Testimony

Public Testimony of 53 Organizations Submitted to The Special Commission on Department of Correction and Sheriff’s Department Funding

Progressive Mass was a signer to the following testimony organized by Prisoners’ Legal Services – MA. Read the full testimony here.

The mission of the Correctional Funding Commission is a critical one for the good of the Commonwealth. We spend approximately $1.3 billion each year to incarcerate 13,000 people. This means that we are spending approximately $100,000 a year to incarcerate each person currently behind bars – and the Executive Branch projects $732 million to repair, renovate, or replace prisons and jails on top of that. The critical question we must collectively ask is: what is the purpose of this spending, and is this purpose being served?

The charge of the Correctional Funding Commission is, in part, to conduct a comprehensive study to determine the appropriate level of funding for incarceration in the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, as of the public hearing on January 4, 2022, the Commission had not yet discussed “potential ways to increase efficiencies and reduce fixed costs,” a critical component of the analysis. The undersigned believe the Commission can only advance the public interest if its recommendations on spending for the Department of Correction (DOC) and Sheriffs’ Departments are backed up by robust independent oversight mechanisms that provide transparency and accountability to Commonwealth residents.

For decades, we have been attempting to incarcerate our way out of social problems while failing to comprehend crime as primarily driven by poverty and structural racism. Abundant research shows that high levels of incarceration do not increase public safety. Conversely, investing in communities has proven to be extremely successful in reducing violence and the risk of incarceration. The current and long-standing reality is that the Legislature awards ever-larger budgets to the DOC and Sheriffs without requiring measurable and meaningful outcomes for public safety, public health, or the public good.

decarceration

“I can think of nothing more disruptive to a child’s education than an unexpected move because of a large increase in rent.”

The following testimony is from Keith Bernard, Malden School Committee Member and co-chair of Mystic Valley Progressives.

Thank you, Chairs Rep Arciero and Senator Keenan and all the members of the joint committee on Housing. I’d also like to thank and appreciate my fellow elected officials activists and renters in Massachusetts that have testified already in favor of these bills.

My name is Keith Bernard, a member of the Malden School Committee and I am here to state my support for the following bills: H.1378/S.886, sponsored by Reps. Mike Connolly and Nika Elugardo and Sen. Adam Gomez, H.1440/S.889, sponsored by Rep. Dave Rogers and Sen. Patricia Jehlen.

Malden is the 5th most diverse community in the state and our high school is the most diverse in the state. We speak over 60 different languages in our school systems. Malden also has a large population that do not own their home but rent. Over 55% of housing in our city is rental properties, our rental rates have nearly doubled in the last ten years, and it is getting more difficult for our working families to stay in Malden.

I can think of nothing more disruptive to a child’s education than an unexpected move because of a large increase in rent. If a family is lucky, they may be able to find housing in our city, but that is unlikely. When a student leaves us, it means that the family needs to go through the stress of re-enrollment and the child acclimating to a new school system. If the child has an IEP or other necessary services, that family has the additional stress of getting those services in place. Finally the emotional impact that a child experiences being uprooted from their friends and neighborhood that not only affects that child, but the children and community around them.

On a personal note, I’ve been volunteering with many of the mutual aid community groups that arose during these last two years. There is nothing more heartbreaking than finding out a neighboring family that I had an opportunity to help had to move because of an unexpected rise of housing costs.

Most families are not looking for a hand out but a hand up. We are looking to you, the members of this committee, to allow municipalities to sculpt solutions that work for their community. What works for Boston may not work for Malden or Medford or Worcester or Pittsfield. Each community has its own officials and local representation that can “right-size” a solution for their town or city.

I ask that the committee please keep these thoughts in mind when considering implementing rent control. By stabilizing the cost of rentals, we stabilize those families, we keep our children safe and we protect our communities. And by implementing these bills we allow the people who know best, our local cities and towns the ability to implement the best solution for our individual towns & cities.

I strongly encourage the committee to support and endorse passage of H.1378/S.886, sponsored by Reps. Mike Connolly and Nika Elugardo and Sen. Adam Gomez, H.1440/S.889, sponsored by Rep. Dave Rogers and Sen. Patricia Jehlen.

Respectfully,

Keith Bernard

Malden School Committee, Ward 7

(Photo credit: Boston Globe)

housing

“Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here.”

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Chairman Keenan, Chairman Arciero, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing:

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

We urge a favorable report for S.886/H.1378 (An Act enabling local options for tenant protections).

