Stand Against Discrimination of Transgender People in MA!

As the mother of 2 transgender children, I have had many reasons to be glad that we live in Massachusetts. Our community has been very supportive since my daughters transitioned about 3 years ago, and Massachusetts is one of only 18 states in which my children can enjoy full protection under the law. As you may know, this came about in 2018 when the Legislature passed transgender anti-discrimination legislation, protecting the rights of transgender individuals in all public spaces.  What you may not know, however, is that this legislation is in jeopardy. Very soon after Governor Baker signed this law, opponents collected enough signatures to challenge it on the ballot via a so-called citizen’s veto referendum. This November, the rights of my daughters and all other transgender people in Massachusetts will be at stake.

Imagine what it could mean if the law’s opponents have their way. My oldest daughter could be forced to get off the T while going into Boston or my youngest daughter could be kicked out of a movie theatre with friends just for being who they are. My family could be asked to leave a restaurant while having a meal together just because whoever is working at that time doesn’t feel comfortable with transgender people. While these scenarios are bad, my worst nightmare is that one of my daughters could require life-saving medical treatment and could be refused if the doctor on duty doesn’t want to treat them. These situations and more could become reality for all transgender people living in Massachusetts.

Our opponents would have people believe that this is about bathrooms and public safety, but that is simply misdirection. They know that they will only be able to be successful if they employ scare tactics that will cause people to go against their own sense of fairness. At stake is what kind of state we would like to live in: I, like all members of Progressive Mass, want to live in a state where all residents are treated with dignity and respect and are fully and equally protected under the law.

While I know we have a while to go until November, I have been surprised that few people know that this important issue is on the ballot. But it’s important to get involved now: spreading the word about this question, making sure that people know that a YES is a vote against the law’s reactionary opponents and for equal rights in Massachusetts, and educating your friends and neighbors about what this ballot question is and what it is not. You can find volunteer opportunities near you at the Freedom Massachusetts website here: https://secure.freedomma.org/page/s/volunteer.

Progressive Mass was a part of the Freedom Massachusetts coalition behind the 2016 bill, and it’s important that we take action again to protect our past victories, uphold our values, and vote YES this fall.

Criminal Justice Reform Is One Step Closer to a Reality

By Caroline Bays, Progressive Watertown

Hard work and advocacy paid off with the release of the criminal justice conference committee’s new CJR bill. This comprehensive bill addresses almost every issue affecting our criminal justice system. When we began this process in 2016, we could not have imagined the setbacks and the hard work that lay ahead. But through the near destruction of the bill when the Council on State Governments process collapsed, the bill–like a phoenix from the ashes–was revitalized, and the legislation emerged even stronger and more sweeping than advocates expected.

Below is a synopsis of the proposed bill. I included the main ask from advocates for reform and what was in the final bill.

Mandatory Minimums – Advocates for reform proposed repealing of all mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses. The bill eliminates most mandatory minimums for retail drug selling and drug paraphernalia and limits mandatory minimums in school zones to cases involving guns or minors. However, it leaves in place mandatory minimums for Class A drugs (like heroin) and expands the definition to include opioids like fentanyl and carfentanil.

Fees and Fines – Advocates for reform proposed repealing all parole and probation fees. The bill reduces fees. No parole fee is imposed for one year after release from prison and no probation fee is imposed for six months after release. The bill also improves some procedural protections and increases the rate at which fines are worked off from $30 to $90 per day.

CORI reform – Advocates for reform proposed making criminal records more private by sealing records after 7 years for felonies and 3 years for misdemeanors and record expungement for minors. Records will be sealed after 7 years for felonies and 3 years for misdemeanors. In addition the bill authorizes the expungement of cases that resulted in prosecuting innocent adults as well as non-serious cases involving young people up to the age of 21.

Felony Threshold – Advocates for reform proposed raising the felony larceny threshold to $1,500. The felony threshold was raised to $1,200.

