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!).

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

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

YES

Ted Steinberg

Needham resident, community organizer, former Congressional aide, member of Progressive Massachusetts

It’s déjà vu on Beacon Hill.

The decades-long hostility towards raising additional revenue strikes again. It was just last fall that the Legislature let stand $210 million of the $320 million Governor Charles Baker vetoed from the fiscal 2018 budget. The slashing of that crucial spending was, unfortunately, a predictable byproduct of the Legislature’s refusal to implement new taxes or fees in fiscal 2017.

Even with those cuts, this year’s state budget is again facing a potential deficit. The government was forced to rely on temporary revenues and the underfunding of essential programs – like MassHealth, services for homeless families, and snow and ice removal – all while hoping there will somehow be an end-of-the-year surplus. No wonder US News and World Report ranks Massachusetts 48th for balancing its budget.

Budgets are supposed to reflect priorities, but instead of thinking big and investing in our future, we are stuck playing catch-up from previous shortages. The Commonwealth has a variety of complex problems requiring investment. Our transit system malfunctions regularly (even when it’s warm outside), schools grapple with overcrowding, affordable housing remains woefully insufficient, and the opioid crisis continues to devastate our communities.

But we also want to do more than put a band-aid on wounds that require surgery. We want to expand MBTA service, strengthen our schools, provide shelter for struggling families, and move towards universal health care. The last thing we need to do is shut the door on sources of much-needed revenue.

As we look to improve upon state services and protect the laws that make Massachusetts feel like home, we should look for creative opportunities to increase spending capabilities. Whether it be from pollutant fees or new corporate taxes, marijuana sales or tax-deductible donations to government institutions, there are innovative ways to generate sufficient revenue for a responsible budget that won’t hurt the people’s pockets. It would be irresponsible not to even consider, let alone refuse to explore new potential sources of revenue or raising existing ones.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo should work on a game plan rather than punt the ball on first down. Tax increases should definitely be on the table as we look to fix our broken budget.

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.

Not Having It: Rep. Calter claps back at Mass Fiscal

Mass Fiscal is sending out postcards to voters designed to mislead and provoke a backlash against the Safe Communities Act. We were delighted to receive Rep. Calter’s comprehensive and emailed response to his constituents.

Bravo and thank you Rep. Calter, for being a strong advocate for due process, keeping our communities SAFE, and rejecting xenophobic fear tactics. 

The email is quoted in full below: 

As you may be aware, Mass Fiscal Alliance sent out post cards to residents that misrepresents the substantive elements of House Bill 3269, The Safe Communities Act. Because Mass Fiscal Alliance has a total disregard for truths that do not support its radical political agenda, I now need to set the record straight.

The legislation I co-sponsored does not even address the issue of Sanctuary Cities. It is an act that ensures that our Massachusetts tax dollars are devoted to protecting our communities and not to the enforcement of Federal immigration laws that fall under the sole authority of ICE(Immigration and Customs Enforcement). 

To learn more about what The Safe Communities Act does and does not do, please read below:

On January 23, 2017, the Trump administration introduced an aggressive immigration enforcement agenda that relies on the conscription of state and local law enforcement and facilities to identify and detain immigrants. This agenda is already having far-reaching consequences in our communities, and raises major public safety, public health, economic and civil rights concerns. A federal court has already ruled that such coercion is unconstitutional because-among other things-it violates the 10th amendment prohibition on commandeering state resources for federal purposes. 

It is no coincidence that The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was the first in the nation to find that state laws don’t allow us to hold a person on an ICE detainer; doing so violates Massachusetts statute.

Massachusetts has often led the nation in advancing due process and civil rights. Any attempt to take away those rights and revert to a system that supports politically-motivated anti-immigrant policies would be a huge step in the wrong direction. The values that make our Commonwealth a great and welcoming place to live point us toward progress, not retreat.  

