Everyone Deserves a Safe and Respectful Workplace

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on June 25, 2019.

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

Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Brodeur, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for social and economic justice. 

Good-paying jobs with fair working conditions are a central part of our organization’s shared prosperity agenda. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of S.1072 (An Act addressing workplace bullying, mobbing and harassment), known as the Healthy Workplace Bill. 

Everyone deserves a safe and respectful workplace, and that means one that is free of inappropriate and harmful behaviors like bullying. 

Massachusetts labor law currently provides no protections against workplace bullying unless such bullying is targeted at an individual because of their race, sex, or other protected identity. This excludes far too many cases, and even when individuals sue because of identity-based harassment and discrimination, courts can choose to deny them redress out of a disagreement on the motivation for the mistreatment, not the existence of the mistreatment itself. 

Better training is good so far as it goes, and that is not far. Accountability is what will change behavior. The Healthy Workplace Act will offer that. 

Countries like Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, and Sweden–as well as various provinces in Canada–have enacted protections against workplace bullying. [1] It’s time for Massaachusetts to join them. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts 



[1] See Ellen Pinks Cobb, “Workplace Bullying Protections Differ Globally,” SHRM, June 24, 2014, https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/global-hr/pages/workplace-bullying-protections-differ-globally.aspx.

Dignity Should Not Be a District-by-District Decision

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Education on June 25, 2019.

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

Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and members of the Joint Education Committee: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy organization fighting for progressive policy. 

One of the planks in our organization’s platform is an “All means all” agenda of racial and social justice. That means ensuring that underrepresented communities are treated with dignity and respect. 

The reduction of Native American identity to “mascot” status is the opposite of that. We would like to go on record in support of Bill S.247/H.443 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth). 

Such mascots have 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. 

One of the Wealthiest States and One of the Most Unequal

The following is testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on Tuesday, June 18, 2019.

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

Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Brodeur, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection. 

Central to our agenda of shared prosperity is good-paying jobs with fair working conditions. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of H.1609/S.092 (An Act Updating Overtime Protections to Protect the Commonwealth’s Middle Class Workers) and H.1617/S.1082 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage). 

The US remains the only country in the industrialized world without a limit to the number of work-hours per week. One partial solution to this has been to guarantee workers time and ½ pay for overtime work. If they are forced to work more hours, they should be duly compensated. 

However, this rule has only applied to wage workers, leaving out the many salaried workers in the service industry who often have to work overtime. 

The Obama Administration had sought to change this, crafting federal regulations to allow some salaried workers to get over time. But Republican attorney generals around the country are trying to block this pending regulation in the courts, and the Trump administration is fighting to roll it back. 

However, as with many issues, Massachusetts can and should lead. H.1609/S.1092 would do this by updating the salary threshold below which executive,administrative, and professional employees, such as low-level managers at retail stores and fast food chains, are guaranteed overtime pay when they work long hours. Moreover, it would align Massachusetts’s overtime law more closely to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, removing  exemptions, such as those for restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and non-profit colleges that leave out too many. 

H.1609/S.1092 would phase in the threshold for time and ½ overtime pay to kick in to $64,000 over several years, updating it each year thereafter to reflect wage growth and keep it in line with twice the minimum wage. According to MIT, $64,000 aligns with a living wage for families consisting of one parent and one child or two parents (one working full-time and one working part-time) and one child–a sensible standard. [1]

However, the lack of overtime pay is not the only problem facing workers in the service industry. The tiered wage system in the restaurant industry, by which workers are reliant on tips for a full wage, exacerbates gender and racial inequities and leaves too many workers struggling to get by. 

The tipped minimum wage in Massachusetts stands at a mere $4.35. In 2023, when the recently passed minimum wage increase takes full effect, it will stand at only $6.75. This is not a living wage. 

Although employers are supposed to guarantee that workers get the full minimum wage with tips, this has never been common practice, and wage theft is rampant in the industry. The tiered wage system allows this to happen. 

