVID response bills the House and
Senate passed, including a moratorium on most evictions and
foreclosures, approval for expanded take-out and delivery food and
drink, and an overhaul of voting procedures.
"Therefore, not only have the emergency orders not precluded the
Legislature from exercising its full authority to pass laws, but the
Legislature also has at its disposal a way to curb the Governor's
powers under the CDA, should it desire to do so, and it has not done
so," they said.
Asked
whether lawmakers are interested in codifying some of the pandemic
restrictions that so far have been doled out through executive
order, [NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Michael DeGrandis] replied
that Massachusetts does not have "a critical mass of legislators
willing to take the political risk" of passing unpopular laws....
Five
out of the six justices in the SJC's Thursday ruling -- Cypher,
Kimberly Budd, Frank Gaziano, David Lowy and Scott Kafker -- were
all appointed by Baker.
The
sixth justice who heard oral arguments and participated in the
decision, Barbara Lenk, had been the last member of the court not
hand-picked by Baker before she hit the mandatory retirement age of
70 this month.
All
seven justices now on the court, including new members Dalila
Wendlandt and Serge Georges, are Baker appointees.
Associated Justice Barbara Lenk was
appointed in 2011 by Gov. Deval Patrick and retired on December 1 upon
reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 for state judges. She
was quickly replaced by another Baker appointment, his seventh.
The Boston Globe on September 15 reported
("Baker,
already faced with a historic chance to reshape judiciary, could now
name the entire SJC"):
No governor since
Francis W. Sargent, whose final term ended nearly 50 years ago, has
tapped six new high-court justices while in office, the Globe has
reported. And it’s unclear if any governor has named as many new SJC
jurists as Baker will have since the early years of the state’s
constitution.
Alan Rogers, a Boston
College history professor who focuses on American legal history,
said he’s aware of one governor who nominated seven new justices to
the state’s highest court: John Hancock.
For decades, from personal experience
before it, we've often referred to the state's highest court as "The
Supreme Judicial Kangaroo Court." Now we can just call it
"The Baker Court" and expect even more disappointing outcomes, if that's
possible.
Are you losing faith in the entire judicial
system too?
In its Advances for next week the State
House News Service on Friday noted:
While Beacon
Hill leaders often blame partisanship and bickering for
holding up progress on important issues in Washington,
Democrats at the state level, with a lot less sniping
than their federal counterparts, have been mired in
their own quiet deadlocks for months. The
end-of-session deadline could prompt negotiators to
compromise, or just virtually log out of their talks.
House leaders have advised members of the potential for
formal sessions throughout next week. Senate
leaders did not release a session schedule beyond
Monday's informal session.
Five massive and important bills still
await compromise in five top-secret conference committees, including two
that are especially important to us. The Transportation Bond
Committee is still sitting on the House and Senate bills. The
Senate version includes the stealth assault on our Proposition 2½
that we first discovered and
revealed on July 11 then opposed in testimony and with a
news release on July 13.
Time is running out for the five
committees. Things are about to happen fast, or not at all.
I'm betting on fast, as usual.
One senior senator is attempting an end-run
around the
Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change, "prodding" it to
release its bill quickly. The bill stagnating within that
committee contains encouragement and specific authorization for the
governor to join the Transportation Climate Initiative.
On Friday the State House News Service
reported ("Senator Prods Climate Bill Negotiators With New Bill;
Progress at Risk Without Agreement Soon, Pacheco Says"):
Sen. Marc
Pacheco this week filed a new bill combining what he viewed as the
best parts of the climate policy bills that six other lawmakers have
been trying to reconcile since August.
The Senate dean who
chairs its Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change filed
essentially his own vision for a conference committee report
Wednesday and said he wanted to make sure Beacon Hill is "not losing
sight of the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"The legislature
appointed a conference committee in August to reconcile the
differences between climate bills passed by the Senate and House
earlier this session, but 125 days later, we still have yet to see
that report," Pacheco said.
Sen Pacheco's late-session bill was not
referred to a committee when the Senate met on Thursday so it's unlikely
to have any effect. If he's worried that the clock is running out
then perhaps CLT and taxpayers have less to worry about?
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
State House News
Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Sudden Tax Revenue Markup Alters State Budget Dynamics
More Spending, Smaller Reserve Draw Possible
By Colin A. Young
The Baker administration now plans to collect nearly half a billion
dollars more from taxpayers this fiscal year than it did two months
ago when the governor filed his revised budget, money that could
limit a big drawdown on the state's reserves and support additional
spending.
In conjunction with signing a $45.9 billion fiscal year 2021 budget
Friday, Gov. Charlie Baker's budget office also upgraded its tax
revenue assumption by $459 million to $28.44 billion, in part due to
fiscal 2021 tax collections that are running $142 million or 1.3
percent ahead of fiscal 2020 collections through five months.
The Executive Office of Administration and Finance said it expects
to receive $249 million more in income taxes and $210 million more
in sales taxes than it estimated in mid-October when Baker filed a
revised budget that assumed $27.592 billion in available tax revenue
this fiscal year. The administration made no change to its
assumptions for business and other taxes.
Baker's budget office expects to be able to do a couple of things
now that it expects to collect more from taxpayers. The
administration is budgeting for a $1.35 billion withdrawal from the
state's rainy day fund even though the budget authorizes a draw of
up to $1.7 billion, which one administration official said would be
made possible by the upgraded revenue figure and the governor's
vetoes of some earmarked spending.