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #48 in affordability. [1] A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 83 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate (and 102 hours for a modest two-bedroom). [2]

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

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

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

S.886/H.1378 provides the appropriate redress. It repeals the outdated and misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and enables cities and towns to pass policies aimed to regulate rents, limit condo conversions, prevent landlords from evicting tenants without just cause (e.g., failure to pay rent, illegal activity), require landlords to inform tenants of their rights, and take other steps to protect tenants and ensure long-term affordability.

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

The pandemic we have been living through for almost two years, moreover, has underscored the essential role of housing stability to public health: we cannot ask people to stay at home when they are sick or exposed if they do not afford a home to go back to.

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

On too many issues, Massachusetts is haunted by the ghosts of ill-advised ballot initiatives past. It’s 2022, and we need to act like it.

There is no silver bullet to solving our affordable housing crisis. But if we are to have a chance at solving it, we must empower municipalities to take action. We thus encourage you to give a favorable report to S.886 and H.1378.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

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

[2] http://nlihc.org/oor/massachusetts

(Photo credit: Boston Globe)

housing

MA Needs a Just Transition to 100% Renewables

Tuesday, December 14, 20201

Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the political director for Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue advocacy group focused on fighting for a more equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world must reach net zero emissions by 2050 in order to contain runaway climate change. The Next-Generation Roadmap bill passed earlier this year committed Massachusetts to the goal of net zero by 2050. But here’s the catch: if we are to reach that goal, we must do far more than we are currently doing, and as one of the most affluent states in the most affluent country in the world, we should be setting higher goals than those for the world as a whole.

That is why we urge you to give a favorable report to S.2170/H.3372: An act investing in a prosperous, clean commonwealth by 2030.

The bill is essential both for the higher goals that it sets (net zero by 2030 and 100% renewable electricity by 2030) and for the concrete steps that it proposes to achieve the decarbonization of our energy and transportation systems.

The bill mandates the procurement of new offshore wind and solar capacity, while increasing the accessibility of solar to low-income and environmental justice communities. It requires electric vehicle charging infrastructure for new residential and commercial construction and sets strong goals for the electrification of the MBTA, RTAs, and fleets used for a public purpose. It establishes a mandatory net zero building code for new constructionwhile harmonizing building efficiency standards across the commonwealth, and retrofits all publicly assisted housing by 2030.

The bill centers equity, both in the ways outlined above and in how it protects workers from fossil fuel industries, allowing them to choose to retrain or to collect a pension early while guaranteeing that jobs created as a result of the energy transition are union jobs with wage and benefit parity.

The fact that we just had a humid, 60-degree Saturday in the middle of December while tornadoes wrecked other states shows that the erratic weather patterns that climate change foretells are already here, and they will get worse, with impacts to

agriculture, infrastructure, and human health. Our efforts must match the scale of the problem.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

climate

Inflicting Long-Term Harm on Protesters and Youth Does Not Improve Public Safety

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

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

We believe in an approach to public safety that centers the public health and well-being of all. For that to be possible, we must end practices that inflict long-term punishment on individuals for crimes not committed and even for crimes committed, and must ensure that our policies procedures embody respect for the dignity of all.

We thus urge you to give a favorable report to H.4150: An Act banning the use of tear gas by law enforcement and to H.1531 / S.980: An Act relative to expungement of juvenile and young adult records.

H.4150: Banning Tear Gas

The use of chemical weapons is banned in war, and it should be banned on our streets.

Last year, amidst the outbreak of protests following the murder of George Floyd, the president of the American Thoracic Society called for a moratorium on the use of tear gas and chemical weapons by police: “They cause significant short- and long-term respiratory health injury and likely propagate the spread of viral illnesses, including COVID-19.” [1]

The American Academy of Ophthalmology likewise condemned the use of tear gas, noting that it causes “serious eye injuries, including hyphema, uveitis, necrotizing keratitis, coagulative necrosis, symblepharon, secondary glaucoma, cataracts and traumatic optic neuropathy and loss of sight.” [2]

Recent research has also shown that exposure to tear gas among soldiers increases the risk of contracting bronchitis. [3]

The use of tear gas to inflict short-term bodily harm and the possibility of long-term debilitation is similarly a perversion of the justice system: it enables police officers to inflict punishment for crimes not charged, not convicted, and not even committed. Police officers should not be given such extrajudicial power, and we should never be advancing forms of punishment that cause long-term debilitation if we care about the health of society as a whole.

