MA Needs a Strong Regulatory Framework for Facial Recognition Technology

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did back in 2020 in passing police accountability legislation. But there is more work to be done, including stronger regulations around the use of facial recognition technology. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.1728 and S.927: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology.

After passing limited regulations for facial recognition technology in 2020 (due to opposition to stronger regulations from Governor Baker), the Legislature created a special commission to study and recommend a regulatory framework. That commission, made up of diverse stakeholders, met, held hearings, and researched and discussed the issue. And that commission—including the AGO, the State Police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CPCS (among others)—agreed on a set of recommendations, reflected in this bill.

From past debates, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety).  

The provision of this bill help to address those problems by doing the following:

  • Requiring a warrant in order for police to conduct a facial recognition search—a necessary guardrail to protect privacy rights
  • Centralizing the use of facial recognition at the State Police in order to curb the potential for misuse, abuse, and wrongful arrests
  • Ensuring due process protections around the use of facial recognition technology in court cases
  • Prohibiting mass surveillance and emotion analysis in order to forestall the dystopian futures already happening in places like Russia and China

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1728 and S.927. When the Legislature creates a commission to do the hard work of studying an issue, and that commission puts forth reasoned recommendations, it should be incumbent upon the Legislature to advance them.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Wanted: Bold Action on the Climate Crisis

Join us and Mass Power Forward in calling on our legislators to wake up and do more for environmental and climate justice!

Every day, we see new evidence of the dire state of the climate crisis: whether it’s record heat waves, storms, droughts, wild fires.

Your legislators need to hear from YOU that climate justice can’t wait.

RSVP for Mass Power Forward’s decentralized lobby day on Dec 5.

Rather than asking you to travel to the State House for a meeting, this lobby day is focused on in-district meetings with your legislator — at a coffee shop, a library, a community center, or maybe just on Zoom.

The in-district meetings will be focusing on Mass Power Forward’s priority bills.

Putting a moratorium on new gas infrastructure
Making big polluters pay for the costs of climate adaptation
Scaling up our investment in green retrofits
Improving indoor air quality
Advancing environmental justice through siting reform and through strengthening civil rights

Want better prep before the lobby day? You can attend a training on Nov 29.

Sign up here to participate!

Rent Control and TOPA are Vital Parts of a Housing Policy Toolkit

Green affordable housing

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Chair Edwards, Chair Arciero, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge a favorable report for S.1299 / H.2103: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, S.872 / H.1304: An Act enabling local options for tenant protections, and S.880 / H.1350: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal.

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #45 in affordability. [1] A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 91 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2] 

Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions.

Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.

However, municipalities across Massachusetts are blocked from taking the necessary steps to address the housing crisis. The misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and a stringent home rule system that prevents municipalities from passing their own laws to govern the basic aspects of civil affairs hamstring municipalities.

By enabling our cities and towns to pass rent control ordinances tailored to their local needs, we can stem the displacement that is hitting so many communities.

We cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents.

There is a lot of fear-mongering around rent control, but I want to make a simple point. If you don’t think a landlord should be able to double or triple someone’s rent in a year after doing no work on the property, you believe in rent control, and the question is just a matter of percentages and exemptions.

On too many issues, Massachusetts is haunted by the ghosts of ill-advised ballot initiatives past. It’s 2023, and we need to act like it.

Empowering cities and towns to respond to our housing crisis also requires passing the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). The TOPA bill, which is similarly an enabling bill, recognizes that we need to preserve our affordable housing stock. Too often, when large landlords sell a building, a mass eviction or rent hike follows for the tenants. TOPA shows that there is another way: as has been a proven success in DC for decades, we could enable tenants to come together to purchase the building—and be granted the right of first refusal in doing so. It’s a common-sense policy for community stability and affordable housing at no cost to the state.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts 

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability

[2] https://nlihc.org/oor/state/ma

Mass Can Lead the Way on Medicare for All

Medicare for All

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Chair Friedman, Chair Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.744/H.1239: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the flaws of our current system clear. As we recognize the central public health message that our health is intertwined, we must build that recognition into health care delivery and ensure everyone can access the best-quality care possible. When anyone is too afraid of medical bills or debt to seek the care they need, we are all worse off.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

It’s Well Past Time to Retire Offensive Mascots

Chair Lewis, Chair Garlick, and members of the Joint Education Committee:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.477/S.245 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth).

The use of such mascots has serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes.

Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It’s time we listen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

House, Senate Send No Cost Calls to Governor’s Desk

Right now, families are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones. The DOC charges 12 cents per minute, and most County Sheriffs charge 14 cents per minute: $2.40 and $2.80 for a 20-minute call, plus fees for putting money on an account. This is a regressive tax on the most marginalized families that also harms public safety by limiting communication and weakening community bonds. Families currently spend more than $14 million per year on service the State could get for around $3 million by negotiating a better contract.

As communities already struggle with the high cost of housing and health care, no one should be forced to choose between basic needs and maintaining contact with loved ones.

The campaign for No Cost Calls, which almost saw victory last session before last-minute legislative shenanigans, had a great week, as both the House and Senate took the final enactment votes needed to send an amended version of No Cost Calls to the Governor’s Desk.

Both the House and Senate had previously passed No Cost Calls language in their budget, but Governor Healey requested a change in the effective date to December 1, which advocates agreed to as long as there was a clear guarantee of no loss in access (i.e., preventing DOC from taking the extended runway as an opportunity to create a lower baseline of access to phone calls).

The House voted 132 to 26 on Wednesday to formally enact the amended language, and the Senate did so by voice vote on Thursday.

You can find the House vote below:

Keep the Momentum Going for Medicare for All!

Health care is a human right, and our our policies need to reflect that.