The revenue estimate upgrade also gave the administration
flexibility to file a $107.4 million supplemental budget Friday that
would fund the portion of Baker's proposed small business recovery
program that the Legislature trimmed from the budget ($49.4
million), allow the administration to distribute about $53 million
in K-12 education funding without being constrained by a formula,
and provide $5 million to help establish a new Peace Officer
Standards and Training Commission.
When Baker filed his initial fiscal 2021 budget before the pandemic,
it was built on the $31.15 billion revenue estimate his office and
key lawmakers jointly agreed to. As the pandemic ravaged the economy
and budget writers opted to put the budget off until several months
into the fiscal year, some economists and lawmakers expected fiscal
2021 tax revenue could be as much as $8 billion shy of that
pre-pandemic estimate.
Instead, Baker's latest revenue projection would represent a decline
of $2.71 billion, or 8.7 percent, from the pre-pandemic consensus
revenue estimate. It also represents a decline of $1.156 billion or
3.9 percent from actual fiscal year 2020 collections of $29.596
billion.
Through November, the Department of Revenue had collected $11.464
billion in tax receipts for fiscal 2021 -- $142 million or 1.3
percent more than had been collected during the same time period in
fiscal year 2020.
"Month after month, state tax revenues seem to defy economic logic,"
Evan Horowitz, executive director of the Center for State Policy
Analysis at Tufts University, said last week when November revenues
were announced. "They've held up surprisingly well since the summer,
despite high unemployment and real hardship. A lot could still go
wrong, but the state is actually on pace to collect over $31 billion
in FY21, significantly more than the $27.6 billion estimate built
into the proposed budget."
Baker's budget office, though, does not expect it will collect more
than $31 billion, meaning the bottom is bound to drop out at some
point and the trend of rosier-than-expected monthly tax hauls will
end.
An Administration and Finance official said Friday that the latest
nationwide surge in COVID-19 cases presents significant uncertainty
for the economy generally and specifically tax receipts and that the
federal tax law changes of recent years have put added importance on
the months of March, April, and May for state tax collections.
State House News
Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Baker Signs $45.9 Bil State Budget, Returns Abortion Plan
Vetoes $156 Million, Including School Funds
By Matt Murphy
Gov. Charlie Baker signed a $45.9 billion state budget on
Friday that will not raise broad-based taxes and reflects a
more optimistic view of state finances than once feared
early in the pandemic, but the governor sent back with
amendments a key section of the legislation that would
expand access to abortion.
Baker, a pro-choice Republican, said he supports many of the
abortion protections prioritized by Democratic leaders after
the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme
Court but said he could not support lowering the age of
consent to 16.
And while he said he would support making abortions
available to women after 24 weeks in cases where a doctor
has diagnosed a fatal fetal anomaly, he proposed an
amendment to tighten the language for when an abortion could
be performed to protect the mental health of the mother.
"Governor Baker is a strong supporter of women's access to
reproductive health care and is proud to have signed into
law several provisions protecting these rights previously.
That's why he supports many of the important provisions in
this budget section that will further protect women's
reproductive rights," spokeswoman Lizzy Guyton said.
The budget, which is more than five months overdue, relies
heavily on one-time revenue to balance spending growth of
4.5 percent, including more than $2.76 billion in federal
COVID-19 funds and a draw of up to $1.7 billion from the
state's "rainy day" fund.
But the administration also planned to upgrade its revenue
projections for the year by $459 million, as some sources of
tax revenue, like the sales tax, continue to perform
strongly.
The Executive Office of Administration and Finance said the
combination of strong revenues and money vetoed from the
budget make it likely that the state will only need to use
about $1.35 billion this fiscal year from its $3.5 billion
in reserves.
The budget level funds local aid to cities and towns and
includes a $108 million increase in Chapter 70 for schools,
increases support for substance abuse treatment and boosts
spending on rental assistance and food security programs.
The budget is still built upon $1.2 billion less in tax
revenue than the state collected in fiscal year 2020 and
$3.1 billion less than the original fiscal 2021 budget Baker
filed in January before the pandemic began, according to the
administration.
Though the governor often vetoes legislative earmarks,
budget officials said Baker signed off on $80 million in
earmarks that it saw as one-time needs directed by local
legislators to deal with the impacts of COVID-19, but the
governor vetoed $156 million in other spending, including
$103 million that it saw as an expansion of benefit programs
or service provider rates that would carry from year to
year.
The other $53 million vetoed by Baker was K-12 education
funding supported by the Legislature to help schools
struggling to educate students during the pandemic. Instead,
Baker refiled for the $53 million in a supplemental budget
bill that would allow his administration to dole out the
money for targeted programs, rather than distribute it
through a formula.
The supplemental budget he filed Friday also included $49.4
million in small business grants and $5 million to help set
up a new Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission,
which was part of the policing accountability legislation
that he returned to the Legislature Thursday with
amendments.
The small business grant money proposed by Baker represents
about half the business recovery program that Baker filed
for in his budget, but which was not included by the
Legislature.
In total, the governor signed 96 of the 113 outside policy
sections passed by the Legislature, including one allowing
the registrar of motor vehicle to require anyone granted a
hardship license after being caught driving with a blood
alcohol content of 0.15 or higher to use an ignition
interlock device.
Baker also approved of allowing marijuana dispensaries to
sell hemp and hemp products grown and manufactured in
Massachusetts, and he said yes to repealing a prohibition on
crabbing in coastal waters from January 1 through April 30,
which the administration said is unnecessary for managing
the crab population.