At a time when many politicians and community leaders are discussing how to rebuild trust between communities and law enforcement, how to demilitarize policing, and how to rethink our approaches to and definitions of public safety, banning tear gas is a vital step.

H.1531 / S.980: Juvenile Expungement

In 2018, Massachusetts passed a comprehensive criminal justice reform bill that created an opportunity to expunge juvenile and adult criminal records for individuals whose offense was charged prior to their twenty-first birthday. This was an important step, but the bill limited the opportunity for expungement to individuals with one case on their record. Individuals with even just two cases on their record were ineligible.

These bills would eliminate the one-case restriction and instead limit eligibility by how long ago an individual had their last court case, allowing individuals to expunge their records if their last offense was three years (for misdemeanors) or five years (for felonies) and they have no subsequent court case since. They would reduce the number of offenses which are categorically ineligible for expungement, while preserving prosecutorial discretion. And they would reduce the time to seal juvenile records for non-adjudications and allow for automatic sealing of eligible

records.

A juvenile record can be a long-term barrier to accessing higher education, finding employment, or maintaining housing. Our corrections system should not be seeking to inflict such long-term negative consequences. We should be finding ways to best integrate individuals returning to society and ensure they have the opportunity for mobility, basic security, and meaningful participation in public life, all of which are beneficial for reducing recidivism.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] https://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-releases/journal/2020/tear-gas-use-during-covid-19-pandemic-irresponsible-moratorium-needed,-says-american-thoracic-society.php

[2] https://www.newswise.com/articles/nation-s-ophthalmologists-condemn-use-of-tear-gas-and-rubber-bullets

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096012/

criminal legal reform police reform

Rooftop Solar Can Help Power Our Climate Future

Monday, December 6, 2021

Chairman Barrett, Chairman Roy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy,

Earlier this session, the Legislature helped the Commonwealth take a big leap forward in climate action by passing the Next-Generation Roadmap bill, which codified a roadmap plan for achieving net zero emission by 2050 and set stronger emissions reduction goals (such as requiring statewide emissions reductions of 50% from 1990 levels by 2030). If we are to achieve these goals, then we need to put in place the policies, programs, and practices to make it happen.

Accordingly, we urge you to give a favorable report to the Solar Neighborhoods Act: An Act establishing solar neighborhoods (H.3278) and An Act increasing solar rooftop energy (S.2165).

Buildings consume more than 50% of the primary energy used annually in Massachusetts. Achieving our climate goals will require making our buildings more efficient in their use of energy and greener in the energy they use. Some of that work will require adaptations and upgrades to existing housing stock, but we should be working to ensure that all future construction is built with our climate goals (as well as the goal of cleaner air) in mind.

The Solar Neighborhoods Act does just that by requiring that all new buildings be built “solar-ready,” i.e., able to accommodate rooftop solar panels and that solar rooftop solar panels are installed on new buildings (including single-family homes, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings) at the time of construction.

Our municipalities are already leading the way. Watertown recently passed an ordinance requiring new commercial and multi-family residential buildings to have rooftop solar. We’ve also seen action in other states, as California in 2018 became the first state to require all new homes to be built with solar panels.

We are all in an all-hands-on-deck moment for climate change. Let’s get to work.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

climate

The Safe Communities Act Makes Us All Safer

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Chairman Timilty, Chairman González, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Central to our mission and platform is the idea that we all do better when we all do better. When everyone feels safe and welcome in our community, we all benefit. That is why we urge you to give a favorable report to H.2418/S.1579: An Act to protect the civil rights and safety of all Massachusetts residents—the Safe Communities Act.

The holidays are a season when we think about spending time with family. But our immigration system too often focuses on tearing families apart. Across the country and here in Massachusetts (yes, Massachusetts), immigrant families have been separated and detained indefinitely or deported by ICE for any reason or no reason, without due process.

Massachusetts may not be able to stop deportations, but we can stop being complicit. Massachusetts law enforcement officers have, in many cases, voluntarily cooperated with federal immigration enforcement efforts—at Massachusetts taxpayer expense. If immigrants fear that interacting with state officials could get them or family members deported, they will cease to report crimes or emergencies. When immigrants fear state officials, we are all less safe.

Moreover, when local law enforcement is involved with enforcing immigration law, racial profiling is likely. This harms not only the undocumented, but all people of color, who become potential targets for arrest, because they might “look” undocumented.

Lastly, Massachusetts law enforcement is not being paid to act as ICE agents. Cooperating with federal immigration orders costs the Commonwealth money, both from the extra duties and expensive lawsuits over violation of due process.