In response to President Trump’s unfunded executive orders on immigration, I was pleased to co-sponsor H3269, THE SAFE COMMUNITIES ACT. This legislation if enacted, would ensure that Massachusetts tax dollars are devoted to protecting our communities, not enforcing federal immigration laws, which are the responsibility of Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE). Over 400 localities, including California, Connecticut, Illinois and Rhode Island, and eight MA cities have similar policies. 

Recently, Mass Fiscal Alliance sent out post cards targeting co-sponsors of The Safe Communities Act. Those post cards are now showing up in mailboxes across the State.

You may remember MassFiscal Alliance as the Boston-based, dark money SuperPAC that sent numerous attack mailers in the last election cycles. This group targets Democrats around the state and has made distorted claims against many officials (for example, concocting a story in 2014 that legislators had voted to prioritize services for illegal immigrants over veterans [Ed. Note: such a vote is #FakeNews]) .  

The citizens of the 12th Plymouth district have always been more interested in facts, as opposed to politically motivated rhetoric. You will hear from Mass Fiscal Alliance often in the upcoming election cycle.

I ask only that you understand their political motives and research their claims.

Please compare the claims made in their recent mailings to the substantive elements of the Safe Communities Act, to which I am a co-sponsor. 

The Safe Communities Act : What it DOES & Does Not Do 

  1. It DOES prohibit the use of state databases or records for enforcement of any federal registry program based on religion or other protected characteristics. 
  2. It DOES limit state and local agencies’ involvement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by barring them from arresting or detaining a person solely for federal immigration enforcement purposes, or participating in inquiries, investigations or raids based solely on immigration status. When police become ICE agents, immigrant victims and witnesses of crime are afraid to call police, which makes us all less safe.
  3. It DOES prohibit collaboration agreements between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security(DHS) and Massachusetts law enforcement agencies that deputize state and local officers as immigration agents and co-opt state and local resources for federal purposes, but without any reimbursement of costs.
  4. It DOES ensure basic due process rights for immigrants detained in state and local and state correctional facilities, such as to be informed, in a language they understand, that they have a right to have their lawyer present for any interview by ICE agents. 

What The Safe Communities Act DOES NOT Do:

  1. It DOES NOT stop police from investigating crimes or prosecuting anyone who commits a crime. On the contrary, it encourages immigrant witnesses and victims of crime to cooperate with police investigations, and ensures that police resources are not diverted from fighting crime.
  2. It DOES NOT stop police from collaborating with federal agencies, including ICE, as part of criminal investigations, such as joint operations to stop gangs or drug traffickers. 
  3. It DOES NOT keep ICE from getting information about people who are arrested-by default, all booking information is shared with numerous federal authorities, including the FBI and ICE, as required by federal law. 
  4. It DOES NOT keep ICE from conducting investigations, raids or arrests in Massachusetts communities, or interfere with those activities. 
  5. It DOES NOT jeopardize any community’s federal funding, because the bill is carefully tailored to comply with all relevant federal laws. Indeed, although the bill was drafted well before U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions defined what constitutes a “sanctuary” jurisdiction, the provisions of the bill fall squarely outside that definition.
  6. It DOES NOT declare Massachusetts as a “Sanctuary State”.

While I am always willing to debate issues of public policy, we should not have to debate facts.

Mass Fiscal Alliance has no regard for the truth and is only interested in supporting its own idealogical agenda. That is the case with the mailing regarding The Safe Communities Act.

Because Massachusetts and local governments cannot afford another unfunded federal mandate, hundreds of organizations have endorsed The Safe Communities Act, including the League of Women Voters and several labor unions.  

Thank you to those who have called seeking clarification and to those who have taken the time to read this piece.If you wish to discuss this on any other policy matter, I invite you to visit my district office or call me. 