The governor proposed an amendment to the section of the
budget that would allow for voting by mail through March 31,
2021 in any state or municipal election. While he approved
of what the Legislature sent to him, he proposed to add to
it by allowing municipalities to offer in-person early
voting if they wanted to.
The governor also returned a section of the budget related
to MBTA service cuts with amendments.
State House
News Service
Monday, December 7, 2020
Fiscal 2022 Budget Talks Start With Dec. 15 Revenue Hearing
By Matt Murphy
There won't be much time for the House and Senate budget
committees to relax after finalizing a spending plan for
fiscal 2021 and sending it on Friday to Gov. Charlie Baker
for review.
That's because planning for next year starts Tuesday, when
the Legislature and administration plan to invite economic
experts and state finance officials to testify about their
projections for revenue growth in fiscal year 2022, which
that starts in a little less than seven months.
The Ways and Means Committees and the Executive Office of
Administration and Finance have settled on Dec. 15 as the
date for the annual consensus revenue hearing, which unlike
the fiscal 2021 budget is happening right on schedule.
The House, Senate and administration plan to announce
further details about the hearing this week. The date was
confirmed by the News Service with officials from both the
House and Senate.
Every December legislative leaders and the administration
listen to testimony from economic experts as part of a
process for setting a revenue projection for the next fiscal
year. Gov. Charlie Baker, in turn, will use that revenue
projection to build and file a budget for fiscal 2022 in
late January.
The summoning of economists to Beacon Hill for their advice
and expertise has become a more common occurrence during the
pandemic, with the Ways and Means Committees hosting two
additional revenue hearings this year in April and October
as they sought to measure the fiscal impact of COVID-19.
In the past, those invited to testify have include the
commissioner of the Department of Revenue, the state
Treasurer, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the
Beacon Hill Institute, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy
Center, MassBenchmarks editors Michael Goodman and Alan
Clayton-Matthews, the Tufts University Center for State
Policy Analysis, and officials with the credit rating
agencies or the Federal Reserve.
The $46.2 billion fiscal 2021 budget used just less than
half of the state's reserves, or $1.7 billion in order to
push spending up more than 5 percent without raising taxes.
The approach, coupled with reliance on major increases in
federal aid, means fiscal 2012 talks will start with a big
projected revenue gap.
House budget chief Rep. Aaron Michlewitz said last week that
budget officials will aim to reach consensus on likely tax
collections for the upcoming budget year by late December or
early January.
The Boston
Herald
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
New coronavirus restrictions in Massachusetts unreasonable
and excessive
By Avi Nelson
By governor’s edict: in reaction to rising
COVID-19 cases, new restrictions – curfews,
gathering limitations, business closings, etc.
The actions are to prevent the health system
or hospitals from becoming overwhelmed. In
fact, that’s the only justification for such
limitations on individual liberty. Absent that
threat, people should be able to decide for
themselves whether they want to stay inside
or venture out.
But any restrictions should be as limited as
possible and must make sense. Some of the
governor’s pronouncements do not.
Face masks: By governor’s order, everyone must
wear masks “in all public places, even where
they are able to maintain 6 feet of
distance from others.” Penalty: $300
fine/violation.
A face mask helps prevent droplets and
aerosols you exhale (which may contain virus
particles) from reaching others, and partially
protects you from the exhalations of others.
But that means face masks help only when
there are other people around. If you’re
alone, in a private or public space, there’s
no reason to wear a mask – especially
outdoors.
Exhaled virus particles dissipate quickly in
air and beyond 6 feet are not considered a
threat.
10 p.m. curfew: It’s unknown whether forcing
people into often poorly ventilated and crowded
apartments earlier at night will reduce COVID
cases. After curfew, the advisory permits
going for a walk. But should we require a
governor’s permission just to go for a walk?
Businesses closed 9:30 p.m. - 5 a.m. ($500
fine/violation): This is especially burdensome
for restaurants – already clobbered by COVID.
Another hour, or half-hour, would give
restaurants a possible additional seating. The
extra time wouldn’t materially affect COVID,
but it could significantly help restaurants.
To get an alcoholic drink in any eating
place, you must order food (even if you
want just a drink and are planning on
dinner afterwards). Nuts, pretzels, bags of
chips don’t qualify – only food “prepared
on-site.” So, house-made chips are OK, chips
made elsewhere aren’t.
After 9:30 p.m., restaurants can sell take-out
food and beverages, but no alcohol. After 5
a.m., however, you can get whatever liquor
you want for breakfast.
Some new instructions are counterproductive.
Example: Gyms must now close at 9:30 p.m.
Many gyms operate 24/7, and some patrons go
late at night because there are fewer people,
facilitating access to machines and weights.
Decreasing the hours increases the concentration
of people during the fewer open hours.
Greater people density incites higher COVID
rates – the opposite of the objective. The
governor should encourage gyms to expand, not
contract, their operating hours to spread out
participation levels.
Always exempt from restrictions are “essential
workers.” This includes the political class –
elected officials, members of government, etc.
It should be required that when any
governmental restrictions are imposed, the
salaries of politicians and higher-ups in
government are suspended or cut. Let them
feel the same hurt they’re imposing on
ordinary folks.
COVID-19 restrictions have caused erosions of
freedom, job losses and financial and
psychological hardships. We understand the
governor is endeavoring to balance freedom vs.
responding to COVID. But he must play fair
with the people – and not impose regulations
that are excessive or illogical.
— Avi Nelson is a
Boston-based political analyst and talk-show host.
