THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives' votes on one roll call and local senators' votes on eight roll calls from the week of May 24-28. The Senate debated and approved a $28.4 billion fiscal 2011 state budget.

CHANGE CORI LAWS (H 4703)House 139-17, approved the bill making changes in the state's Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) laws.

The measure allows employers access to CORI information on felony convictions for ten years after the offender's release from jail and on misdemeanor convictions for five years. Currently, records are sealed after 15 years for felonies and ten years on misdemeanors. All convictions for sex offenses, murder and manslaughter would not be sealed and would be available for life.

Another provision would prohibit employers from asking on initial job applications whether an applicant has been arrested or convicted. The proposal retains the right of employers to ask about an applicant's criminal history, but delays this inquiry to ensure that applicants are considered for their qualifications before being screened for a criminal record.

Supporters said that the bill would finally reform the CORI system and give ex-offenders a better chance of finding employment and housing and becoming a part of the community. They noted that it also includes sufficient safeguards to ensure that employers and people living in the community are protected.

Some opponents said that the bill is too complicated and is being rushed through the House with little debate. Others said that the bill goes too far by allowing ex-offenders to omit on their initial application the fact that they served prison time.

The Senate has approved a different version of the proposal. A House-Senate conference committee will work out a compromise version.

(A "Yes" vote is for the bill. A "No" vote is against the bill.)

Rep. Thomas Calter, Yes                                     Rep. Daniel Webster, No                                      

SENATE APPROVES $28.4 BILLION FISCAL 2011 STATE BUDGET (S 4)

Senate 32-6, at 2:45 a.m. on Friday, approved an estimated $28.4 billion fiscal 2011 state budget that cuts local aid by $159 million, makes many cuts in hundreds of programs and increases funding for others. According to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the budget increases spending by approximately 1.7 percent from fiscal year 2010 estimated spending.

All five Republicans and one of the Senate's 35 Democrats voted against the budget. In the final hours of debate, the Senate added millions of dollars to the package including additional funds for full-day kindergarten, special education, prescription drug assistance for seniors and anti-gang violence grants.  

Supporters said that the budget is a fiscally responsible and balanced one that funds important programs to the best of the state's ability during this recession. They said that it does not raise taxes or take money from the Rainy Day Fund and closes a projected $3 billion deficit.

Opponents said that the budget is fiscally irresponsible, includes wasteful spending and omits more than $1 billion of savings proposals that were offered by the GOP. They argued that many reasonable reforms that would have saved money and funded more local aid and other important programs were rejected.

(A "Yes" vote is for the budget. A "No" vote is against the budget.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, No                                      

CRACKDOWN ON BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (S 4)

Senate 28-10, approved an amendment that would crack down on state benefits for illegal immigrants and punish the employers who hire them.

Two of the key provisions would require all businesses that receive state contracts to verify that their employees are legally here in Massachusetts and ban businesses from bidding on state contracts if they are found to violate federal law that prohibits the hiring of illegal immigrants. The measure also bars illegal immigrant students from receiving the benefit that would allow them to pay the same discounted in-state tuition rates and fees that legal students pay at Massachusetts colleges and universities.

Other provisions require MassHealth to verify the immigration status of applicants, increase the penalty for driving without a license, prohibit illegal immigrants from being placed in a public housing unit ahead of any applicant who is in the United States legally, establish a toll-free hotline for people to report the employment of illegal immigrants, create new penalties for falsifying state driver's licenses and IDs and require verification of the status of any criminal defendants appearing in court.

Supporters said that state services, with some emergency exceptions, should not be provided to people who broke the law and are here illegally. They emphasized that the legislation would only apply to illegal immigrants and includes many safeguards to protect individual rights. Some argued that the state should not be spending money on illegal immigrants during this recession when people are losing their jobs and homes and there are drastic cuts in many state services.

Opponents said that the proposal is mean-spirited and anti-immigrant and noted that many illegal immigrants are hardworking people who perform jobs that most Americans would not do. Others said that this problem really should be solved on the federal level. Some argued that there are many legal immigrants who would find it difficult to produce the necessary documents.

The proposal gained bipartisan support on the Senate floor. All five Republicans and 23 of the chamber’s 35 Democrats voted for the controversial measure. All ten votes against it were from Democrats.

(A "Yes" vote is for the crackdown amendment. A "No" vote is against it.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

FOUR PERCENT ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS TO FUND MORE LOCAL AID (S 4)

Senate 5-33, rejected an amendment cutting the budget of all administrative accounts in the state's executive offices by four percent. The resulting savings would be distributed to cities and towns as local aid.