Juvenile Justice – Advocates for reform proposed raising the age of criminal court jurisdiction to 12 and criminal majority to 21. The younger age limit was raised to 12 but the age at which youth can be prosecuted as adults remains 18. However, the bill authorizes the creation of a special housing unit for young people aged 18 to 24; prohibits housing juveniles with adults and placing juveniles in solitary confinement; and limits shackling juveniles. In addition, parents will no longer be forced to testify against their children.

Bail Reform – Advocates for reform proposed codifying the Brangan case which calls for judges to use bail as a mechanism to ensure the defendant’s return to court instead of as a mechanism for pre-trial imprisonments of defendants. The Brangan decision is codified, and the bill creates a pre-trial mechanism to remind defendants of their upcoming court dates. The judge must make a written finding explaining why it is in the Commonwealth’s best interest to impose unaffordable bail amounts.

Diversion – Advocates for reform proposed diverting low-level offenses and drug users to treatment and restorative justice options, with special consideration for juveniles and for primary caretakers. There are multiple mechanisms for judicial diversion including diversion for juveniles for less serious offenses as well as an expansion of restorative justice programs for juveniles and adults. In addition, primary caretakers of children will be given special consideration when sentencing, and minor offenses, such as disruptive behavior at school assemblies, have been decriminalized.

Compassionate Release – Advocates for reform proposed that permanently incapacitated prisoners who pose no safety risk should be released from prison. The bill establishes mechanisms to release prisoners deemed terminally ill or incapacitated.

Solitary Confinement – Advocates for reform proposed that the practice of solitary confinement be severely curtailed–limited to six months or ended completely. The bill calls for restrictive housing rather than solitary, giving inmates access to many of the same programs and educational opportunities available in general population. Regular reviews of inmates must be performed to determine if the inmate can safely be returned to general population, the first one after six months and then every 90 days, thereafter. The bill also creates a balanced oversight board which will have access to the prison facilities and inmates and can report on conditions. Lastly, the bill prohibits arbitrary use of restrictive housing for LGBTQ inmates.

Miscellaneous items

In addition to the aforementioned provisions, the conference bill…

  • Guarantees transgender prisoners are housed with their gender identity
  • Gives prisoners who have not graduated access to education
  • Preserves rights for regular in-person visitation
  • Creates a task force to study suicide rate of correctional officers
  • Calls for data collection on just about every aspect of the prison system
  • Allows women who are victims of human trafficking to have their convictions vacated

SCA: When Lawmakers Won’t Make Laws

SCA_Circles__Icons_(19).png

APRIL 1 – PRINTER FRIEINDLY – Here’s more on the policies we’ll be pushing via the budget process: 

These 3 provisions have broad public support, and extend critical protections to all immigrants.

ALL are from the Safe Communities Act–and are endorsed by the two MA police chief associations.

ALL comply with federal law. Federal law prohibits limiting communications between local and federal agencies about immigration status. It does not require local law enforcement to collect this information.

PRES. Trump is increasing ICE’s power, and their indiscriminate, racist, dragnet is deporting mothers, fathers, workers, students, friends, neighbors, and family, sowing terror and fear in our communities.

Massachusetts legislators literally have the power to provide some guarantees of community safety for all of us. But they have not.

Rank and file legislators will tell you all kinds of juicy insider tales as to why…. “it is Leadership…”  “it is the Governor…” “it is colleagues from “more conservative districts”…” …

Sorry, no. Our elected legislators are there to serve justice and make laws. Not to please Leadership or pre-concede to racism coming from the corner office or defer to reactionary electoral fears.

And here’s an open secret: “Leadership”’s power is responsive to the members (legislators, rank and file). If members make noise, Leadership will listen.

Legislators have power–but they have to use it. They have to get loud and insistent.

We have power–but we have to use it. We have to get loud and insist: “Legislators–use your power.”

If they do not, it may be time to make what John Lewis calls “good trouble.”  Nothing difficult was ever achieved without it.