VIDEO
A Government of Laws, Not of Men, Desrosiers v. Baker case
video
State House
News Service
Thursday, December 10, 2020
SJC Rejects Challenge to Baker’s Authority in Pandemic
Rules Guv Acting Within Civil Defense Act Powers
By Chris Lisinski
Gov. Charlie Baker's extensive, executive order-fueled
pandemic response is justifiable under state law and did not
violate the constitutional rights of businesses and
organizations affected by mandatory shutdowns, the state's
highest court ruled Thursday.
Six months after the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued
Massachusetts on behalf of business owners and religious
institutions, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Baker
administration's emergency actions, concluding that the
governor acted within the emergency powers afforded to
governors under a 1950 law.
The consequential decision allows the state's COVID-19
strategy to continue along its current trajectory, avoiding
a sudden and dramatic shift in how leaders approach the
public health emergency amid rapid transmission of the
highly infectious virus and dwindling hospital capacity.
Justices included a key caveat, though, that their ruling
does not give blanket authorization for future health
emergencies and that the governor's response might need to
be curtailed once the COVID outlook improves.
"I think we've tried pretty hard to be balanced and to be as
reasonable and fair as we could be in this very difficult
time and very difficult circumstances and I appreciate the
SJC's decision with respect to those issues," Baker said in
the wake of the decision.
Representatives from NCLA and the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance, which supported the lawsuit, told reporters
Thursday that they are exploring the possibility of
appealing portions of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Massachusetts has now shepherded the liberty-loving
principles of the American Revolution from cradle to grave,"
NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Michael DeGrandis, who argued
the case before the SJC, said in a statement. "John Adams
must be spinning in his tomb at the news that the colony
that he and his fellow patriots fought so hard to liberate
from arbitrary royal decrees, and establish as a republic
grounded in a government of laws and the consent of the
governed, has become what Adams feared most."
They had argued that Baker improperly based his litany of
orders on powers granted under the Civil Defense Act, a 1950
state law that outlines gubernatorial emergency powers in
crisis situations such as wars and natural disasters.
The CDA does not explicitly name pandemics, and that
prompted Baker opponents to argue that he overstepped his
limits. Instead, the plaintiffs said, local boards of health
should have taken the lead on COVID response under the
Public Health Act that tasks them with disease control.
In the court's view, however, the global pandemic falls
clearly into the "other natural causes" category in the
Civil Defense Act and creates an emergency of such a scale
that it "cannot be addressed solely at the local level."
"It is clear from the language of both acts that the
Legislature could not have intended the PHA, and therefore
primarily local boards of health, to be exclusively
responsible for addressing a public health crisis such as
COVID-19, a pandemic that has killed over one million people
globally and over 10,000 people in Massachusetts," Justice
Elspeth Cypher wrote in the court's decision.
The health crisis also spawned a national recession.
Millions of workers are jobless, and many businesses do not
anticipate surviving a long winter unless they receive
financial support.
However, the court ruled that Baker's forced business
shutdowns and phased reopening plans do not violate
constitutional due process or free assembly rights.
Decisions on what and how organizations could operate were
widely applicable, not targeting individual businesses or
groups, justices said. The orders also did not outright ban
religious gatherings, but instead subjected them to the same
gathering limits as secular institutions.
Some employers face a "larger burden," the court said, but
justices concluded that does not make the restrictions
arbitrary.
"The Governor is not, as the plaintiffs argue, 'donn[ing]
the mantle and crown' to pick winners and losers; he is
making difficult decisions about which types of businesses
are 'essential' to provide people with the services needed
to live and which types of businesses are more conducive to
spreading COVID-19, and basing his emergency orders on those
determinations," Cypher wrote.
Baker's response also did not interfere with the
Legislature's role in guiding the state through a crisis,
according to the court. His orders stemmed from legislative
authority granted under the Civil Defense Act, and the court
noted that lawmakers have not exercised their authority
under that law to make the act or any part of it inoperative
through the adoption of a joint resolution.
Justices pointed to several COVID response bills the House
and Senate passed, including a moratorium on most evictions
and foreclosures, approval for expanded take-out and
delivery food and drink, and an overhaul of voting
procedures.
"Therefore, not only have the emergency orders not precluded
the Legislature from exercising its full authority to pass
laws, but the Legislature also has at its disposal a way to
curb the Governor's powers under the CDA, should it desire
to do so, and it has not done so," they said.
Asked whether lawmakers are interested in codifying some of
the pandemic restrictions that so far have been doled out
through executive order, DeGrandis replied that
Massachusetts does not have "a critical mass of legislators
willing to take the political risk" of passing unpopular
laws.
While the court ruled that Baker has stayed within the
proper lanes so far, justices stressed that the COVID-19
pandemic is a unique situation. Future health emergencies
might not qualify the same way under the Civil Defense Act.
Judges did not outline a clear timeframe, but hinted that
eventual improvement in the public health landscape might
require Baker to scale back the emergency response.
"Although we hold that the COVID-19 pandemic falls within
the CDA, we do not hold that all public health emergencies
necessarily will fall within the CDA, nor do we hold that
when the public health data regarding COVID-19 demonstrates
stable improvement, the threshold will not be crossed where
it no longer constitutes an emergency under the CDA," they
wrote.
That language did not give plaintiffs any optimism.
DeGrandis said he does not understand the court's rationale.
"I still think this is pretty open-ended," he said. "It's
pretty easy for the next governor to declare a state of
emergency with almost any health emergency, and that gives
me great concern for Massachusetts."