Moreover, sexual harassment remains widespread in the restaurant industry. [2] As our country is slowly but surely starting to grapple with the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault across industries, we must face up to the fact that unequal wage systems create the breeding ground for such inappropriate and predatory behaviors. 

Massachusetts is both one of the wealthiest and one of the most unequal states in this country. Reporting out H.1609/S.092 (An Act Updating Overtime Protections to Protect the Commonwealth’s Middle Class Workers) and H.1617/S.1082 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage) favorably will take us one step further in ensuring that our Commonwealth’s prosperity is shared by all. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts 


[1] http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/25

[2] http://rocunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TakeUsOffTheMenu_Report_2.pdf

Living up to the Ideals of Democracy in Policy and Practice

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Election Laws on Thursday, June 20, 2019.

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.

When the basic practices and principles of our democracy are under attack on the national level and in states across the country, it is important for Massachusetts to take steps to redouble our commitment to democracy and citizen engagement here at home.

A strong democracy is one in which all citizens have the opportunity and ability to participate and make their voices heard. Progressive Massachusetts would thus like to go on record in support of S.396 / H.685 (An Act relative to election day registration), S.389 / H.720 (An Act ensuring municipal participation of the widest eligible range), S.404 / H.646 (An Act promoting political participation), and S.392/H.669 (An Act increasing voter registration and participation to help prevent recidivism).

Election Day Registration (S.396/H.685)

In Massachusetts elections, an unnecessary and arbitrary 20-day registration cutoff disenfranchises more than 100,000 voters from participating in our elections. Given that the average American moves more than 11 times over the course of their lives, moving near Election Day could lead to disenfranchisement under the current system. Likewise, given the stress of work, family, and myriad other commitments, many voters may first start to learn about an election after the registration window has already passed. Indeed, this is the period when media coverage of elections–and thus voter information–is the strongest. But when voters seek to update their registration or register anew, they are shut out of the process.

When there are errors in voters’ registration, they are typically asked to fill out a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are cumbersome for election workers and leave voters feeling as though their votes didn’t count. And our first experiences at the polls–indeed, all of our experiences at the polls–have an impact on our voting habits throughout our lives.

Our neighboring states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut have already realized the problems with such a cutoff and adopted Election Day Registration (EDR). Maine has had EDR since the 1970s, and New Hampshire since the 1990s. EDR creates more positive experiences at the polls and, indeed, higher turnout, with studies showing an increase in turnout of approximately 5 percent. That is what a strong democracy looks like.

Last year, voters in Maryland and Michigan approved Election Day Registration at the ballot. Legislatures in New Mexico, Utah, and Washington have passed EDR. Let’s build on our recent progress in election modernization and make Massachusetts the next state to embrace this time-tested reform.

Municipal Voting Age (S.389 / H.720)

Last year, Massachusetts created a civics requirement for our high school students, a recognition that a strong democracy depends on informed and engaged citizens.

The best way to learn is by doing. High school students have taken that mantra to heart and are advocating for legislation to allow cities and towns to lower the local voting age to 16 or 17 for municipal elections.

The home rule petition process that governs this and myriad other areas of law is fundamentally anti-democratic. If cities and towns want to make their elections more inclusive and to give students the valuable learning experience of participating in an election, they should be able to.

This legislation would not force cities and towns to make such a change; it simply allows those that wish to make that change to do so. Who can argue with that?

Promoting Political Participation (S.404/H646)

Although democracy, in theory, is a great equalizer, the inequities that exist in our economic sphere all too often get in the way. Low-income citizens face substantial obstacles in participating in politics and policymaking: they vote at lower rates than more affluent citizens, contribute to campaigns at lower rates, and contact elected officials at lower rates.

This bill would enable citizens to authorize small, regular deductions from pay, at levels

they can afford, to contribute to political and advocacy organizations, thereby eliminating transaction costs that affect unbanked and underbanked populations and encouraging greater participation.

Reducing Recidivism (S.392/H.669)

Although those serving prison terms for felony convictions are barred from voting in Massachusetts, the rest of the incarcerated population can legally vote, provided they are citizens age 18 or over. However, many jails fail to help people obtain absentee ballots and indeed provide false information to prisoners about their eligibility.

