Last week, the MA House and Senate passed their consensus version of a police reform bill, sending it to the Governor’s desk.
Baker had three options. (1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listened to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn’t care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn’t care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill.
He chose #3.
In his letter to the Legislature earlier today, Baker outlined a series of amendments that he is demanding that the Legislature pass. Each one would water down the progress made toward accountability and oversight.
Here’s what they were–and why they should be rejected.
- Restoring the Municipal Police Training Committee: The Legislature’s bill takes the Municipal Police Training Committee from its current location in the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) and places it under the oversight of the civilian-majority POST Commission. Baker argued that only police know best how to train police. If that were true, then we wouldn’t be seeing all of the problems that gave rise to the bill. Civilian oversight is necessary for real accountability and for any meaningful reform of the practice of policing.
- Designating a Seat for Police Unions on the POST Commission: Baker insists that the Massachusetts Law Enforcement Policy Group be able to submit police union representatives for consideration for one of the law enforcement seats on the commission. Police unions have been bullying legislators and lying about the bill. They should not be rewarded for that with an opportunity to work against real oversight.
- Removing the Ban on Facial Surveillance Technology: Facial surveillance technology is very racist and very dangerous. Baker wants to eliminate the ban on this tool and create more work for a commission to study it.
- Weakening the Use of Force Regulations: Baker wants to strike the definitions in the bill for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” to make it easier for police officers to say that deadly force was justified.
- Defining “Bias-Free Policing” out of Existence: The bill creates an affirmative right to bias-free policing, defined as “policing decisions made by and conduct of law enforcement officers that shall not consider a person’s race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status or socioeconomic or professional level.” Baker wants to add exceptions large enough to exclude obvious cases of racial profiling.
- Delaying the Bill: Baker wants to delay implementation of the bill until July, but as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.