Amendment supporters said that this would save millions of dollars that could be used to increase local aid to cities and towns and prevent local cuts in education, public safety and other important programs. They noted that the cut would do away with many unnecessary patronage positions that have been added in the past three years and would not affect accounts that provide direct services to people. They argued that a four percent cut is reasonable and is similar to action that families are forced to take in light of the economy.

Amendment opponents said that across-the-board cuts are irresponsible because they treat all accounts the same when in fact some would be severely affected by cuts and others would not feel much effect. They argued that many cuts have already been made and that any future ones should be done program by program - not on a one-size-fits-all basis. Some noted that the local aid cut is difficult but necessary.

(A "Yes" vote is for the four percent cut and the local aid increase. A "No" vote is against the cut and the local aid increase.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

LIMIT SALARIES AT STATE AUTHORITIES (S 4)

Senate 35-3, approved an amendment that would limit salaries at all state quasi-public authorities to the salary of the governor, currently $134,000, unless the Secretary of Administration and Finance signs a documented justification for the higher compensation. These state authorities include the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), Massachusetts Port Authority and Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

Amendment supporters said that there are more than 50 of these independent authorities, many of which are often accused of questionable and controversial practices. They noted that they use taxpayer money but do not face the same scrutiny that "regular" state agencies do. They argued that last year more than 1,000 of the 15,000 employees at these authorities made $100,000 or more and cited some outrageous salaries north of $300,000.

Amendment opponents said that the amendment is well-intentioned but impractical. They noted that the governor's salary has been static since 2001 and argued that the jobs at these authorities should not have any relationship to an arbitrary salary. They argued that capping these salaries at $134,000 would prevent these agencies from attracting talented executives.

(A "Yes" vote is for limiting the salaries. A "No" vote is against limiting them.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

ABOLISH $25 FEE TO APPEAL SPEEDING AND TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS (S 4)

Senate 17-21, rejected a motion to repeal a current law that imposes a $25 fee on anyone who challenges a non-criminal traffic violation in court.

Opponents of the fee said that people should not have to pay for an initial hearing on a speeding or traffic ticket. They said that this fee goes too far and noted that it is sufficient to impose a fine on anyone found guilty of the violation.

Supporters of the fee said that it is reasonable and is not much different than existing court filing fees for many types of cases. They argued that the fee generates $6 million which the state cannot afford to lose during this recession.

(A "Yes" vote is for repeal and against the $25 fee. A "No" vote is against repeal and favors the $25 fee.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

ALLOW DRUG COMPANIES TO HOST DINNERS FOR DOCTORS IN RESTAURANTS (S 4)

Senate 18-19, rejected an amendment that would allow drug companies to host informational dinners for doctors at private restaurants. The amendment would repeal a 2009 law that allows the dinners to be held only in medical offices and hospitals.

Amendment supporters said that restaurants near hospitals have lost up to 25 percent of their business as a result of the ban which also affects the income of restaurant staff. They argued that it is hardly a giant step or breach of ethics to allow these legal dinners to take place in a restaurant since they already take place at hospitals where catered meals are brought in from outside. They noted that border states do not have similar laws and many companies are simply holding the dinners out of state.

Amendment opponents said that the 2009 law was designed to stop drug companies from wining and dining doctors in order to influence their decisions when prescribing medication for their patients. They argued that repeal of the law would be a step backwards in reforming the health care system and trying to contain costs.

(A "Yes" vote is for allowing drug companies to host informational dinners for doctors at private restaurants. A "No" vote is against allowing it.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

REPEAL PRIVATIZATION RESTRICTIONS (S 4)

Senate 8-30, rejected an amendment repealing the 1993 so-called "Pacheco Law" that regulates the privatization of state services that cost more than $200,000. The law includes several requirements including mandating that a state agency compare the cost of using a private company to the cost of the services if the current state employees were to work in the most cost-efficient manner - rather than to the actual current cost. The state auditor has the final say and can reject a contract that he or she determines has not met all of the requirements or is "not in the public interest."

Opponents of the law said that it is so restrictive that it has virtually stopped the privatization of state services. They noted that the law gives the state auditor excessive power to unilaterally stop proposed privatization contracts. They argued that private companies can often provide services at a lower cost than the state and noted that repeal of the law would allow more privatization of state services and save millions of dollars that could be used to fund important programs.

Supporters of the law said that prior to its passage, former Gov. William Weld's administration implemented extensive privatization of state services without any oversight or regulation of the process. They argued that the Pacheco Law has worked well and is designed to ensure that the quality of privately delivered services is equal to services that would be delivered by the state.

(A "Yes" vote is for repealing the Pacheco Law that regulates privatization. A "No" vote is against repeal and favors the Pacheco Law.)