More info on the provisions above:

  1. The current climate makes immigrants vulnerable to exploitation and crime –
    domestic violence, wage theft, housing code violations, and other offenses go unreported because of fears that contact with police will lead to deportation and separation from family members, especially children.
  2. Costly 287g agreements, a cornerstone of Trump’s expansive deportation project,
    co-opt public safety resources for immigration enforcement, and undermine  community confidence in law enforcement.
  3. Noncitizens are often unaware that they have these rights, which can have dire consequences.
    “Miranda” warnings are not constitutionally required to be given for civil immigration violations. Our jails are a major entry point into the deportation pipeline. Without these protections, people charged with minor offenses lose the right to challenge their deportation.

PRIOR UPDATES: 

MARCH 22 – We were hopeful–with all of the activism and energy and commitment from the Massachusetts electorate to resist the Trump Agenda and PROTECT our communities most vulnerable to its racist agenda–that Beacon Hill would rouse from its normal phlegmatic state. 

That the call of history and doing the right thing in response would be the massive catalyst such a timid body would need. 

Instead, we have gotten more of the same from Beacon Hill: delays, pretenses of support, and…nothing. 

And so, the Safe Communities Act, as legislation, has run out of steam… Not because of any parliamentary reason or time–but simply because of political cowardice by the Massachusetts legislature, with a super majority of Democratic members who say they want to “resist”. 

But this was never about one single piece of legislation; it is about justice.

And we will keep organizing for results —real, actual, helpful policy changes–thru every means.

And this is why, though the legislation may be “dead” (not really, but you’ll hear legislators say so; it’s easier than saying”we do not have political courage”)–we are not done.

We are gearing up to pass key provisions of the SCA legislation through the budget process.

Look for more from our organizing team soon (is your immigration reform point person plugged in? do so here!) on how you can engage your teams to make this happen (hint: overwhelming politcal pressure needed!).

Take Action on Gun Violence — and Join Us on March 24th

Students from across Massachusetts walked out of class (or, if they had a snow day, out of their homes) to march to the State House to demand action on gun violence.

According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Massachusetts has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and, correspondingly, one of the lowest gun death rates. And we should be proud of that. But the question isn’t whether we’re doing better than other states — it’s whether we’re doing as best as we can. And there, the answer is a clear no.

The Massachusetts Legislature, however, has the opportunity to strengthen our gun laws this session, although time is short.

H.3610 would create an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), a kind of court order that family members and law enforcement can request to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns because they pose a significant danger to themselves or others. When family members are empowered to act, they can prevent warning signs from turning into a mass shooting or gun suicide.

Our neighbors in Connecticut have already passed such a bill into law, and legislation is moving forward in New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine as well.

Call or email your legislators today to ask them to co-sponsor the bill and then contact their colleagues of the Joint Committee on Public Safety & Homeland Security and ask them to move the bill out of Committee.

And if you’re planning to go to the March for Our Lives on the Boston Common on Saturday, March 24th, RSVP here so that you can connect with us when there.

3 Ways to Resist Trump’s Agenda Here in Massachusetts

We’re running out of time in the legislature. We’ve got 4 action items for Pres Day!:

  1. Register for Lobby Day
  2. Make calls this week for Safe Communities
  3. Push to increase voter participation

Today’s President’s Day, and if you’re like me, the person in the White House right now is the last person I want to be celebrating.

This holiday invites another important thought: Is Massachusetts doing enough to resist Trump’s reactionary agenda? (Spoiler: NO).

Despite a ballyhooed “anti Trump commission” announced one year ago, there has been exceedingly little passed by the Legislature that would reaffirm Massachusetts values, build a bulwark against the increasingly frightening excesses of the Trump Administration, let alone, chart a strong progressive path forward. Forget about Massachusetts leading the resistance. We are hardly keeping up.

We can’t rely on Legislators to discover the courage to rise to the challenge.

WE have to push them.

In honor of President’s Day, here are four things you can do to push back against Trump’s agenda. As time marches on, the risk of resignation is real. Resist. 