Endorsing Orgs: Plug in to Make a Difference

Salem YES on 1

Dear Safe Communities Act Endorsing Organizations,

As we articulated last month, the Safe Communities Coalition has concluded that a positive, Yes on 1 outcome in Salem is critically important. A reversal of Salem’s “welcoming” policy would reverberate across the state, critically harming our efforts to pass the Safe Communities Act, as well as undermine support for trust/welcoming/sanctuary policies in other Commonwealth municipalities.

Salem is putting our values to a vote, and if we can’t show that there is strong public support for these policies, we will face an even greater challenge in the State House.

So many of the endorsing organizations have stepped up and contributed volunteer time and effort on canvasses and phone banks already. It has been a beautiful example of what we can do when organizations come together in coalition to work on a larger goal.

In the last weeks before the Nov. 7 election, we’re asking you once again to appeal to your members and networks.

TAKE ACTION THIS WEEKEND:

Join the Salem 10/29 Statewide Virtual Phonebank — all you need is a phone, laptop and internet connection. Sign up at the link!

Call to Endorsing Orgs: Focus Salem

Dear Safe Communities Act Endorsing Organizations,

In all the news on a national and state level concerning immigration, the Safe Communities Act Action Committee wants to bring to your attention a local fight for immigrant rights with major implication: the Salem is for Everyone campaign.

Salem is in a heated fight to protect their Sanctuary for Peace Ordinance which was passed in March 2017 and codifies existing Salem City and Police Department policies that protect the rights of all Salem residents, regardless of immigration status.

Anti-immigrant forces want to repeal, and have successfully put the Ordinance on the November 7th ballot and are marshalling their forces to convince voters to repeal it.

The Safe Communities Act Action Committee believes that a positive, Yes on 1 outcome in support of the Ordinance is critically important not just for Salem, but for the passage of the Safe Communities Act, as well as trust/welcoming/sanctuary policies across the state. If we can’t show that there is strong public support for these policies, we will face an even greater challenge in the State House.

Please alert your networks and invite your members to join our coalition effort in Salem!

Safe Communities Coalition Canvassing for Salem

As a coalition, we are organizing 2 canvassing days with Yes on 1 Salem: Saturday, October 7, and Saturday, October 21 from 1pm-5pm.

October 7 Safe Communities Canvass for Salem

1pm-5pm

First Church, 316 Essex St. in Salem

We will be joining Yes on 1 to canvass North Salem on this date. Join forces with Salem locals to knock on doors! All routes will be walkable or you will be paired with someone with a car.

Parking: Leave extra time. Parking is challenging in Salem in October. You can try for street parking on parking is available a few blocks away at the MBTA garage. Taking the Train: First Church is just a few blocks away from the MBTA station.

The Campaign has invited all volunteers to meet at Mercy Tavern, 148 Derby St. for drinks/bites to eat after and enjoy October in Salem!

RSVP to the Action Committee for September 7th.

October 21 Safe Communities Canvass for Salem

1pm-5pm

First Church, 316 Essex St. in Salem

We will be joining Yes on 1 to canvass South Salem on this date. Join forces with Salem locals to knock on doors! All routes will be walkable or you will be paired with someone with a car.

Parking: Leave extra time. Parking is challenging in Salem in October. You can try for street parking on parking is available a few blocks away at the MBTA garage. Taking the Train: First Church is just a few blocks away from the MBTA station.

The Campaign has invited all volunteers to meet at Mercy Tavern, 148 Derby St. for drinks/bites to eat after and enjoy October in Salem!

RSVP to the Action Committee for September 21.

Carpooling: Sign up to request a ride or to offer rides for both dates!

Can’t make these dates? Sign up for canvassing on other days here.

Follow Yes on 1! Salem is for Everyone to stay up to date on their entire campaign and ways that you can support their work.

Other action opportunities from Yes on 1:

Spanish Day of Action:

October 14 10:00 am and 1:00 pm – North Shore CDC, 96 Lafayette St. (upstairs) Salem

Yes on 1 will be canvassing The Point neighborhood (Salem’s primarily Latino neighborhood) in two shifts, 10:00 am and 1:00 pm. Opponents went into this neighborhood to get residents to sign their referendum petition, misleading people that it was “for Sanctuary.” We need to combat that. If you speak Spanish, that is great! Feel free to come even if you don’t.