All of this makes a simple fact clear: the status quo is not keeping people safe. The Safe Communities Act, by contrast, would—by preventing police from inquiring about immigration status, guaranteeing due process rights, limiting notifications to ICE, and ending collaboration agreements that enable state and county officials with ICE.

Although the new administration in Washington has fortunately shown interest in reforming our immigration system, we don’t need to wait to act, especially when we should have acted years ago.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Political Director

Progressive Massachusetts

immigrants rights

Finish the Work of Last Year’s Police Reform Bill by Banning Facial Surveillance

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

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

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

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did last session in passing police accountability legislation that created better standards for police professionalization as well as stronger limitations on the use of force. But there is more work to be done. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.135/S.47: An Act to Regulate Face Surveillance.

Last year, the House and Senate adopted a strong framework for government use of face surveillance in the Commonwealth, but the legislation was significantly weakened by Governor Baker before ultimate passage. H.135 and S.47 are nearly identical to the original language passed by the House and Senate. They would allow controlled use of this technology for legitimate police investigations while strengthening protections for our privacy, freedom of speech, racial justice, and civil rights.

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

The current regulations on facial surveillance are deficient in several key ways:

They only regulate facial recognition technology as used by law enforcement agencies, neither prohibiting nor regulating when this technology can or cannot be used by public agencies of different nature, for example schools or local parks departments.

They do not establish any limitation regarding who can directly use and operate a facial recognition system and impose very weak standards governing police requests, court orders, and the use of the technology in criminal investigations.

They fail to provide any due process protections for defendants who have been subject to the use of facial recognition systems.

They lack any enforcement mechanism to ensure that public officials comply with the law.

Thankfully, H.135 and S.47provide for useful policy solutions to these problems. They would, among other steps, prohibit all public entities, including public schools, the department of transportation, and other public agencies in the Commonwealth, from using and possessing this technology; create a notice-and-disclosure framework that will let persons know when facial recognition was used to identify them; and establish an exclusionary rule that would apply when law enforcement uses facial recognition in a manner that does not conform with the law.

We encourage you to give a favorable report to H.135 and S.47. We need strong regulations to ensure it doesn’t infringe on our civil rights and civil liberties, and this legislation provides an excellent model.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

police reform

Lifting up MA’s Families with the Common Start Bill

Today, the Joint Committee on Education held its hearing on the Common Start bill. Read our testimony below — and find out how to take action at progressivemass.com/common-start-2021.

Testimony of Progressive Massachusetts in support of H.605 and S.2362: An Act providing affordable and accessible high quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth

October 23, 2021

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

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 a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Massachusetts. We are urging you to give a favorable report to H.605 and S.362: An Act providing affordable and accessible high quality early education and care to promote child development and well-being and support the economy in the Commonwealth, jointly known as the Common Start bill.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the weakness of our child care infrastructure, but families were already struggling before. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Massachusetts has the most expensive infant care in the country, after the District of Columbia, with the annual cost for infant care or child care of a four-year-old higher than that of college tuition. [1] The $20,913 average annual cost of child care and $15,095 average annual cost for care for a four-year-old is more than half what a minimum wage worker would earn in a year. These costs are prohibitively expensive for low- and middle-income families, who are forced to choose between making ends meet and saving for the future on one hand or affording child care on the other.

The Common Start bill will lift up Massachusetts families by providing child care and early education that is affordable for everyone. It is most essential to lower-income families, but it will also aid middle-income families who must cope with the highest cost child care in the nation. We need the quarter million workers who have left the workforce to return to their jobs so they can have income stability and we need them employed for our economy to prosper.

Investments in child care and early education are not only good for the economic security of parents: they are also highly beneficial for children. High-quality early education programs get results. Children benefit with enhanced resiliency and employment opportunities over their lifetimes. Providing children with high-quality early education and child care is one of the most effective ways to further a child’s success in grades K-12 and beyond.

With resources coming in from the federal government through the American Recovery Plan, we have an opportunity to build a child care and early education infrastructure worthy of our Commonwealth. We urge you to take it and to pass the Common Start legislation.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

[1] https://www.epi.org/child-care-costs-in-the-united-states/#/MA

Common Start

Medicare for All: Treating Health Care as a Human Right

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Chairwoman Friedman, Chairman Lawn, 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.

Progressive Massachusetts urges a favorable report for S.766/H.1267: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

health care