(1) – (2) – (3) – (4) – TOP

(1) Push for a Progressive Agenda: Sign up for our Lobby Day

Our legislators have power, the hour is growing late, and they need to use it. Join us April 4 Wednesday, March 14th, to tell them just that.

Never been to a lobby day? They’re informative and important. You get to….

  • Hear from progressive state legislators on the bills that advance the cause!
  • Learn the important issues and the latest updates on our legislative agenda!
  • Learn, practice, and share ‘how to lobby effectively’ wisdom!
  • Build progressive alliances with new friends from across the state!

The speaking program and information session starts at 9:15 AM in Room 437, followed by in-person meetings with legislators.

Register for Lobby Day now, and we’ll see you on April 4 Mar. 14!

 (1) – (2) – (3) – (4) – TOP 

(2) Stand up for Community Safety, Immigrants’ Rights: Pass the Safe Communities Act. Full Stop.

Of all the legislative actions before the MA Legislature, Safe Communities Act is the one that most directly looks at the extremely worrying practices of the Trump administrations, and puts up a firewall between Massachusetts and Trump’s racist, anti-immigrant deportation agenda.

Our local law enforcement should not be doing the terrorizing work of federal ICE agents. People in our communities should not fear that their local police—who are supposed to be keeping us safe—are collaborating, without any due process, with the feds. That is just unfair.

Both Illinois (ILLINOIS!!) and California have already passed similar “Trust” / safe communities legislation. Massachusetts is dragging it feet, and it’s time to say ENOUGH:TAKE ACTION.

There are lots of behind-the-curtain machinations with the bill… But the objective remains, absolutely, resolutely, the same:

  • Pass the Safe Communities Act, with no compromises to its common-sense, deeply American principles of justice, due process, and community safety. 

…and the path to achieving those goals is simple:

  • Persistent, relentless–and if necessary, escalating–pressure on our legislators and their leadership. (They have superpowers: they can change the structural system. Don’t let them tell you they are powerless to use it.) 

This is a message that is absolutely urgent, and PM is working hard on the ground with grassroots groups all across MA to ramp up the political pressure.

We’re prepared to stand with our immigrant family and neighbors, our brothers and sisters of color, our Massachusetts community of many faiths.

And we need to tell Legislature that they should too.

Help us make a big legislative push this week. And we’re checking the temperature next week to assess…do we need to push even harder? Make 5 calls to leadership on Beacon Hill this week – and even better – organize to get one friend a day to call, too, today through Friday (sign up here!)

 

(3) Fight for Voting Rights

Thankfully, Trump’s sham election commission has been disbanded. 2016 made it absolutely clear: we need to be playing more than just defense when it comes to voting rights. Our democracy simply isn’t very strong when 700,000 Massachusetts residents who are eligible to vote are unregistered, their voices unheard.

Ten other states and DC that have embraced Automatic Voter Registration, a simple reform that increases the accuracy and security of voter rolls and brings more people into the democratic process. Legislation (H.2091 / S.373) is pending in Massachusetts, and was reported out of committee less than two weeks ago. It’s time to bring it to the floor.

AVR quite simply expands the voting universe of registered voters who actually are able to vote. When you push past all the excuses, there’s one central question that should be asked: What do legislators stand to gain by keeping the voter rolls, and voting participation, lower?

Email your Representative TODAY in support of AVR!

Boston Globe: Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in budget talks for next year? (Redux)

“Should any increases in major state taxes be on the table in budget talks for next year?” — Boston Globe [opinion] (2/16/2018)

YES

Lynne C. Hartley

Chelmsford resident, member of Progressive Massachusetts

I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life. I am so proud of the many “firsts” that we have claimed, such as legalizing gay marriage and providing universal health coverage. So, when I hear that the Legislature will consider no increases to major taxes or fees for the upcoming fiscal year, I just don’t understand it.

As great as our state is, it is in need of many improvements to remain competitive and a place where people want to live and work. We need major infrastructure improvements to our buildings, roads, and highways. We need a complete overhaul of much of the MBTA. Most importantly, we need additional funding for our public schools.