Ten local businesses and organizations, including churches,
salons and a boxing facility, sued Baker in June with the
help of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a national
non-profit that describes itself as fighting the
"unconstitutional administrative state."
Governors in other states have also faced challenges to
their legal authority during the COVID pandemic.
In Michigan, the state's top court ruled that Gov. Gretchen
Whitmer did not have authority to redeclare a state of
emergency without legislative authorization to extend an
earlier declaration beyond the 28 days allowable under
Michigan law.
SJC justices drew a clear contrast with that case, noting
that Massachusetts law does not set an explicit timeframe on
states of emergency and that the CDA provides "substantially
more detail and guidance to the Governor than the Emergency
Powers of the Governor Act provided the Michigan Governor."
Five out of the six justices in the SJC's Thursday ruling --
Cypher, Kimberly Budd, Frank Gaziano, David Lowy and Scott
Kafker -- were all appointed by Baker.
The sixth justice who heard oral arguments and participated
in the decision, Barbara Lenk, had been the last member of
the court not hand-picked by Baker before she hit the
mandatory retirement age of 70 this month.
All seven justices now on the court, including new members
Dalila Wendlandt and Serge Georges, are Baker appointees.
— Matt Murphy contributed
reporting.
State House
News Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Weekly Roundup - Phasing Facts
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Katie Lannan
The historic Hoosac Tunnel, running through the mountains
between North Adams and Florida, is four-and-three-quarters
miles long. The Big Dig's Tip O'Neill Tunnel goes for a mile
and a half under downtown Boston.
And the tunnel we unknowingly descended into sometime last
winter when the novel coronavirus first arrived in
Massachusetts? That one's measured not in miles, but in
months, and we still have a ways to go before coming out the
other side, or even before knowing exactly how much of the
trek remains.
But somewhere, off in the distance, is a faint glimmer, in
the form of vaccines that will be complicated to distribute,
require a bolstering of public trust and still have to work
their way through the rest of the federal approval process.
"The availability of a COVID-19 vaccine obviously provides
much needed hope and relief for many," Gov. Charlie Baker
said Wednesday. "In some ways, it does represent the
so-called light at the end of the tunnel, but administering
a vaccine to one person is a several week process, and after
the first dose, a person must wait about six weeks, and then
receive a second dose. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines
take about six weeks to provide a person with immunity from
the virus. That means that while the first doses will be
administered shortly, we're several months away from safely
vaccinating a majority of the people of Massachusetts."
"We are certainly not out of the woods yet," he said.
With the first 59,475 doses of Pfizer's vaccine set to land
in Massachusetts in a matter of days -- the shipment is
expected next Tuesday -- and make their way into ultra-cold
freezers at hospitals and the Department of Public Health,
Baker outlined a three-phase vaccination plan that aims to
make the shots available to the general public beginning in
April 2021.
Phase One of the plan, set to start this month, involves
vaccines for -- in order of priority -- health care and
non-clinical workers involved in pandemic response,
long-term care facilities, first responders, congregate care
settings like shelters, prisons and jails, and home-based
and other health care workers.
In Phase Two, it's individuals with two conditions that put
them at high risk of COVID-19 complications, workers in the
fields of early and K-12 education, transit, grocery,
utility, food and agriculture, sanitation, public works and
public health, people aged 65 and over, and individuals with
one comorbidity.
An eventual completion of all three phases of the vaccine
plan could herald the start of the fourth phase of the Baker
administration's reopening plan. That final tier -- the one
that could bring back nightclubs, dive bars, full bleachers
at Fenway Park, overnight summer camps, parades and street
festivals -- hinges on vaccines and other potential
breakthroughs lowering the risk inherent with large crowds.
While encouraging news around vaccination could make Phase 4
of the reopening seem closer, as of Sunday, it will get a
step further away.
Responding to what he called "disturbing" trends in COVID-19
cases and hospitalizations since Thanksgiving -- which
likely do not yet show the full impact of spread driven by
gatherings on that holiday -- Baker nudged the state
backwards in the reopening process, regressing from step two
of Phase 3 back to step one.
The move, which takes effect Sunday, will reduce capacity
from 50 percent to 40 percent in retail shops, offices,
libraries, museums and elsewhere, and it will require indoor
recreational venues to once again close.
There are plenty of communities that never advanced to step
two to begin with, including Boston, where Mayor Marty Walsh
is mulling what local rollback options might be available if
COVID-19 numbers continue their upward climb. Across all
communities, tighter face-covering rules will go into effect
-- no more sliding down your mask when you sit down at a
restaurant table, dive into a strenuous cardio workout or
join coworkers six feet away from you in a conference room.
New York City, meanwhile, plans to shut down its indoor
dining on Monday. Some critics who say Baker's rollback
didn't go far enough wanted to see him take a similar step
here, but the governor maintained his stance that
restaurants have stringent safety protocols in place and
aren't driving spread like informal social gatherings are.
The restrictions Baker did impose, which include a 90-minute
time limit for restaurant tables and a decrease in the
maximum number of diners allowed in a party, target what
he's identified as a major source of concern for him: people
spending time with members of other households.
Exactly nine months after he first declared a state of
emergency around the coronavirus, the Supreme Judicial Court
on Thursday affirmed Baker's authority to issue such orders
limiting business operations and economic activity,
rejecting a challenge that had argued the emergency
executive orders were improperly rooted in the 1950 Civil
Defense Act and amounted to an overstep of gubernatorial
authority.
The SJC will soon be back at full strength after the
September death of Chief Justice Ralph Gants and the
retirement this month of Justice Barbara Lenk.