Moreover, although we are one of the 14 states that prohibit people from voting while incarcerated in prison but return the right to vote immediately upon release, many people don’t realize that they have this right.

This bill would enact systems and training to ensure that all eligible citizens are able to register and all eligible voters are able to vote.

In conclusion, Massachusetts has played such a pivotal role in democracy in the United States, and it’s time for us to do more to live up to the ideals and promise of democracy in policy and practice. We ask that you swiftly report these bills favorably out of committee.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chairman, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

No One Should Have to Cross State Lines for Health Care

Chairman Eldridge, Chairwoman Cronin, and members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chairman of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization devoted to shared prosperity and racial and social justice. 

Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record IN SUPPORT of H. 3320, An Act removing obstacles and expanding access to women’s reproductive health, and S. 1209, An Act to remove obstacles and expand abortion access, jointly known as the ROE Act.

Massachusetts has been a leader in health care in the US, with our 2006 health care law setting an example for the Affordable Care Act. But despite our achievement of near universality in health insurance coverage, not everyone has access to safe, legal abortion. We cannot fully achieve the goal of universal health care without reproductive justice.

Outdated, medically unnecessary laws have created insurmountable barriers for young people seeking abortion and people in need of abortion later in pregnancy after receiving fatal fetal diagnoses. Such cases force Massachusetts residents to delay care, cross state lines, or be denied care altogether.

Reproductive rights are under attack throughout the US, and the goal of the opponents of the basic right to bodily autonomy is clear: to have Roe v. Wade repealed by our conservative Supreme Court. Medically unnecessary laws and inaccurate definitions still on the books in Massachusetts could put these fundamental rights at risk here were that to happen. The ROE Act is an essential safeguard.

If we believe that health care is a right and, consequently, abortion care is a right, then no one should be prevented from receiving necessary care due to the cost burden. When rights depend on an ability to pay, they are no longer rights.

The ROE Act understands this. By codifying the state safety net programs’ coverage of abortion care into state law, people with low incomes who are ineligible for MassHealth will be able to access pregnancy-related care. By eliminating the onerous judicial bypass teenagers must navigate to access safe, legal abortion and ensuring that individuals who receive receives a fatal fetal diagnosis later in pregnancy can access abortion care in Massachusetts, the ROE Act ensures that no one has to cross state lines (with all the prohibitive costs entailed) to access health care.

Please Give a Favorable Report to H. 3320: An Act removing obstacles and expanding access to women’s reproductive health and S. 1209, An Act to remove obstacles and expand abortion access.

“It’s Called Insurance Insecurity, and It’s Traumatic”

The following testimony was delivered to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 in support of H.1194/S.683 

In December 2015, I was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer that had spread to my lymph nodes. Before I even had a treatment plan, and was in still shock at hearing my diagnosis, I met with the Financial Office to find out what my coinsurance and cap was for my out-of-pocket payments. This insurance-centric reality followed every step of my treatment plan.  

Cancer taught me to live every day and be grateful but it taught me other things as well.  Catastrophically ill patients and those with chronic illnesses often lose their life savings to the current medical system. The wicked good Cadillac health insurance I had from my ex-husband did not cover the whole thing. I was expected to pay 10% as coinsurance. Some plans call for the patient to pay 30% of the costs of their treatment.  For 2019 the capped amount is $7,900 for an individual and $15,800 for a family. This amount is before copays, medications, and many other needed procedures that patients carry the bill for in their treatment. I found out very quickly that people go bankrupt because they get sick. Many lose their house after 4 or 5 years as they can never make up for lost income and what they had to pay into the system.

One of the most baffling parts of the system was extreme administrative redundancies. Each procedure had to be checked and rechecked to make sure it was covered. Mass General, Emerson Hospital, My Primary Care office, testing labs and my pharmacist each contacted my insurance company to make sure I was covered. And while this happening, I kept being told that breast cancer patients statistically have a better outcome if they have a positive attitude. There were times I told them what to do with their positive attitude.  