If we cannot increase state revenues, we will never be able to pay for all the improvements we need. Massachusetts will not only be unable to fix what’s broken, but those deficiencies will continually get worse. We have to face the facts that this will require increased revenue.

Our state’s moniker of “Taxachusetts” is a relic of the 1970s. Since then, Massachusetts has reduced taxes by more than all but one other state. That lost revenue isn’t a mere abstraction. We can see it in MBTA service delays, roads and school buildings in disrepair, and a myriad of other results of chronic disinvestment.

I always like to use an analogy to the home budget. What if your car needed extensive work to keep it on the road, and you don’t have the money? Would you not even discuss the possibility of earning more money: working overtime or getting a temporary part-time job?

Currently Massachusetts already runs a deficit for spending vs. tax revenue. According to the PEW Charitable Trusts, our revenue totaled 96 percent of expenses with deficits in 10 out of 15 years, fiscal 2002 to 2016. That gap will continue to increase, putting the fiscal well-being of Massachusetts at risk. Under Governor Charlie Baker’s reserve policies, our bond rating was downgraded in 2017. We cannot afford to continue believing the fairy tale that somehow the money is going to magically appear.

I hope Speaker Robert DeLeo reconsiders his position against considering more taxes because more revenue is necessary to keep Massachusetts the safe, free, and progressive state it is.

Achieving Liberty and Justice for All

The following letter was drafted by Caroline Bays and Jonathan Cohn from the PM Issues Committee and transmitted to the CJR conferees: 

House Chairwoman Claire Cronin, Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Senate Chairman William Brownsberger, Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Majority Leader Ronald Mariano

Chairwoman Cynthia Creem, Senate Committee on Bills in Third Reading

Ranking House Minority Member Sheila Harrington, Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr

*********************************

January 17, 2018

Dear Members of the House-Senate Conference Committee:

The Massachusetts incarceration rate, while low compared to other states, is three to four times higher than that of European countries. In fact, there are only seven countries with a higher incarceration rate than Massachusetts.

There has been a growing consensus that the policies of the “tough on crime” era were misguided. They did not make us safer, but instead entrenched lasting racial and economic inequities. Studies have shown that high levels of incarceration have devastating consequences for minority communities, including an increase in crime, poverty, and homelessness. They prevent individuals and communities from thriving and living up to their full potential and make cherished rhetoric of “liberty and justice for all” ring hollow.

We are grateful to the House and the Senate for their exhaustive work on Criminal Justice legislation. Both the House and Senate bills have many excellent provisions, and in the following letter, we identify (a) essential provisions in both bills that should be included in a final Conference report, (b) places where one bill or the other was superior and whose provisions merit inclusion, and (c) a few places where the bills stray from their intent. The subsequent recommendations will best help to achieve our mutual goal of ending mass incarceration in Massachusetts.

Mandatory Minimums

Mandatory minimum sentences remove judicial discretion in sentencing and treat every offender with the same blunt instrument, regardless of context. Mandatory minimums have succeeded spectacularly at fueling mass incarceration, but do not reduce crime. Our guiding goal is the elimination altogether of minimum mandatories, because of their abject failure to do what they purport to and their contribution to racist mass incarceration. Short of abolition, we advocate the reduction wherever possible of existing manmins, and rejection of any new ones.

Accordingly, Progressive Massachusetts urges the inclusion of the following:

  • All provisions that end mandatory minimum sentences, including the mandatory minimums for selling in a school zone which disproportionately impact minority communities
  • Higher thresholds to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in cocaine (Senate Sections 90-91),  or fentanyl or carfentanil (Senate Sections 92-96). The lower amounts are likely to result in long sentences for non-traffickers who are struggling addicts – a result contrary to the overall intent of both bills.      
  • Good time eligibility, i.e, Senate Section 343, which allows persons serving sentences for offenses that have been repealed by this legislation to begin earning good time as of the law’s effective date. Leaving the current law, which denies these prisoners all prospect of reintegration until they have served their mandatory minimum term, in place would perpetuate a destructive consequence of the war on drugs: indifference toward the prisoners on whom mandatory minimum sentences are selectively imposed (three-quarters of whom are members of racial or ethnic minorities) and to the communities to which they will eventually return.  Including Senate Section 343 in the conference report would further the recommendations of the Council on State Governments that we increase the capacity of prison programs aimed at reducing recidivism and create incentives for completing such programs.