Parking: Street parking should be available in the surrounding blocks. The routes will be walkable.

Phone Banking: If you are looking for remote support, the Yes on 1 Salem campaign is working to set up remote phone banking! Contact salemsanctuarynow@gmail.com to work out how you can set up a phone bank for your group.

This is an opportunity we cannot pass on. Thank you for your continuing support for the Safe Communities Act.

SCA Action Committee:

Progressive MA

Indivisible

JALSA

MIRA

ACLU

32BJ

Salem: For Want of a Nail

THE best hopes of pushing back against the Trump agenda is to pass solid, good policy at the State Level. 

On the Administration’s xenophobic anti-immigration policies, our hopes are in the courts — where we are winning– and in the states, with good ‘Safe’ and ‘Trust’ communities legislation as has been so recently passed by Illinois (!!) and California. 

Massachusetts, Illinois is surpassing us in #Resisting autocracy and state oppression.

Our State Legislature must take up the mantel of justice and adopt an urgency that is so far shockingly absent.* 

To catch up with Illinois, Massachusetts must pass the Safe Communities Act, which is, dumbfoundingly, languishing in committee and without enough champions among our Legislators. With your grassroots outreach and our Safe Communities Coalition’s advocacy inside the building, we are making progress — but time is running out... 

…And we are looking at a loose horseshoe nail in Salem.

The Safe Communities Coalition has concluded that losing the Salem welcoming city ordinance would send already nervous legislators running away from the goals of justice for all. All Beacon Hill eyes are watching Salem. A no vote there, on a municipal initiative, could close down the SCA for at least next two years. We must do everything to make sure SCA passes NOW. 

A driving philosophy at Progressive Mass is that taking action, organizing, in our communities is the sine qua non of progress and justice.

So simple, so powerful: Act Locally. 

Gather up your neighbors and friends, and join us to knock on doors and get on phones to help Salem voters make a vote for justice, with a YES ON 1 vote. Schedule a phone bank in your community and invite your friends. Your work will go farther than any other activity this season.**

Right now, we focus on securing a horseshoe nail. 

Teen Workers Need the Full Minimum Wage

By Margaret Heitz, Progressive Lexington

I grabbed a great seat for Tuesday’s State House hearing on the minimum wage. I wanted a seat with a good view of the folks testifying. Rachael Collins and her colleagues from the Restaurant Opportunities Center United slid into seats next to me. By noon, Gardner Auditorium was filled to capacity . 

The SEIU 1199 organizer sitting to my left shared good information with me. His personal story itself was a testimony to the value of a strong bedrock minimum wage. His parents were teens when he was born, which judging by his salt and pepper hair might have been in the late seventies. In his childhood, they supported themselves through minimum wage work.

He also told me about a conversation he had with a hardware store owner. The owner said that at a $15/hr minimum wage, he would hire only adults, no teens. Presumably, in his view, teens are not mature enough take the responsibility of work. If that’s the sentiment of most employers, it could be bad news for teens. On the other hand, employers should take to heart their responsibility to hold a teen employee accountable as they would an older one.

I remember a good friend telling me that her teenage son, who wouldn’t pick up a wet towel in the bathroom let alone keep his room neat or remember to take out the trash, was a completely different person at his job at a CVS store. He was consistently on time and on task at the store. She gave the store manager and the paycheck credit for the new man she saw in her son.

Teens, especially in lower income levels, have financial obligations to themselves and their families that they might not have had years ago. They need and deserve the full minimum wage to start off their work career.

Regrettably, I had to leave the hearing early. The panels of speakers in support of the badly needed wage increase were extraordinary. It’s clear to me and to just about all the people in the auditorium that the time to raise the wage to $15/hr for workers has come—regardless of their age.