The Governor's Council unanimously confirmed Boston
Municipal Court Judge Serge Georges Jr. for a seat on the
SJC bench. When Georges is sworn in, he will become the
court's seventh Baker appointee, putting Baker up there with
the likes of John Hancock as one of the few governors in
Massachusetts history to choose the full high court bench.
Baker this week also sought to make his mark on a major
policing accountability bill shipped to him by lawmakers
who, after months of closed-door negotiations, reached a
deal on differing House-Senate proposals that were inspired
by the racial justice movement.
Leaving some of the bill's more controversial measures --
including civilian control of a new licensing board and
limits on qualified immunity for police officers --
untouched, Baker offered up a series of amendments
addressing his dealbreakers.
"I'm not going to sign a bill into law that bans facial
recognition. I'm not going to sign a bill that puts people,
by law, in charge of training police officers that are not
law enforcement, and I'm not willing to take that activity
out of the executive branch," he said.
With 25 days left in this session, the ball is back in the
court of a Legislature that at one point wanted to pass a
policing bill in July and could have to start from scratch
next term if faced with a veto or -- depending on the timing
-- a pocket veto.
The House's 92-67 vote approving the compromise bill would
be insufficient to override a veto, and the 28-12 vote in
the Senate was over the two-thirds threshold by only one
vote, leaving little wiggle room.
One of the House's "yes" votes, Rep. Dan Cullinane, won't be
around for a potential override vote, or any other votes.
The Dorchester Democrat, who didn't seek reelection and has
had a lobbying job lined up since October, submitted his
resignation letter and is officially leaving Beacon Hill
after this weekend.
Also bound for a new gig is Massachusetts General Hospital
infectious diseases chief Dr. Rochelle Walensky, a member of
the state's COVID-19 Advisory Board whom President-elect Joe
Biden tapped as director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
"I can't think of a better person to be in this role, a
smarter, more compassionate person whose whole career has
been driven by scientific analysis of policy, who's a great
communicator," said Walensky's MGH colleague Dr. Paul
Biddinger. "I think for me, for the governor's advisory
group, we will miss her tremendously, but I think it's a
clear win for the nation."
With the policing bill off his plate for now, Baker on
Friday gave legislators more to chew over, signing a $45.9
billion state budget more than five months into the fiscal
year but also serving them $156 million in spending vetoes
and a handful of policy amendments. Some of that spending,
$53 million for schools, reappears in a separate
supplemental budget Baker filed Friday afternoon.
Notably, Baker returned the budget's abortion access
language, striking provisions that would allow 16- and
17-year-olds to undergo the procedure without parental
consent. Lowering the age from 18 is a substantial component
of the changes sought by supporters who rallied behind the
measure after the death of Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader
Ginsburg.
Baker described language that would ensure abortion access
in cases where the child would not survive after birth as an
important change to protect reproductive rights, but said he
"cannot support the other ways that this section expands the
availability of late-term abortions" and recommended
amendments there as well.
The governor's actions this week mean that abortion and
police reform, two high-profile issues that have been the
subject of passionate advocacy and opposition, are still
unresolved as the two-year term enters its final weeks.
And of course, other major bills dealing with health care,
climate change, transportation borrowing and economic
development remain tied up in conference committee talks,
creating the potential for a last-minute, end-of-session
crush of lame duck legislative activity around (and after)
Christmas and New Year's.
MBTA overseers might be able to take advantage of an option
not on the table for the Legislature: waiting until
February, when the transit agency begins its budgeting
process for next year.
The T's Fiscal and Management Control Board is set to vote
next week on a money-saving set of service cuts that have
been widely panned, and officials indicated this week that
the version that comes before the board will maintain more
service than the original draft. General manager Steve
Poftak also suggested that the board could "potentially
defer some decisions on service to the FY22 budget process
where it's feasible for us to have that flexibility."
For Baker's part, he said he thinks that "running empty
trains and buses, as a general rule, is bad public policy."
Regardless of what the MBTA's cuts ultimately look like and
when they materialize, fewer commuter rail trains will be on
the tracks Monday, and it's not budget-related. Rail
operator Keolis is reducing weekday service through at least
Dec. 27, citing "low employee availability because of
COVID-19 absences."
STORY OF THE WEEK: With the arrival of COVID vaccines on the
horizon, a distribution plan takes shape.
State House
News Service
Thursday, December 10, 2020
With Veto Threat, Baker Seeks Policing Bill Changes
Governor to Legislature: "I Want To Sign A Bill"
By Matt Murphy
Gov. Charlie Baker plans to return to the Legislature
landmark legislation that would impose new accountability
standards on police, proposing a handful of amendments
Thursday in the hope that Democrats will compromise, but
making clear he's not afraid to veto the legislation if
lawmakers resist those changes.
Baker, a Republican, has faced mounting pressure from both
sides of the policing debate since the Legislature finalized
its oversight bill over a week ago. Criminal justice reform
advocates have urged him to sign it, while police unions
have called it an attack on the men and women who wear a
badge.
In an interview with the News Service, the governor said he
was willing to make concessions, including accepting a
civilian-controlled licensing board and limits on qualified
immunity for police officers, but drew a line on several key
issues.
Baker said he would not sign a bill that, in any way, bans
police from using facial recognition systems to solve crimes
but believes concerns over biases in such software systems
need to be studied further. He also said the development of
training programs for police should not be handed over to a
civilian-controlled commission, but should be managed by law
enforcement personnel within the executive branch.