Moreover, we urge you to reject the creation of any new mandatory minimum sentences, or the strengthening of those that exist. We applaud the House’s rejection of the amendment to impose 5 year mandatory minimum sentences for the distribution of a drug that results in the death of the user, as any increase in mandatory minimums is contrary to the purpose of ending mass incarceration. Increasing the number of drugs which will result in mandatory minimums as well as adding the brand new mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer, a frequently abused charge, runs counter to the intent of returning the decision of justice back to the judges, where it belongs.

Fees and Fines

Excessive fees and fines criminalize poverty and warp the justice system, preventing us from delivering on the promise of “liberty and justice for all” and turning jails into debtors’ prisons.

Accordingly, Progressive Massachusetts urges the inclusion of the following:

  • Increasing so-called “fine time” from $30 per day to $90 per day and requiring appointment of counsel and determination of financial hardship before a court sentences a person to incarceration for failure to pay fines.
  • Abolition of parole fees (Senate Section 323) and the waiving of probation fees where a substantial financial hardship exists (Senate Sections 287-288).    
  • Additional provisions in both the House and Senate bills that allow for numerous other fees and fines to be waived upon a finding that the imposition of the fine would create a “substantial financial hardship”

Juvenile Justice

Involvement in the criminal justice system can be traumatic for children. Our policies should promote rehabilitation, especially for those most at risk. Successful reentry programs for youth bring community-wide benefits.

Accordingly, Progressive Massachusetts urges the inclusion of the following:

  • Reducing the time to seal juvenile records and allowing for expungement in order to improve youth outcomes upon re-entry
  • The exclusion of small children (under age 12) from delinquency proceedings
  • Raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction to include 18-year-olds
  • Creation of a civil infractions category of offenses for children and the decriminalization of certain low-level offenses for which adults would not be subject to incarceration
  • Establishment of a parent-child privilege to ensure children can talk freely to their parents (Senate §202)
  • The Senate’s “Romeo and Juliet” provision, which offers a sensible and limited exception to criminal prosecution for close-in-age youth who engage in consensual sexual activity
  • Provisions to reduce school-based arrests by ensuring schools and police set guidelines on school discipline and arrest
  • Limitations on solitary confinement of young people

Solitary Confinement

As a form of cruel and unusual punishment, solitary confinement runs counter to professed American values, and it can have irreparable damage on the individuals subject to it.

While we support the Senate version of the bill, we ask that some of the sections of the House version also be included in the final version. In particular, we urge the inclusion of the following:

  • Provisions to ensure that prisoners are transitioned out of segregation for a certain amount of time before they are scheduled to be released
  • Establishment of an oversight committee and corresponding data collection
  • The screening out of mentally impaired individuals from segregation
  • Access to out-of-cell programming and/or activities for a minimum of 2 hours a day at least 5 days a week

Miscellaneous

We also support the inclusion of the following key provisions in the final bill.  Adopting these policies will help to ensure that Massachusetts promotes just and humane treatment of all of our citizens.

  • Using the cost savings from reduced incarceration for community programs through a Justice Reinvestment Fund which will lower recidivism and benefit our entire community
  • Providing community-based sentencing alternatives for primary caretakers of dependent children who have been convicted of non-violent crimes
  • Resentencing those already imprisoned, using the new guidelines
  • Raising the felony threshold to $1500
  • Ending the punitive price gouging that telephone companies engage in which punish the families of inmates
  • Ensuring the safety and access to treatment for transgender inmates
  • Ensuring the rights of prisoners to have in-person visits

Our criminal justice system runs counter to our professed values, but it doesn’t have to. In the ensuing weeks, you will have the opportunity to pass a long-overdue overhaul of the system, enacting changes with far-reaching benefits to communities across the state. We hope that you embrace that opportunity.