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes                                     

REQUIRE STATE EMPLOYEES TO WORK ON EVACUATION DAY AND BUNKER HILL DAY (S 4)

Senate 25-12, approved an amendment that would abolish the Suffolk County legal holidays of Evacuation Day (March 17) and Bunker Hill Day (June 17).

The Statehouse and other state and local government buildings in only Boston, Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop are officially closed each year on both dates. Thousands of local and state workers in those communities are given the two days off. Thousands of other state employees in all other cities and towns across the state are allowed to take the two days off or use them as "floating holidays" - a procedure under which they can take off two days of their choice during the year.

Amendment supporters said that eliminating the two holidays would save an estimated $5 million and would be a very important pro-taxpayer, symbolic move during a time when the state is drowning in debt and thousands of citizens have lost their jobs and houses. They argued that it is unfair and a waste of tax dollars that these state and local workers have these two "hack holidays" off. Some said that the elimination of the two days as state holidays would not prohibit communities in Suffolk County from making the two days into local city or town holidays.

Amendment opponents said that Bunker Hill Day commemorates the important Battle of Bunker Hill while Evacuation Day celebrates a key victory for the colonies as General George Washington and his troops drove the British out of Boston. They argued that these two holidays commemorate important events that took place in the city of Boston and said it is simply political grandstanding to attempt to eliminate them. Some said that the success of this cynical move could be a slippery slope that leads to the eventual abolition of other important holidays.

Although it was not brought up on the Senate floor, it has been discussed for years that declaring March 17 as Evacuation Day was just an excuse to provide a day off to celebrate St. Patrick's Day in Boston. Some say that the late Boston Mayor James Michael Curley assigned an aide to find an historical American event that occurred on St. Patrick's Day and the aide came up with Evacuation Day.

Six legislators who voted "No" in 2009 switched their votes to "Yes" last week. The list of switchers includes Sens. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester), Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln), Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville), Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) and Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy).

Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole) voted "Yes" in 2009 and then switched and voted "No" last week.

Both roll calls are listed. The first is from May 2009. The second is from last week.

(A "Yes" vote is for the amendment eliminating the two holidays. A "No" vote is against eliminating them and favors the two holidays.

Sen. Robert Hedlund, Yes/Yes                                 

ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL

SEVERAL BILLS APPROVED - The House, on voice votes without roll calls, gave initial approval to the following bills:

TRUSTS FOR PETS (H 1467) - Allows pet owners to set up trust funds to take care of their dogs and cats after the owner has died, just as if the animals were minor children.

LOSING A CELL PHONE (H 272) - Prohibits cellular phone companies from changing the terms of a contract when replacing a cell phone for a customer who loses it.

CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER (H 1614) - Increases from $1,000 to up to a $250,000 fine for the crime of "manslaughter by a corporation."

NOTIFY SCHOOLS OF CRIME (H 2213) - Requires police departments to notify school superintendents when a felony complaint is brought against any student.

COMMUTER BOATS (H 3172) - Requires that any commuter boat service that receives a state subsidy hold a public hearing before any changes are made in schedules and/or rates.

QUOTABLE QUOTES

"Incumbents."

–– ­Sen. Fred Berry (D-Peabody) interrupting Sen. Stephen Brewer (D-Barre) who was reading a list of endangered species during debate on an amendment dealing with the endangered species fund.

"The investigation determined that at no time was anyone's health or safety at risk."

–– Department of Public Health Director John Auerbach commenting on his department's report that some EMTs, paramedics, police officers and firefighters have obtained false certificates indicating that they attended the biennial necessary classes for updated training and certification. The investigation discovered that many had not attended the classes.

"When we look at the opponents of immigration, what we see is not always pretty. Among the most outrageous critics of immigration are racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other extremists who blame immigrants for all of our nation's problems."

–– Derrek Shulman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) New England Regional Director commenting on proposed Republican amendments in the State Senate to toughen laws that provide benefits to illegal immigrants.

"Mr. Shulman’s remarks today about the GOP’s immigration amendments are themselves out of order and should be retracted. This kind of rhetoric has no place in our conversation."

–– Senate President Therese Murray responding to Shulman's remarks.

"You have our attorney general running around saying, 'Technically, it's not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts.'"

–– Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield) criticizing Attorney General Martha Coakley during Senate debate about illegal immigrants.

"We are the most timid bunch of public policy servants I've ever seen."

–– Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield) during Senate debate on repealing the state law limiting the privatization of state services.

"The pharaoh of medical finance."

–– Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) referring to Sen. Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge), the chairman of the Health Care Financing Committee.

"The purpose of offering this (amendment) is to prevent the House from 'mummifying' this particular concept."

–– Moore responding to Tarr.

Volume 36 - Report No. 21

May 24-28, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Beacon Hill Roll Call. All Rights Reserved.