"This is about making compromise and I'm ready to do that on
almost everything with respect to improving accountability
for law enforcement. But there are parts of this bill that
were never part of that conversation about accountability
that I can't support," Baker said.
A veto could force the Legislature to revisit the issue from
scratch in the next session, which begins on Jan. 6.
Democratic leadership in the House could not muster a
veto-proof majority to pass the bill last week, voting 92-67
in favor of a conference report that could not be amended on
the floor.
The 28-12 margin in the Senate was also razor thin, leaving
Democrats able to lose just one vote to be able to override
the governor. Baker could also let the bill become law
without his signature.
Asked if he was willing to risk losing the momentum behind
the bill this year, Baker said he hoped the "deference" he
was showing to the Legislature by limiting the scope of his
proposed changes would entice them to compromise.
"I think the Legislature wants this accountability bill
passed and signed just as badly as we do and we tried very
hard here to focus on a very small number of things we
thought were important," Baker said.
The Legislature last week sent Baker a compromise bill to
create a new Peace Officer Standards and Training
Commission, which would make Massachusetts one of the last
states in the country to have a board in charge of licensing
law enforcement officers.
The issue became a focal point for Beacon Hill following the
killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, whose deaths at
the hands of police sent waves of demonstrators into the
streets of Boston and other cities to protest police
violence.
That POST Commission would have the authority to decertify
police officers for violating a person's right to bias-free
policing or using excessive force, and the bill would put
severe restrictions on the use of chokeholds and no-knock
warrants.
Baker said he supports all of those measures.
"We are really anxious to set up a system to license and
delicense police, which we believe is a big missing link in
our statutory framework," he said.
The governor also said he was willing to support an
independent, nine-member POST Commission compromised of just
three law enforcement officers and six civilians, despite
his own bill in June that recommended an almost evenly-split
board be put under the umbrella of the Executive Office of
Public Safety. The composition of the commission has been a
point of contention for police unions.
The governor is recommending that one of the three police
officers on the panel - the officer below the rank of
sergeant - be a labor union representative chosen from a
list prepared by the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Policy
Group.
Baker said he could "live with" another controversial
section of the bill that would expose law enforcement
officers who have been decertified for misconduct to civil
lawsuits by removing their qualified immunity protection for
actions taken on the job.
"I want to sign a bill and I'm willing to let a lot of
things that were not a part of our legislation become a part
of this package to get this done," Baker said, when asked
about qualified immunity.
The sticking points, however, center around access to facial
recognition technology, police training and his
administration's ability to implement the law.
"I'm not going to sign a bill into law that bans facial
recognition. I'm not going to sign a bill that puts people,
by law, in charge of training police officers that are not
law enforcement, and I'm not willing to take that activity
out of the executive branch," Baker said.
The restrictions on the use of facial recognition were
defended during debate by Democrats like Sen. Cythia Creem
of and Rep. Dave Rogers, who said the RMV database was being
used by police without warrants.
"The state is using powerful surveillance technology without
regulation or oversight. This technology has been proven to
misidentify people of color and women and it is so important
that we take this step today," Rogers said in July.
The bill the Legislature passed would allow law enforcement
to get a warrant to access the RMV system, or ask the RMV to
help in emergencies. But governor believes facial
recognition software can be an important tool in solving
crimes, saying that he knew of two cases involving a child
rapist and an accomplice to double murder that were solved
with the help of the technology.
Baker is proposing to expand the scope of a study into the
use of facial recognition, while at the same time stripping
the bill of restrictions that ban all agencies except the
Registry of Motor Vehicles from using any software that
captures biometric data.
"We bulked up the commission that was established by the
bill, but I'm not willing to get rid of it when it is a tool
that can make a difference," Baker said.
Baker also proposed to remove police training from the
purview of the POST Commission, and to restore the Municipal
Police Training Committee to its current location within the
executive branch.
"We need to make training better and that needs to be done
within the context of the executive branch and with the
cooperation of cities and towns," Baker said.
Baker also asked that the effective date for all
organization changes in the bill be pushed out to the start
of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2021 to give officials
time to set up the new commission, and he said in the coming
days he would be filing legislation to make funding
available for the POST Commission to do its work.
"This is going to be expensive and the fact that there are
no resources there I think is something we need to resolve,"
Baker said.
One of the other amendments offered by the administration
would add to the definition of bias-free policing to make
clear that police may consider a person's race, ethnicity,
sex, gender identity or other traits as long as it was for a
non-discriminatory reason or because those factors were an
element of a crime.
Finally, Baker is recommending that police departments be
given a finite amount of time to complete internal affairs
investigations into police misconduct before the POST
Commission takes control of an investigation, addressing
some of the due process concerns raised by police and
lawmakers.
"I do not believe that our amendments negatively affect the
legislative vision for creating accountability," Baker said,
adding, "I'm really excited that we're close to making this
happen."
State House
News Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Advances - Week of Dec. 13, 2020
The next move on proposed changes to state abortion and
policing laws belongs to the Legislature after Gov. Charlie
Baker this week returned proposals to expand abortion access
and enact a certification system as a check against police
misconduct.
Massachusetts on Friday did finally get a signed $45.9
billion annual state budget - 164 days into fiscal 2021 and
five days before state officials will get briefed on the
revenue outlook for the fiscal 2022 budget. Baker slashed
$156 million in spending through vetoes that Democrats will
consider overriding before the end of the year.
The darkness of conference committee talks also looms large
with less than four weeks remaining for legislators to
finish or fail when it comes to big bills governing climate
change, economic development, transportation spending and
health care policy.