Charlie Baker’s Record On Consumer Protection and Climate Action

By Joel Wool, Progressive Mass Issues Committee

Charlie Baker didn’t run for governor on a platform of consumer protection or climate action. But now that he thinks climate change is real and man-made, he talks a lot about his administration’s work on clean energy and climate change, even as his messaging to his base, and his reelection campaign, evoke themes of “hold the line on taxes” and small government.

There’s nothing wrong with the Governor’s beliefs on climate change evolving and he’s not unique in disliking taxation (as much as we desperately need more revenue). And yes, it’s also really important to have bipartisan action on climate change. As I see it, the problem is pretty simple: beneath a rhetoric of climate action and balanced “combo platter” of energy solutions, the Governor has approved policies that are bad for ratepayers, bad for the environment and bad for democracy.

TLDR: YOU CAN TAKE ACTION to help reform the DPU and advance clean energy. Email your legislators today.

A number of the Governor’s appointees are so bad they might as well be lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, and overall, the Governor’s energy strategy is bad for consumers, prioritizes investor-owned utilities whose executives contribute to his campaign, and is dishonest, hiding “little known taxes” on energy bills and fees.

What has Charlie Baker’s administration done that is so awful? His administration has approved automatic rate increases, a gratuitously high return on equity for Eversource energy (more on this below), unprecedented fees on solar, cuts to compensation for renters and low-income renewable energy customers, a tax on electric bills to fund fracked gas pipeline expansion (struck down by the MA SJC) and the Governor has failed to maintain the few campaign pledges related to the environment around funding of environmental programs and meaningfully addressing gas leaks.

On rate decisions, you can get a detailed description on what Eversource proposed here.
For the basic money figures, here you go. Eversource got a hike of upwards of $30 million from its customers, even as it complained that this paled in comparison to its request, which was about three times higher. Environmental justice groups and municipal officials vigorously opposed the request at every stage, but DPU ignored their protests.

(What do utilities do with this money? Sure, some of it goes to fund poles and wires, pay staff and invest in new energy infrastructure. Eversource, National Grid and Unitil don’t generate power; they make money from the return on building new infrastructure like distribution lines, and its investors lose out economically when your local energy solutions like solar obviate the need for more poles, wires, substations and other facilities. Increasing return on equity means Massachusetts ratepayers spend more money to enrich utility investors – the utility claims, essentially, that exorbitant returns are a necessary expense.

Even before the hike, Eversource regularly used consumer funds to pay membership fees out to trade groups like Associated Industries of Massachusetts and Edison Electric Institute. These groups subsequently lobby against clean energy policy – even at times, in the case of AIM, supporting policies that make it hard for large customers to go renewable.)

The type of hard-to-understand fees on residential solar approved by Baker’s DPU are FIRST IN THE NATION. This isn’t the kind of policy Massachusetts wants to lead on, setting a precedent that will surely be picked up on in other states. Advocacy group Vote Solar is appealing the decision to the MA Supreme Judicial Court.

Oh, and what’s that about the “pipeline tax”? Governor Baker’s Department of Public Utilities ruled that it was okay to put a fee on electric customer’s bills to expand multi-billion dollar fracked gas infrastructure across New England. The MA Supreme Judicial Court struck that idea down as it violates a 1990’s law that restructured the electricity market, in part to encourage competition, advance efficiency and shield consumers from risk that should be borne by investors.

In summary, the out-of-control Department of Public Utilities has consistently acted to (1) hike rates (2) guarantee utility investor profits (3) attack clean energy and (4) attempt to prop up fossil fuels – sometimes violating the law to do so and getting reprimanded through the court process.

YOU CAN TAKE ACTION to help reform the DPU and advance clean energy. Email your legislators today.