You see, my positive attitude was hampered by the stress of not knowing what’s going to be paid what isn’t going to be paid. This is because our multi-payer for-profit system puts money and profit over patient outcome. Many patients are told they need an additional medicine, tests, or procedures. Each time that happens, you have to go back into the complicated system and get your approvals all over again. I was denied treatment. I was denied medications. I was denied tests. Each time my team appealed. I barely had the strength to get up in the morning between my rounds of treatment. I was forced to spend those hours hyper-vigilant about what was getting paid for and what wasn’t. It’s what I call Insurance Insecurity, and it is extremely traumatic. 

I believe we can fix this! We can start right here in Massachusetts.

(1) We need a system that focuses on the patient first. The medical professionals and hospitals are stuck on this multi-payer treadmill with their patients. As our current system is for-profit, we do it backwards putting Insurance companies first, and patients last often footing the bill with their employers.  

(2) All insurance claims must have the same forms and approvals so that a doctor’s office is not forced to have multiple administrators dealing with a myriad of health care companies.  One form, one approval, one insurance.

(3) Prescription costs must be lowered and drugs that our Doctors prescribed need to be approved without retroactive refusals. Medicare for all would take care of that. Prescription costs will go down due to our ability to negotiate with drug companies en masse. 

One of the first things I did when my immune system recovered was to volunteer at Open Table food pantry on Main Street in Maynard. Since then, I have become a manager and speak to many of our guests. I quickly realized that medical costs were one of the main factors in why people have food insecurity in Massachusetts.  

Costs keep going up, the system keeps getting more complicated, and patients are left breathless with less beneficial results than in other countries. I’m determined to speak for those in treatment right now. I know there are people lost and lonely who feel they have been left behind by our healthcare system. I often say Cancer changed my life for the better. I am extremely grateful that my diagnosis turned me from a Survivor to fighter, standing up for the next patient.  

Increments won’t do it! We need a bold Leap Forward. Let’s start the health care revolution right here in Massachusetts, the home of the American Revolution.  

Thank you for hearing me on this important issue.

Let’s Start Treating Health Care as a Right

The following testimony was delivered to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing on Tuesday, June 11, 2019.

Chairwoman Friedman, Chairwoman Benson, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

Thank you for holding this hearing today. My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization devoted to shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and environmental protection and sustainable infrastructure.

Medicare for All is a quintessential part of shared prosperity, and we are proud to support S.683 / H.1194: 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.

These problems will continue to exist as long as we treat health care as a commodity instead of a right. 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.

Progressive Massachusetts also opposes H.1163: An Act establishing a special commission to study the implementation of single payer health care in the Commonwealth.

Although commissions can be a valuable tool in guiding policy decisions, the commission outlined in this bill would stack the deck against single payer by design. Past bills in the House, as well as S.674 (An Act to ensure effective health care cost control) in the Senate, would require the Center for Health Information and Analysis and the Health Policy Commission to do the necessary assessment work. The commission in H.1163 would still give space to CHIA and the HPC, but it would also include spots for the insurance lobby. That’s right: the bill would put a representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield and a representative of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans in charge of determining whether or not Massachusetts should move toward a single payer system. The Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association would get a spot, too.

The hospital and insurance industries, of course, have spent large sums against Medicare for All nationally, and they are its biggest opponents here at home. We don’t need to fund a commission to know what the insurance industry and the hospital industry think about Medicare for All. You can google that.

Similarly concerning, H.1163 designates a spot for a “representative of employers,” but no representative for workers. And it includes no space for patients’ rights advocates.

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

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

“It is far past time for us to stop shortchanging our students.”

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Higher Education.

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Chairwoman Gobi, Chairman Roy, and Members of the Joint Higher Education Committee,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue grassroots organization committed to fighting for social justice and progressive policy. Since our founding, treating education as a public good and funding it as such has been central to our mission.

As such, we strongly support S.744 / H.1221, An Act to guarantee debt-free public higher education, and S.741, An Act committing to higher education the resources to Insure a strong and healthy public higher education system (or CHERISH), and urge you to report them out favorably.