While Beacon Hill leaders often blame partisanship and
bickering for holding up progress on important issues in
Washington, Democrats at the state level, with a lot less
sniping than their federal counterparts, have been mired in
their own quiet deadlocks for months. The end-of-session
deadline could prompt negotiators to compromise, or just
virtually log out of their talks. House leaders have advised
members of the potential for formal sessions throughout next
week. Senate leaders did not release a session schedule
beyond Monday's informal session.
Massachusetts electors on Monday are set to advance the
process of seating a new president, gathering to cast the
state's 11 electoral votes for President-elect Joe Biden.
The Delaware Democrat is preparing to take over for
President Donald Trump, who remains focused on his unproven
election conspiracy claims even as the COVID-19 crisis
spirals further out of control nationwide.
Exploding caseloads are fueling calls for tighter
restrictions even as the first vaccines are set to arrive
here, triggering a months-long effort to immunize the
population and perhaps finally end the public health
disaster.
The state next week could see its first resident roll up
their sleeve and take the first of two required immunization
shots, but before that occurs the whole state on Sunday will
take a step back in its economic reopening. And MBTA
officials on Monday are set to vote on service cuts in
response to reduced ridership, a move that critics say will
reduce mobility for many who can least afford it.
— Michael P. Norton
State House
News Service
Friday, December 11, 2020
Senator Prods Climate Bill Negotiators With New Bill
Progress at Risk Without Agreement Soon, Pacheco Says
By Colin A. Young
Hoping to deliver "a wake-up call" and highlight the urgency
of the issue, Sen. Marc Pacheco this week filed a new bill
combining what he viewed as the best parts of the climate
policy bills that six other lawmakers have been trying to
reconcile since August.
The Senate dean who chairs its Committee on Global Warming
and Climate Change filed essentially his own vision for a
conference committee report Wednesday and said he wanted to
make sure Beacon Hill is "not losing sight of the urgent
need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"The legislature appointed a conference committee in August
to reconcile the differences between climate bills passed by
the Senate and House earlier this session, but 125 days
later, we still have yet to see that report," Pacheco said.
The late-session bill, which was not referred to a committee
when the Senate met Thursday, would establish a requirement
to get to net zero emissions by 2050 with interim limits
every five years, increase the state's renewable portfolio
standard that governs the amount of clean energy utilities
must purchase, codify environmental justice policy terms,
increase the state's offshore wind authorization to 6
gigawatts by 2035, and establish a goal that 100 percent of
electricity come from renewable sources by 2035.
"What we need is the political will to take urgent action
and pass bold climate legislation here in the Commonwealth,"
Pacheco said.
Eighty-one state lawmakers rang in 2019 and the start of the
current two-year legislative session by resolving to pursue
a suite of climate policies, including moving the state to
net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The year brought youth
climate strikes and clean energy pushes from municipal and
business leaders but not, ultimately, completed climate
legislation.
At the start of 2020, Gov. Charlie Baker, House Speaker
Robert DeLeo and Senate President Karen Spilka all declared
their support for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 on the
same day in January. But that shared goal, one that climate
activists have spent years clamoring for, still has not been
carved into statutory stone.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed a package of climate bills
in January that called for net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, and set deadlines for the state to impose
carbon-pricing mechanisms for transportation, commercial
buildings and homes. The House, which had earlier passed a
$1.3 billion climate adaptation bill, in July passed its
response to the main Senate proposal, addressing the 2050
emissions reduction roadmap, solar energy net metering, grid
modernization, workforce development, energy efficiency, and
municipal electric and light plant clean energy targets. A
conference committee has been trying to iron out the
differences in those bills since early August.
Sen. Michael Barrett, the Senate's lead climate bill
negotiator and chief sponsor of the suite of bills the
chamber adopted at the start of the year, declined to
comment late Thursday on the status of conference committee
talks or Pacheco's newly-filed bill. Like nearly all
conference committees, the climate negotiators are meeting
(or not) in private and legislators typically consider the
contents of ongoing talks to be off-limits for public
discussion.
"I have a great deal of respect for the negotiation process
and the committee conferees. But the inconvenient truth is
even if the conferees were to release a report that combined
the strongest provisions of both bills, that legislation
still wouldn't provide the tools and policy options needed
to achieve net zero emissions without utilizing policy
options that are not before the conference committee,"
Pacheco said.
A greater expansion of offshore wind power is fundamental to
the state's shift to cleaner energy and "a virtual
prerequisite to achieving net zero emissions," he said.
When the Senate passed its climate policy bills in January,
it did not authorize additional offshore wind procurement
but the House included authorization for additional offshore
wind power in its bill. The Senate, though, adopted a
Pacheco amendment to its economic development bill to direct
the executive branch to procure another 2,800 MW of offshore
wind power by 2035, which would bring the state's total
authorization to 6 gigawatts.
Pacheco suggested this week that the six lawmakers
negotiating the economic development compromise report the
offshore wind language out on its own to allow the climate
change conference committee to fold it into its own talks.
"Otherwise, the legislature would be effectively adopting
the updated net zero emissions reduction requirement while
failing to provide the administrative tools needed to meet
that new requirement," he said. "We would be making a tragic
mistake not to seize the opportunity facing us at this
moment to regain our leadership in offshore wind
implementation."
The Baker administration's 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap and
the 2030 Clean Energy and Climate Plan are both expected to
be released this month. The 2050 Roadmap will be used to set
a 2030 emissions reduction target by the end of this year.
|
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