Outside of DPU, and amidst anti-pipeline protests, Governor Baker has said doesn’t “take a backseat to anybody” on renewable energy. He may honestly believe that, but for the purposes of explication allow me to list a few United States Governors and numerous Massachusetts Republicans who are well ahead of Governor Baker on clean energy and climate change.

Governors:

Governor David Ige – Hawaii – Supports a transition to 100% Renewable Energy, which Hawaii has in statute. (Baker was recently featured in a discussion alongside Gov. Ige)

Governor Jerry Brown – Aggressively resisting Trump agenda, pushing regional climate cooperation on the west coast. CA has a 50% renewable energy by 2030 mandate in law.

There are plenty of others.

(Massachusetts’ renewable energy commitment will get us to 100% renewables by 2105, even though moving faster on renewables would cost little and create thousands of jobs)

Massachusetts Republicans to whom Charlie Baker takes a backseat:

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr – A longtime supporter of climate action, energy planning, repair of gas leaks

House Minority Leader Brad Jones – A longtime advocate for environmental conversation, he’s worked with Democrats on many issues. Recently, he co-authored a letter signed by 120+ legislators urging reforms to the Department of Public Utilities and higher standards on Gas Infrastructure.

Senator Ryan Fattman of Sutton – A big fan of the outdoors, rumor has it he’s a member of the Appalachian Mountain Club!

Mayor Bob Hedlund and Senator Patrick O’Connor of Weymouth – Strong opponents of a gas compressor station in Weymouth.

Fuzzy, Xenophobic Math: Mass Fiscal

By Kyle Reilly

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a group that allegedly focuses on “fiscal responsibility” that has had xenophobia at its core from the start, has been targeting legislative supporters of the Safe Communities Act with mailers fear-mongering about undocumented immigrants. On the mailers, they quote a statistic from the ironically named white supremacist group FAIR: “Illegal Immigration costs Massachusetts taxpayers $1.8 Billion Annually.”  As should come as no surprise, there are major problems with both the messenger and the message.  

First, FAIR’s ties to white supremacist ideologies are well-documented. They are not a research center by any definition, and their obvious bias makes any analysis of theirs suspect.

The credibility problem isn’t just about who’s saying it, though. The numbers are also pure nonsense.  

The figure trumpeted by FAIR and Mass Fiscal is based on assumptions and very little empirical data. They don’t consider any of the economic benefits from immigrants whether in or out of status, nor the tremendous cost of removal. FAIR starts by inflating the number of undocumented immigrants by doing things like counting everyone in the US under TPS as undocumented (they are not). All together, this inflates the number by 1.5 million people as compared to the Pew Research Center.  

Over half of the tax burden assigned to education and healthcare are expenses related to the children of undocumented immigrants, approximately three-quarters of whom are native-born citizens of the US (and therefore: not undocumented). (As anyone who was ever a parent—or a child–would know, all children are expensive). FAIR doesn’t count the children born to native-born Americans as a tax burden, because they grow up, join the workforce, and contribute to taxes, off-setting their expense. No such assumptions are made about the children of undocumented immigrants even though they are contributing members of society.  

FAIR’s assumptions lack a data-driven consistency, consistent only in manipulating the assumptions to result in inflated cost conclusions (which is exactly the kind of fakenewsery the right consistently claims of the left). For example: when assessing educational costs, FAIR assumes that ALL children in a family with an undocumented parent live in low-income homes and go to low-income schools, an assumption that on paper increases the alleged costs. And yet, elsewhere, FAIR uses high-income assumptions in other parts of the study: their analysis goes out of the way to minimize their contributions by undocumented members of our economy and maximize their cost.   

There is a wealth of empirical research, on the other hand, that comes to the complete opposite conclusion of groups like Mass Fiscal and FAIR: that immigrants (undocumented or otherwise) and safe community policies both have positive impacts on their communities.  

The Mass Fiscal junk data is designed only to stir up nativist outrage and scare legislators. And Governor Baker and the State House would be wise to listen to facts and reason, not junk data assembled by hate groups with a white supremacist agenda.