Since 2001, Massachusetts has cut funding for public higher education by 14 percent. However, at the same time that our state was retrenching from investing in our future, enrollment was going up. As a result, per student funding has fallen by 32 percent, almost a third.

When the state pulls back, the cost burden falls onto students. Massachusetts saw some of the highest tuition and fee increases in the country from 2001 to 2016, particularly during the recession. The share of costs borne by students and their families doubled, putting a degree out of reach for more and more students, especially those of disadvantaged backgrounds.

Today, the average graduate from our state universities and the UMass system leaves with over $30,000 in student debt—the tenth highest in the country. The average debt for graduates of public, four-year postsecondary schools grew faster in Massachusetts than in all but one other state from 2004 to 2016.

A postsecondary degree provides a proven premium in lifetime wages for graduates and countless other opportunities. Cost should not be a barrier. By preventing young people from living independently, buying a home, or pursuing their career of choice, college debt is a drag on our economy. Even when students drop out due to cost, they can be saddled with debt for years after.

It is far past time for us to stop shortchanging our students. Investing more in public higher education, as the CHERISH Act would require, and making public higher education debt-free would benefit not only students. When financial concerns are no longer a hindrance for people seeking to realize their full potential, we all benefit.

Time to End a Shameful History of Disenfranchisement

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Election Laws Committee.

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

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Lawn, and Members of the Joint Election Laws Committee,

As an organization committed to strengthening our democracy and promoting racial and social justice in our Commonwealth, Progressive Massachusetts strongly supports S.12, a proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights and urges swift action.

In recent years, states around the US have started to realize that the decades-long phenomenon of mass incarceration was a moral, economic, and public safety failure. It destroyed communities, strained budgets, and made us no safer.

The omnibus criminal justice reform legislation passed last session to widespread public support shows that the MA House and Senate understand this. But there is more work to do.

The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy. However, our neighbors in Maine and Vermont are the only states in the US to grant incarcerated individuals this right.

Massachusetts once did. However, in the late 1990s, Governor Paul Cellucci and other state politicians pushed to restrict this right, putting forth a constitutional amendment to prevent those convicted of a felony from voting while incarcerated.

Let us be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters. Although our state is only 7% Black, our prison population is 26% Black, and although our state is only 10% Latinx, our prison population is 24%. [1]

Moreover, the Supreme Court and US Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. They have rights of religious freedom and a right to hold and express political opinions. As Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren once said, “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Studies have repeatedly shown that maintaining a connection to the outside world is conducive to rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. [2] Allowing prisoners to participate in elections will strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release.

We urge the committee to give this bill a favorable report.

[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/MA.html

[2] See, e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237298166_Inmate_Social_Ties_and_the_Transition_to_Society_Does_Visitation_Reduce_Recidivism.

“All It Took Was a Look at the Playground”

The following testimony was delivered to the Joint Committee on Education on Friday, March 22, 2019.

We are writing in support of the Promise Act. As retired special educators who also consulted with districts and families, we strongly support an end to the tiered educational system that exists in Massachusetts.

During five years of consulting to and in approximately 60 school districts, we found that all it took was a look at the playground to know what the educational quality would exist inside the school. Districts with fewer funds consistently needed to serve a wider range of student needs: for instance, higher rates of poverty and larger numbers of immigrants, which results in a greater number of traumatized students and a greater number of languages spoken. These districts are footing the bill for higher-income cities and towns that are unaffordable to immigrants and low income families. A culture of “not in my backyard“ has resulted in increasingly large educational gaps between the haves and have not‘s in Massachusetts.

The affluent cities and towns in our state, such as Needham, are able to raise additional funds through the educational foundation’s that have developed. This private funding is able to enrich the curriculum, provide playgrounds, and add back non-mandated services that may be lost by any reductions in state funds.

It is critical that more affluent communities acknowledge the burden taken on by other cities and towns that allow them more privilege and educational quality. It is time to level the playing field.

Thank you for consideration of our views.

Robert Vecchi, M.Ed.
Andrea Wizer, M.Ed.

Needham, MA