That’s why we’ve been consistent supporters of Medicare for All, and the state’s Medicare for All bill is getting a hearing in the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing next Tuesday, November 14th at 10AM at the State House. The deadline to register to testify is this Thursday, November 9th.

Sign up to give testimony at the hearing

If you are able to go on Tuesday, then show up early to join Mass-Care for a rally outside on the State House steps before.
Rally and Testify for Medicare for All / Tuesday, November 14 — Rally 9 am, State House steps, Testify 10 am — Room A-1.

Whether or not you are able to submit testimony, it’s important for your legislators to hear from YOU.

Can you commit to writing to your state rep and state senator about Medicare for All?

And before you do…..Find out if your State Rep/Senator is a already a cosponsor.

Links from Our Friends at Mass-Care

  • Let Mass-Care know you’re coming
  • Spread the word about the 9AM rally on Facebook.
  • Check out Mass-Care’s Guide to the Bill Hearing

PM in the News: “We Can’t Tax-Cut Our Way to an Affordable Commonwealth”

Jonathan Cohn, “We Can’t Tax-Cut Our Way to an Affordable Commonwealth,” Fenway News, November 2023.

If Massachusetts wants to be an affordable state—attractive for people to move to, a place where people can thrive—that’s where our focus should be. And I hope that’s where our Legislature turns its attention for the rest of the session—and that legislators don’t have the audacity to say they don’t have the money to help make living here more affordable.

A Pro-Worker and Pro-Consumer Approach to “Gig Economy” Industries

Monday, November 6, 2023  

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint committee on Financial Services:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1158 and S.627: An Act establishing protections and accountability for TNC and DNC workers, consumers, and communities.

Big Tech companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and InstaCart have been flagrantly violating Massachusetts labor law by misclassifying their workers. Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”). As a reminder, those three parts are (1) that the work is done without the direction and control of the employer, (2) that the work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) that the work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. None of these apply to gig economy work. For example, there would be no Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, or InstaCart without their drivers; the claim that their companies are merely an app is a clear fallacy intended to evade the law.

These bills offer a solution a solution. By writing into law that drivers are employees, they make sure that drivers have the full range of protections employees have under the law, especially relating to wages, rights, and benefits.

Big Tech companies have been seeking to narrow the scope of what counts as “work time” for their drivers. These bills mandate that drivers and delivery workers are paid at least the MA minimum wage for all working time, and by requiring companies to reimburse workers for gas mileage at the IRS standard rate and pay for accidental liability insurance, they ensure that the drivers are actually receiving these full wages.

Importantly, these bills are also good for consumers. They would require these Big Tech companies to provide itemized charges, including surge pricing and fees and require them to provide a panic button system to guarantee safety.

The bills also establish a clear and strong regulatory framework for the industry, including reports on working conditions to the Department of Public Utilities and a requirement that rate hikes be approved by the DPU.

We would also like to go on record in opposition to H.961: An Act establishing portable benefit accounts for app-based-delivery drivers, an attempt by companies like DoorDash and InstaCart to codify their own violations of the law.

To reiterate a point we have made before, the ability to define away terms like “employee” and “independent contractor” sets a dangerous precedent, enabling companies across sectors to gut labor rights. Will we see restaurants claiming that the “restaurant” is only the physical building and physical infrastructure, relegating all employees to independent contractor status? Or hospitals claiming that the “hospital” is just the brick-and-mortar building, rather than the doctors, nurses, aides, and other health care workers that make it run? The list goes on.

That is not the future we want to live in, and we hope it is not one you want to live in either. We need to be proactive to set the right protections for workers and consumers and the right regulations for industry.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Why We Need a Zero-Carbon Renovation Fund

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Chair Roy: and Members of the House Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to An Act establishing a zero carbon renovation fund (H.3232), filed by Rep. Andy Vargas.

I think it is fitting that today’s hearing is held on Halloween because the present and future of climate change contains a litany of frights. This past summer, when this hearing had been originally scheduled, provided an ongoing series of warning signs of the need to take bold and comprehensive action on climate change. We experienced several of the hottest days on record globally. We saw extreme flooding hit neighboring states, and the same for the dystopian impacts of raging wildfires in Canada.

Fortunately, we know what we need to do to mitigate climate change. According to the recent Massachusetts Clean Heat Commission Final Report, achieving our state’s climate goals will require retrofitting an additional 500,000 residential homes and roughly 300 million square feet of commercial buildings to utilize energy-efficient electric heating by 2030, with a pace of 20,000-25,000 home installations a year ahead of 2025, ramping up to 80,000 a year in the latter half of the decade, and over 100,000 residential homes per year thereafter. If we want to meet our goals, we need to start accelerating and scaling our actions.

This bill would allocate $300 million for a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund (ZCRF), administered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to jumpstart the market for zero carbon renovations. Such renovations would include (1) maximizing energy efficiency through building envelope upgrades, (2) electrification of building systems, (3) maximizing usage of on-site renewable energy, wherever possible, and (4) use of building retrofit materials that are low embodied carbon.

Importantly, this bill understands that our sustainability transition must be an equitable one, and that some of the oldest housing stock is that where low-income communities and communities of color live. Accordingly, the ZCRF would prioritize affordable housing, public housing, low- and moderate-income homes, schools, BIPOC- and women-owned businesses, and buildings located in Environmental Justice communities.

We’ve seen positive steps from Gov. Healey about investing in green retrofits, but we must scale up that work.

The Legislature has made an ongoing commitment to passing climate legislation. Last session, you took important steps to expand the wind energy industry and to decarbonize transportation, among other steps. Decarbonizing buildings must be at the center of new climate legislation, as buildings make up a large share of our carbon emissions.

To go back to Halloween, perhaps the only thing more frightening than the scenarios of a much warmer world is the knowledge that we have the ability to act today and might not.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts