In 2020, Massachusetts passed a police reform bill that created a standards and accreditation commission, put limits on the use of force, and took other steps to address systemic racism in law enforcement. But left out of the police reform bill was a simple realization: the best way to reduce the incidence of police brutality is to limit the scope of policing.
Too often, armed police officers are called in to respond to situations that they are not equipped to handle, situations that are better handled by someone with an expertise in social work or mental health or someone from the community itself. Shifting such calls away from police and towards alternative response programs ensures that situations do not escalate and that people can best be connected to the services that they need.
The ACES bill — An Act to Create Alternatives for Community Emergency Services (S.1552 / H.2519), filed by Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa — would direct the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to establish and oversee the Alternatives for Community Emergency Services Grant Program (A.C.E.S.) to increase the availability of non-law-enforcement, unarmed community-based response options for calls to 911.
Yesterday, the Joint Committee on Public Health held a hearing on legislation to improve vaccination rates.
Over 15+ hours, the Committee heard from literally hundreds of individuals, including licensed medical professionals at Mass General Hospital and Tufts Medical Center, who espoused toxic disinformation about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, grossly distorted and flatly misstated the content of the Community Immunity Act, and personally attacked the character of any legislators and public health professionals who care about strong immunization policy and infectious disease prevention.
We need to make sure that the Legislature hears the voices of people who support science and public health. Here’s what you can do.
Copy the list of members of the Joint Committee on Public Health and send them an email like the one below — Or send a pre-filled email here.
Dear Chair Comerford, Chair Decker, and Distinguished Members of the Joint Committee on Public Health:
I write to express my strong support for S.1517/H.2271, the Community Immunity Act, filed by Senator Rausch and Representatives Donato and Vargas. You heard testimony on this critical legislation on Monday, July 12.As we endeavor to emerge from a global pandemic, I urge you to expediently advance the Community Immunity Act with a favorable report.
We need only look around to see the importance of widespread herd immunity (both localized and statewide) and the need to improve our public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, our current infectious disease prevention provisions leave gaping holes in our public health protections. Every corner of our Commonwealth faces a concerningly high rate of under- or unimmunized youth, threatening our communities’ health and safety. (Please consider these maps: https://www.beccarauschma.com/communityimmunitymap.)
The Community Immunity Act fixes the holes by creating the statutory immunization infrastructure our Commonwealth needs, without mandating vaccines or striking the religious exemption. I support this comprehensive bill because [insert your reasons here].
As our elected leaders, please embrace this once-in-a-generation moment to protect generations to come. I ask that you swiftly advance the Community Immunity Act out of the Public Health Committee with a favorable report. Please help to keep all of us safe and healthy, particularly people who are immunocompromised and rely on community immunity.
Thank you for your consideration and your service to the people of the Commonwealth.
Chairman Timilty, Chairman González, and Members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:
My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.
I am testifying today in support of S.1552 / H.2519: An Act to Create Alternatives for Community Emergency Services (ACES), filed by Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa.
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.
This bill recognizes two key points. First, the best way to reduce the incidence of police brutality is to limit police interactions (and, accordingly, the scope of policing). Second, we overwork police officers by asking them to do many tasks for which they are not trained to do. Police officers are not trained social workers or mental health professionals, and we neither serve the police or the community well by asking them to respond to situations in which a social worker or mental health professional — or even a member of the community — would be best fit to respond.
Acknowledging this fundamental, and sometimes tragic, mismatch, the bill would direct the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to establish and oversee the Alternatives for Community Emergency Services Grant Program (A.C.E.S.) to increase the availability of non-law-enforcement, unarmed community-based response options for calls to 911.
The ACES bill would encourage the creation of local systems for protecting the mental and physical well-being of residents, preventing violence, de-escalating volatile situations, ensuring access to human services, and reducing government use of force, in emergency and non-emergency situations that do not necessitate the presence of law enforcement personnel, or, where appropriate, the person requesting help requests a response from an alternative to law enforcement. And to ensure the appropriate use of funds, the bill requires timely evaluation to assess outcomes and costs, such as mental, physical, and behavioral health outcomes, impact on reduced demand for law enforcement response to 911 calls, and rate of successfully connecting residents with human services for which they present a need. Moreover, the bill recognizes that community-based organizations, rather than local law enforcement departments, are often the best-equipped to manage such work and do the work of building trust.
The American Rescue Plan authorized funding for alternative crisis programs. Massachusetts should embrace this opportunity to expand on police reform. De-escalation training and requirements are important. But some calls shouldn’t be going to the police at all.
Please give a favorable report to S.1552 / H.2519: An Act to Create Alternatives for Community Emergency Services (ACES).
At 4:12 am on Tuesday, July 14, after having been in session since 11:00 am the day prior, the Massachusetts State Senate voted 30 to 7 (with 3 voting present) to pass S.2800: An Act to reform police standards and shift resources to build a more equitable, fair and just commonwealth that values Black lives and communities of color (Reform – Shift – Build Act).
Voting NO were five Democrats — Nick Collins, Anne Gobi, Michael Moore, Mike Rush, and John Velis — and two Republicans — Ryan Fattman and Dean Tran. Voting present were Democrat Diana DiZoglio and Republicans Patrick O’Connor and Bruce Tarr. Notably, two of the YES votes spoke on the floor that they hoped that the House would weaken the bill: Democrats Mike Brady and Marc Pacheco.
What the Bill Does (And Doesn’t Do)
The bill strengthens the use of force standards for all law enforcement agents, creates a majority-civilian Police Officer Standards and Accreditation Commission (POSAC) charged with certifying and decertifying law enforcement officers, establishes a Justice Reinvestment Fund to move money away from policing and prisons and into education and workforce development opportunities, places a moratorium on facial surveillance technology, reduces the school-to-prison pipeline by prioritizing student safety over criminalization, removes barriers to expungement of juvenile records, establishes stronger oversight and limitations on the procurement of military equipment by law enforcement, bans racial profiling in law enforcement, creates a commission on the status of African Americans and (as amended) the Latinx community, and requires increased data collection and reporting.
It also bans certain practices that are — absurdly — not already illegal, e.g., police officers having sex with individuals in custody (something that can never truly be consensual).
The bill, unfortunately, does not go far enough. The definition of “chokehold” in the bill’s ban on chokeholds is too narrow (more on that later). The bans on tear gas and no-knock raids have considerable loopholes. The bill, moreover, could have done more to limit the scope of policing, as the main way to reduce police brutality is to reduce the possibility of interactions with police. And the doctrine of qualified immunity — which permits law enforcement to violate people’s constitutional rights with virtual impunity — should have been outright abolished rather than just limited. But all that said, it is still a significant step forward.
Some Things Weren’t Controversial
Senators filed a total of 146 amendments, some of which got voted up or down by voice vote, some of which were withdrawn (47, to be exact), and some of which received recorded votes.
Eight amendments received unanimous recorded votes:
Amendment #7 (Intervention) from Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, which clarified that the duty to intervene applied to other officers and not to bystanders
Amendment #9 (Minority Appointments) from Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, which would give the Republican minority the ability to appoint a member to the commission on the status of African Americans
Amendment #16 (Creating a Commission on Structural Racism) from Harriette Chandler, which would create a commission to study structural racism in policing and the criminal-legal system and recommend policy solutions to eliminate it
Amendment #28 (Removing offensive language against LGBTQ+ individuals) from Harriette Chandler, which replaced some archaic language in the bill
Amendment #39 (Latinx Commission) from Joe Boncore, which would create a commission on the status of the Latinx community
Amendment #43 (POSAC and MPTC Membership) from Bruce Tarr, which requires the police officer standards and accreditation committee and the municipal police training committee to meet twice a year to review and make recommendations to improve current police officer training standards
Amendment #103 (Defining Totality of the Circumstances) from John Keenan, which would alter the definition of “totality of the circumstances” to include information prior to interaction
Amendments that passed by voice vote included ones to increase access to records (#59, #113), strengthen data tracking/reporting (#76, #80), strengthen requirements in de-escalation training (#30, #41), promote alternatives to incarceration (#36), ensure that decertified officers cannot serve as correctional officers in prisons and jails (#27), and require a public process before any state purchase of military equipment (#38). Among the withdrawn amendments were ones to decriminalize homelessness, ban no-knock raids, and lift the cap on the bill’s Justice Reinvestment Fund.
But Let’s Get on to the Contested Votes
The first contested vote of the evening was on Bruce Tarr’s Amendment #117 (Implementation), which would have required an unnecessary fiscal study of the bill to bog down implementation. The amendment failed on a vote of 12 to 27. Joining the four Republicans were Mike Brady, Nick Collins, Diana DiZoglio, Michael Moore, Marc Pacheco, Walter Timilty, John Velis, and Jim Welch.
Juvenile Justice
Anne Gobi’s Amendment #123 (County Correction and Juvenile Detention Officers Commission), which would have struck the language creating a commission on the use of force in juvenile detention facilities (yes, they thought that a *commission* was a step too far), failed on a vote of 16 to 24. 12 Democrats joined the four Republicans in voting for it: Mike Brady, Diana DiZoglio, Paul Feeney, Barry Finegold, Anne Gobi, Edward Kennedy, Joan Lovely, Michael Moore, Marc Pacheco, Walter Timilty, John Velis, and Jim Welch.
Pat Jehlen’s amendment #108 (Protecting Students From Profiling), which would protect students from having school officials wrongfully entering them into a gang database and risking their deportation, passed on a vote of 27 to 12. (Learn more about the issue here.)
Joining the 4 Republicans in voting NO were Brady, Collins, Gobi, Kennedy, Moore, Pacheco, Velis, and Welch.
Qualified Immunity
One of the main points of contention in the bill — one for which senators were bombarded with calls from police officers and their families — was the language to limit qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity grants impunity to public officials (especially law enforcement) who violate someone’s constitutional rights unless there is an identical situation in case law in which a public official was held accountable. In short, it gives carte blanche to police officers to violate people’s basic rights. Read more on the doctrine here.
The Senate bill reforms qualified immunity so that an officer may be held civilly liable for excessive use of force.
The Senate took two recorded votes on this issue.
The first was on a corrective amendment (#121) introduced by Ways & Means chairman Michael Rodrigues to clarify that public officials would remain indemnified in such lawsuits. Police officers’ wives had been calling senators sobbing that they could lose their homes if QI were touched. That’s obviously false: public employees’ own assets are not seized in such cases. (Whether or not police should be personally liable — that’s another issue entirely). The amendment was mostly — but not entirely — a proxy for support for the QI reforms in the bill. It passed on a vote of 26 to 14.
Joining the four Republicans in voting NO were Brady, Collins, DiZoglio, Feeney, Gobi, Keenan, Pacheco, Timilty, Velis, and Welch.
The second vote was on an amendment from John Velis to delay the qualified immunity reforms in the bill for 180 days (#137, Special Commission to Study Qualified Immunity). As Sonia Chang-Diaz pointedly noted during the debate on the amendment, “People of color in MA have a unique resource right now: the attention of a mostly white electorate. It is a resource that is born in tragedy and born in anguish. And it is a resource that will not be there in 6 months.”
The amendment failed on a vote of 16 to 24.
Twelve Democrats joined Republicans in voting for it: Brady, Collins, DiZoglio, Feeney, Gobi, Keenan, Moore, Pacheco, Rush, Timilty, Velis, and Welch.
Police Officer Standards and Accreditation Commission
The Senate voted down two efforts to undermine the certifying/decertifying body created by the bill.
Ryan Fattman’s amendment #51 (POSAC), which would have replaced the Police Officer Standards and Accreditation Commission in the bill with Governor Charlie Baker’s weaker and non-independent version, failed on a vote of 10 to 29.
Joining the four Republicans in voting for it were Brady, DiZoglio, Gobi, Moran, Pacheco, and Timilty.
Nick Collins’s amendment #134 (Opportunity to Appeal), which would have made it harder to decertify law-breaking police officers, failed on a vote of 16 to 24.
Joining the Republicans in voting for it were Brady, Collins, DiZoglio, Feeney, Gobi, Keenan, Moore, Montigny, Pacheco, Timilty, Velis, and Welch.
Chokeholds
The definition of a chokehold in the bill is, unfortunately, so narrow that Derek Chauvin’s choke hold of George Floyd would really only be illegal in the final seconds.
Jim Welch’s amendment #58 (Clarifying the Definition of Choke Hold) sought to fix that, but it failed on a vote of 16 to 24.
The 16 senators who voted to actually ban chokeholds were Sonia Chang-Diaz, Nick Collins, Jo Comerford, Cindy Creem, Julian Cyr, Sal DiDomenico, Diana DiZoglio, Jamie Eldridge, Adam Hinds, Pat Jehlen, Eric Lesser, Joan Lovely, Mark Montigny, Becca Rausch, John Velis, and Jim Welch — a strange bedfellows mix of the progressives and some of the most conservative Democrats.
Dean Tran sought to weaken the too-weak language even further with his amendment #62 (Chokehold in self-defense), but it failed overwhelmingly on a vote of 3 to 36, with only Ryan Fattman and Patrick O’Connor joining him.
Let’s look at some votes.
House Vote: July 24, 2020
Late Friday evening, the MA House passed its police reform bill, following the Senate’s passage of the Reform – Shift – Build Act the prior week. Like the Senate bill, it creates a certification/decertification body for police officers, something almost every other state already has, and strengthens regulations around the use of force.
While the bill went slightly further than the Senate bill on the use of force and had stronger regulations on the use of facial surveillance, it barely touched the issue of qualified immunity (the legal doctrine that shields abusive police officers from lawsuits and denies victims their fair day in court), dropped language limiting and regulating the acquisition of military equipment, and failed to include the Senate’s stronger language on reducing the school-to-prison pipeline or on a Justice Reinvestment Fund (which would invest sums equivalent to DOC savings into opportunities for impacted communities). And neither bill goes as far as necessary to truly limit the scope of policing, i.e., shifting functions away from police departments and to trained social workers and other non-armed professionals (We don’t need armed police to show up when someone has a mental health episode).
The final vote on the bill was 93 to 66 (see roll call below). The House and Senate will now have to work to come up with consensus language.
Over the course of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the House considered 221 amendments and had far more floor debate than is usual for the top-down chamber. Indeed, many votes were far closer than the lop-sided votes that are so common.
The POST Commission
Republicans and and conservative Democrats sought to narrow the power and independence of the body charged with certifying and decertifying police officers, while the Black & Latino Caucus, along with progressive allies, sought to strengthen it.
Independence of the Commission
Rep. David Muradian (R-Grafton) offered an amendment (#181, RC215) to increase the police influence on the POST commission by allowing the civilian members of the commission to be former police officers or relatives of police officers.
The amendment failed on a comparatively close vote of 68 to 90, with a nearly a third of the Democratic caucus defecting to the right.
Rep. Sheila Harrington (R-Groton) offered an amendment (#174, RC216) to make the POST commission a majority-police commission (explicitly making the change Muradian’s amendment implicitly wanted to make).
The amendment failed 53 to 106, garnering less Democratic support (but still too much).
Scope & Power of the Commission
Unprofessional Police Conduct: Rep. Timothy Whelan (R-Brewster) offered an amendment (#29, RC202) to offer a specific definition for “unprofessional police conduct.” The bill notes that the commission should identify patterns of police conduct including but not limited to “(A) escalating behavior that may lead to the use of excessive force or conduct that is biased on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental or physical disability, immigration status or socioeconomic or professional level; (B) an increase in the frequency of complaints regarding an individual officer or agency; or (C) the number of complaints regarding an officer or agency that are at least 1 standard deviation above the mean for similarly situated officers or agencies for a defined period,” which already offers clear guidance. Whelan sought to limit the definition to a more narrowly defined”on-duty behavior by a law enforcement officer which is established by probable cause to be a violation of state and/or federal law, excessive use of physical force, or repeated, sustained instances of behaviors which violate departmental policies or bring the law enforcement agency into disrepute” (without, as the current text offers, the ability to expand the definition based on data).
The amendment failed 44 to 115, with some conservative Democrats joining Republicans.
Evidentiary Standards: Rep. Andy Vargas (D-Haverhill), with the backing of the Black & Latino Caucus, offered an amendment (#77, RC208) to change the evidentiary threshold for decertifying an abusive cop from “clear and convincing evidence” to “the preponderance of the evidence.” The “preponderance of the evidence” means that, with all information weighed, an allegation is more likely to be true than not true. “Clear and convincing” sets a much higher threshold, and when keeping abusive cops on the force means the continued violation of people’s basic constitutional rights, such a standard is simply too high.
The amendment failed 46 to 113, with progressives voting off.
Making It Harder to Decertify a Cop: The bill requires police chiefs to immediately transmit any complaint to the POST Commission. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) offered an amendment (#58, 209) to only require that to happen if there is a “sustained complaint received from an identifiable complainant and signed under the pains and penalties of perjury,” thus making it more difficult to prevent abusive behavior until it is too late and subjecting complainants to retaliation.
The amendment failed 34 to 124, with only three Democrats voting with Republicans.
Lombardo also offered an amendment (#61, RC210) eliminating officers’ offenses prior to the creation of the certification commission as possible grounds for decertification, thereby denying justice and helping abusive officers stay on the force.
Giving Bad Cops a Loophole: Rep. Alyson Sullivan (R-Abington) offered an amendment (#118, RC211) to make it optional for the standards & training commission to decertify a cop when the commission finds strong evidence said cop has committed a serious offense, giving far too much leeway and providing a loophole by which abusive cops could stay on the force.
The amendment failed 44 to 114, with some conservative Democrats joining Republicans.
Use of Force & Militarization of Police
No-Knock Warrants: Rep. Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury/Dorchester) offered an amendment (#116, RC203) to require police to certify that there are no known children or elders in a location before they can secure a no-knock warrant. No-knock warrants are a result of the drug war, and they have often proven deadly, as in the tragic case of Breonna Taylor earlier this year.
House Leadership promised that it would pass, and it did — but barely — with an uncommonly close vote of 83 to 76.
Tear Gas: Rep. Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge) offered an amendment (#200, RC207) to ban the use of tear gas. Chemical weapons are banned under the Geneva Convention. There is no legitimate reason for police forces to use them.
Nonetheless, the amendment failed 38 to 121. That’s right: 121 representatives, including the majority of Democrats, voted against banning tear gas.
Attack Dogs: Rep. Pat Kearney (D-Scituate) offered an amendment (#169, RC214) to eliminate language in the bill including attacks by police dogs under the definition of “officer-involved injury or death.”
It failed 43 to 115.
Regulating the Acquisition of Military Equipment: Rep. Jack Lewis (D-Framingham) offered an amendment (#131, RC225) to require municipalities to have a hearing and a vote before their police department can acquire military equipment. Is that really too much to ask?
Apparently so, including every Republican and the majority of Democrats in the MA Legislature. The amendment failed 47 to 112.
Qualified Immunity
One of the main points of contention in the police reform debate has been the question of qualified immunity.
The doctrine of qualified immunity grants impunity to public officials (especially law enforcement) who violate someone’s constitutional rights unless there is an identical situation in case law in which a public official was held accountable. In short, it gives carte balance to police officers to violate people’s basic rights. Read more on the doctrine here.
The House offered much weaker language on qualified immunity than the Senate, limiting immunity only if an officer is decertified and only if the attorney general brings the lawsuit.
During floor debate, thematically similar amendments are often combined into “consolidated” amendments, which pick and choose language (or discard included amendments entirely). Consolidated A combined some amendments to yield some modest changes to the language around POST Commission processes and procedures, and Consolidated B combined amendments related to the composition of different commissions. Both passed with token opposition.
However, Consolidated C, which packaged together the QI-related amendments, got interesting. The amendment itself simply proposed creating a commission to investigate and study the impact of QI doctrine.
Limiting Qualified Immunity: Rep. Jon Hecht (D-Watertown)’s amendment #176 on QI was originally included. The amendment, a priority of the ACLU, would enable victims of police brutality to hold officers accountable in court by allowing officers to claim immunity only if it was clearly established that their conduct was lawful.
Rep. Mark Cusack (D-Braintree) offered a further amendment to Rep. Jay Livingstone (D-Boston)’s #195 to replace it with the text of #176, and then Rep. Dave Rogers (D-Belmont) asked for a recorded vote.
Unfortunately, the amendment failed 24 to 135. That’s right: only 24 representatives supported enabling victims of police brutality to have their fair day in court.
Striking the Bill’s QI Language: Rep. Brad Hill (R-Ipswich) offered a further amendment to Consolidated C to eliminate the QI language in the bill entirely.
The amendment failed in a fairly close vote of 72 to 87.
Qualified Immunity Commission: The QI commission in the consolidated amendment was even too much for conservative representatives of both parties. The amendment passed 115 to 44, with more than a dozen Democrats and almost every Republican voting no.
Let’s look at some votes.
Conference Report: December 2, 2020
The Senate voted 28 to 12, with 8 conservative Democrats joining the 4 Republicans in voting against it. Note that the Senate had a veto-proof majority.
The House voted 92 to 67, with 35 conservative Democrats joining the 31 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting no. Note that this falls 14 votes shy of a veto-proof majority.
Unfortunately, while the news was underscoring why we need to be going further in imposing public accountability of policing and shifting our definition of (and resources for) public safety away from policing, the MA Legislature was narrowing the ambition of its police reform bill.
Rather than signing the MA House and Senate’s consensus police reform bill, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed his true colors again by threatening to veto it unless the Legislature watered it down.
The Senate, to its credit, had passed both its own bill in July and the more recent consensus bill with veto-proof majorities (30 to 7 and then 28 to 12). If they were the sole chamber, they could have passed the stronger bill from earlier this month (which, itself, was a compromise).
But despite Democrats’ 80% majority in the House, the House never came close to a super-majority in support of the bill. They passed the consensus bill by only 92 to 67, a remarkably close vote by House standards and well shy of the 106 needed for an override. One wonders how committed House Leadership really was to their own bill, given how easily they can whip support when they want.
The Senate thus chose to weaken the bill to secure the Governor’s support, adopting most (but not all) of his proposed amendments to the bill. The Senate voted 31 to 9 to pass the new bill, gaining the support of three no votes from earlier this month (Diana DiZoglio, Marc Pacheco, and Bruce Tarr).
So About the New Bill?
Although the broad contours of the bill remain the same, and many parts of it are worth praise, the redraft of the bill is weaker in a few notable ways:
Police in Charge of Setting Their Own Training: The new bill keeps the all-law-enforcement municipal police training committee under the administration’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (a well-documented bad actor when it comes to oversight) instead of transferring ts duties to a new majority-civilian POST commission. The idea that police should be counted on to properly police themselves is not borne out by any evidence.
Weaker Use of Force Standards: The POST commission would still maintain some approval authority over use of force standards (unlike Baker’s request), but the bill eliminates definitions for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” related to the use of force.
Weaker Facial Surveillance Regulations: The bill also replaces the full ban on racist, dangerous facial surveillance technology with more modest regulations on it (Baker had wanted no regulations at all) and the creation of a commission to explore future regulations.
Additional Changes: The bill also creates additional loopholes in the definition of “bias-free policing” and the regulation of no-knock warrants. Although presented as fixing technicalities, the new language could open the door to police abuse.
The dilution of the bill did not stop conservatives from both parties in the Senate from trying to weaken it further.
Because there was a roll call, you can see which Senators, including Democrats, voted for an amendment from Senator Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to weaken the bill by eliminating the civilian majority on the POST commission.
Final Passage – Round 2: December 23, 2020
Last night, the House voice-voted to accept the redrafted bill, leaving no record of the vote. But they did have a recorded vote on the enactment of the bill earlier today.
The weaker redraft passed the House 107-51.
The Democrats who voted NO earlier this month who voted YES after Baker made the Legislature weaken the bill were Cahill, Capano, Fiola, Haggerty, Kearney, Markey, Pignatelli, Scmid, and Zlotnik. They were joined by Republicans Jones, Poirier, Hunt, Orrall, Whelan, and Wong and the unaffiliated Whipps.
Unfortunately, while the news was underscoring why we need to be going further in imposing public accountability of policing and shifting our definition of (and resources for) public safety away from policing, the MA Legislature was narrowing the ambition of its police reform bill.
Rather than signing the MA House and Senate’s consensus police reform bill, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed his true colors again by threatening to veto it unless the Legislature watered it down.
The Senate, to its credit, had passed both its own bill in July and the more recent consensus bill with veto-proof majorities (30 to 7 and then 28 to 12). If they were the sole chamber, they could have passed the stronger bill from earlier this month (which, itself, was a compromise).
But despite Democrats’ 80% majority in the House, the House never came close to a super-majority in support of the bill. They passed the consensus bill by only 92 to 67, a remarkably close vote by House standards and well shy of the 106 needed for an override. One wonders how committed House Leadership really was to their own bill, given how easily they can whip support when they want.
The Senate thus chose to weaken the bill to secure the Governor’s support, adopting most (but not all) of his proposed amendments to the bill. The Senate voted 31 to 9 to pass the new bill, gaining the support of three no votes from earlier this month (Diana DiZoglio, Marc Pacheco, and Bruce Tarr).
So About the New Bill?
Although the broad contours of the bill remain the same, and many parts of it are worth praise, the redraft of the bill is weaker in a few notable ways:
Police in Charge of Setting Their Own Training: The new bill keeps the all-law-enforcement municipal police training committee under the administration’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (a well-documented bad actor when it comes to oversight) instead of transferring ts duties to a new majority-civilian POST commission. The idea that police should be counted on to properly police themselves is not borne out by any evidence.
Weaker Use of Force Standards: The POST commission would still maintain some approval authority over use of force standards (unlike Baker’s request), but the bill eliminates definitions for “imminent harm,” “necessary,” and “totality of circumstances” related to the use of force.
Weaker Facial Surveillance Regulations: The bill also replaces the full ban on racist, dangerous facial surveillance technology with more modest regulations on it (Baker had wanted no regulations at all) and the creation of a commission to explore future regulations.
Additional Changes: The bill also creates additional loopholes in the definition of “bias-free policing” and the regulation of no-knock warrants. Although presented as fixing technicalities, the new language could open the door to police abuse.
The dilution of the bill did not stop conservatives from both parties in the Senate from trying to weaken it further.
Because there was a roll call, you can see which Senators, including Democrats, voted for an amendment from Senator Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to weaken the bill by eliminating the civilian majority on the POST commission.
12/23 Update: And then on to the House Today
Last night, the House voice-voted to accept the redrafted bill, leaving no record of the vote. But they did have a recorded vote on the enactment of the bill earlier today.
The weaker redraft passed the House 107-51.
The Democrats who voted NO earlier this month who voted YES after Baker made the Legislature weaken the bill were Cahill, Capano, Fiola, Haggerty, Kearney, Markey, Pignatelli, Scmid, and Zlotnik. They were joined by Republicans Jones, Poirier, Hunt, Orrall, Whelan, and Wong and the unaffiliated Whipps.
In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.
Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.
Baker’s amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.
Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.
To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, “The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for.”
The Legislature Stood Up to Baker. They Can Do It Again.
This week, the MA House and Senate did something that they so rarely do: they stood up to Governor Charlie Baker.
Rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access. Thankfully, they rejected his amendments by wide margins. You can see the votes below.
But they need to stand up to him again.
They need to stand up to him again by rejecting his harmful amendments to the police reform bill.
And they need to stand up to him by rejecting his effort to strike vital oversight language in the budget to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.
This week, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed repeatedly that he doesn’t have the best interests of the commonwealth at heart. And we’re not just talking about his stubborn refusal to close in-door dining, casinos (?!), and gyms or ensure that workers and small businesses have the supports they need to weather the dark winter. (Although more on that later.)
We’re talking about his refusal to sign good policies passed by the Legislature and his desire to run out the clock on all of them.
Rather than signing the Legislature’s compromise police reform bill, Baker proposed amendments that would harm the progress made by weakening regulations on the use of force and of harmful facial surveillance technology; weakening the oversight powers of the POST Commission; and delaying the implementation of reforms that we needed yesterday.
And rather than signing the budget passed by the Legislature, Baker — who only pretends to be pro-choice — sent back amendments to fully undermine the Legislature’s efforts to create more equitable abortion access.
Even more, while the COVID-19 pandemic has been spreading rapidly in state prisons, Baker struck vital oversight language to ensure that prisons and jails meet public health standards.
That’s not okay. And the Legislature shouldn’t let him get away with it.
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.
Last night, the MA Senate and House passed a consensus version of the police reform bills from the summer. Read our write-up here.
Let’s break down how it went and what’s next.
How Did Your Legislators Vote?
The Senate voted 28 to 12, with 8 conservative Democrats joining the 4 Republicans in voting against it. Note that the Senate had a veto-proof majority.
The House voted 92 to 67, with 35 conservative Democrats joining the 31 Republicans (and one Independent) in voting no. Note that this falls 14 votes shy of a veto-proof majority.
Let your legislators know what you think of their vote!
The Senate, to their credit, had a veto-proof majority, but the House didn’t. So that puts things in Governor Baker’s hands.
Call Charlie Baker at (617) 725-4005 and demand that he sign the bill.
We need to make sure that this passes, but there’s far more work to be done because, as has become clear, new rules, regulations, and reforms — while still helpful — cannot solve the problems in policing and incarceration in this country. We need to rethink what public safety means and move money away from policing and prisons and toward building thriving communities where everyone has the resources and opportunities they need and deserve.
Shortesttake: The bill creates a POST Commission with fewer voices for real police accountability than in the Senate bill, establishes a lot of new commissions that may not actually produce anything, creates new regulations on the use of force with various strength (stronger on facial surveillance on chokeholds, pretty loophole-ridden elsewhere), makes notable strides on juvenile justice (from expungement to school policing), bans racial profiling, and lacks meaningful reforms on qualified immunity. (A lot of ups and downs in that sentence.)
GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) IN THE FINAL BILL:
Expanded access to juvenile records expungement
Stronger language around protecting students from profiling (with some unfortunate caveats, though)
Making school resource officers (SROs) optional for school districts
Ban on racial profiling
GOOD THINGS (SENATE BILL-ONLY) *NOT* IN THE BILL:
Strong limitations on qualified immunity doctrine (The bill only limits QI in case of decertified officer, as in House bill, and creates a commission on QI.)
Requirement of a democratic process around municipal acquisition of military equipment
Investment of funds equivalent to savings on incarceration into workforce development and job training/opportunities
Strong representation from civil rights groups and impacted communities on the police standards & training commission
GOOD THINGS (HOUSE-ONLY) IN THE BILL
Language actually banning chokeholds (unlike the weak Senate language)
Stronger language around no-knock warrants (although loopholes still abound)
Facial surveillance technology ban (as opposed to just a moratorium)
Okay, let’s dig deeper, section by section.
Section 1: Commissions — Creation of Commissions on the Status of African Americans, Status of Latinos/Latinas, Status of those with disabilities, Status of Black men and boys (pp. 1-15)
Section 2: Public records — Elimination of personnel records from public records law exemption (page 15)
Section 3-25, 27: Police Training & Certification Committee (pp. 16-22): This section makes some minor text changes to existing law to reflect the new bill and sets some requirements for police training, such as…
requirement of de-escalation training, promotion of “procedural justice,” alternatives to the use of force in interacting with minors
requirement of training related to interacting with victims, witnesses, or suspects with mental illness, substance use disorder, trauma history, or developmental or intellectual disabilities
requirement of de-escalation training with regard to protests
requirement of cultural competency training
training for school resource officers with regard to legal standards for police interaction with minors, child and adolescent cognitive development, trauma/behavioral addiction/mental illness/developmental disabilities, conflict resolution and diversion, and de-escalation. Also with regard to hate crime identification, anti-racism, and bullying. Requirement of consultation with experts on child and adolescent development and child trauma and with educators and 415attorneys experienced in juvenile and education law and preventing and addressing youth hate crimes in developing such training.
Unfortunately, however, the police training and certification committee consists entirely of law enforcement or their designees (See pp. 39-40 in Section 30).
Section 26: Facial/biometric surveillance (pp. 22-26): This section bans the use of facial recognition surveillance absent express authorization and provides language governing the role of the Registry of Motor Vehicles in facial surveillance. Section 105 (see below) creates a commission to explore that further.
Section 30 — Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission — Composition (pp. 26-50)
In the conference bill, the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, i.e., the commission in charge of certification and decertification, would have 9 members (no more than 3 of whom would come from police officers).
Here’s how that breaks down:
3 of them would be appointed by the Governor
1 police chief
1 retired justice of the superior court
1 social worker from a list of 5 nominations from NASW-MA
3 of them would be appointed by the AG
1 law enforcement officer below the rank of sergeant
1 law enforcement officer from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers (MAMLEO)
1 attorney licensed to practice law in the commonwealth appointed from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the civil rights and social justice section council of the Massachusetts Bar Association
3 of whom shall be appointed jointly by the governor and AG (with 1 from a list of 5 nominations submitted by the Massachusetts commission against discrimination, no specifications on the other 2).
The bill includes House language requiring demographic representativeness (“…shall include people of color and women, at least in such proportion as these groups exist in the commonwealth’s population”) and geographical diversity (“The members of the commission shall represent diverse geographic areas of the commonwealth, including urban, rural and suburban areas.”
Like the Senate bill, the conference bill spells out some necessary expertise for the civilian members of the POST commission (“law enforcement practice and training, criminal law, civil rights law, the criminal justice system, mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, crisis intervention, de-escalation techniques, or social science fields related to race or bias”).
The House POST Commission had less police representation than the Senate POST Commission (2 out of 7 vs. 7 out of 15), but it also had less guaranteed representation from those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (0 out of 7 vs. 8 out of 15). The composition here is somewhere in between: police representation (3 out of 9) falls in the middle of the Senate and House bill, as does the representation for those with a social justice or civil rights orientation (again, 3 out of 9). Unfortunately, there’s a real loss with the exclusion of the NAACP, ACLU, and Lawyers for Civil Rights–as well as those directly impacted–who had seats in the Senate bill but not the House.
The Senate POST Commission, although having more police presence, would have had a likely progressive majority (4 civil rights, 2 directly impacted, 2 from the Black and Latino Caucus); the POST Commission here does not.
Section 30 — POST Commission — suspension & revocation (pp. 51-57) The division of police standards is able to begin a preliminary inquiry if there is a report, complaint, or other credible evidence of officer misconduct and must give notice within 30 days. The division is also responsible for keeping a database of such complaints as well as any discipline or decertification that results. So what’s next? The POST Commission can suspend an officer in these cases (with the officer having the right to a hearing within 15 days)
Immediately suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a felony
Can (post-inquiry) before a charge initiate proceedings if conduct consists a felony if preponderance of the evidence
Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer who is arrested, charged or indicted for a misdemeanor, if the commission determines by apreponderance of the evidence that the crime affects the fitness of the officer to serve as a law enforcement officer
Can (post-inquiry) suspend the certification of any officer if the commission determines by apreponderance of the evidence that the suspension is in the best interest of the health, safety or welfare of the public
Administratively suspend officers who fail to comply with training and reporting requirements
Revocation of license requires “clear and convincing evidence” — reasons to revoke (p. 52-54 / note “shall” use vs. “may” use for outlined reasons). Note requirements for record-keeping on decertified officers (p. 57) and requirements that decertified officers not be hired even if on contract basis (p. 57). So what’s the difference between “clear and convincing” and “preponderance.” The “preponderance of the evidence” means that something is more likely to be true than not true. “Clear and convincing” sets a higher standard–say, two to four times more likely to be true than not true given the evidence.
Section 30 — Regulations on the Use of force (S1414, p. 58 – 59): The chokehold ban is the clearest of these regulations. Given the conditional clauses in the others, it’s unclear how much of a “ban” they will be in practice.
No use of physical force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & such force is necessary to effect lawful arrest, prevent escape from custody, or prevent imminent harm
No deadly force unless de-escalation used or not feasible & force is necessary to prevent imminent harm & the force is proportionate to the degree of imminent harm
Chokehold ban — Note that Section 30 includes the House’s definition of a chokehold (intent or result of “bodily injury, unconsciousness, or death”) as opposed to the narrower Senate version (definition on page 27).
Ban on firing at a fleeing vehicle unless imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm.
Requirement of de-escalation for protests. Ban on tear gas, rubber bullets, or attack dogs unless (i) de-escalation tried & failed or not feasible, (ii) imminent harm and proportionate to that imminent harm. Reporting requirements for such uses of force.
Section 30 — Duty to intervene (S15, p. 59): “An officer present and observing another officer using physical force, including deadly force, beyond that which is necessary or objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, shall intervene to prevent the use of unreasonable force unless intervening would result in imminent harm to the officer or another identifiable individual.”
Section 37. Language around Qualified Immunity (pp. 64-65)
The bill drops Senate language on reforming qualified immunity and reforming the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, you can sue if an officer violates your rights by means of “threats, intimidation, or coercion.” But here’s the catch: if someone says, “I’ll punch you,” that counts as a threat, intimidation, or coercion. When they punch you, it doesn’t — the threat merely refers to the intent, not the act. So the act of assault falls outside of scope. The Senate language would have reformed this and provided meaningful limitations on qualified immunity so that victims of police brutality can get their fair day in court.
Instead, the bill here contains House language saying that qualified immunity only no longer applies when an officer has been decertified or violates someone’s rights by “threats, intimidation, or coercion” (which, as noted above, courts never find to be the case).
Section 78 – – Protecting Students from Profiling (pp. 82-83): This section would protect students from having school officials wrongfully entering them into a gang database and risking their deportation or otherwise criminalization.
As in the Senate bill, the language applies to SROs as well as school personnel and contains the Senate’s expanded list of agencies to which information should not be provided.
It does, however, drop a few types of information deemed not to be provided in the Senate bill:” (ix) participation in school activities, extracurricular activities outside of school, sports teams or school clubs or organizations; (x) degrees, honors or awards; and (xi) post-high school plans.” Juvenile justice reform advocates are concerned that this information could be used as a proxy for immigration status. And it allows for the transmission of information about gang involvement if deemed “germane” to a “specific unlawful event/activity” that the school is required to report, a possibly large loophole.
And it allows for “the sharing of information upon the specific, informed written consent of the eligible student, parent or guardian, to comply with a court order or lawfully issued subpoena, in connection with a health or safety emergency pursuant to the provisions of 603 C.M.R. 23.07(4).” Note that this language could provide opportunities for coerced testimony given the power imbalance that exists.
But overall it’s an improvement.
Section 79 — Creation of a model school resource officer memorandum of understanding review commission & other regulations on SROs (pp. 87-90)
Note that this includes the language that SROs are hired “at request of” as opposed to “in consultation with” superintendents. Currently, schools are required to have police officers. By changing the language from “in consultation with the superintendent/district” (current law and the House bill) to “at request of” the superintendent or district, it creates space to not make that request. But, unlike in the Senate bill, the power lies with the superintendent and not with a democratic vote of the School Committee.
Section 83 — Ban on racial profiling (p. 91-92): This section adds language to the hands-free driving bill passed last year to ban racial profiling by police and to enable the Attorney General to bring forth civil suits to enforce this. One concern from racial justice advocates was that the law banning texting while driving could lead to an increase in racially motivated traffic stops.
Section 92 — Ban on officers having sex with individuals in custody (pp. 94-97): This section specifies that it is not possible for someone in custody to consent (I mean duh…how was this not law yet?). Note that Section 91 contains House language creating mandatory minimums for “indecent assault on battery” on individuals in custody, with this broken into categories for individuals 14 or over, elders / people with disabilities, individuals with intellectual disabilities, and children under 14.
Section 94 — No-knock warrants (pp. 97-98)
Under this section, an officer must submit an affidavit that establishes (a) probable cause that if the law enforcement officer announces their presence their life or the lives of others will be endangered and (b) no reason to believe that minor children or adults over the age of 65 are in the home. Note that (b) comes form the House bill.
However, officers can evade this requirement if ” to prevent a credible risk of imminent harm” — a potentially wide loophole.
Evidence obtained in violation of this would be rightfully inadmissible in court.
Sections 95-98 — Expanded access to juvenile records expungement (pp. 98-100) The final bill expands eligibility to no more than two convictions or adjudications and not more than two non-convictions/non-adjudications (juvenile justice reform advocates had wanted no limitation), but it does allow for multiple charges from one incident to count as one charge. It maintains the existing list of ineligible offenses, but it does apply retroactively (including for petitions that would have previously been ineligible but now wouldn’t be).
Section 103 — Commission on State & County Correctional Officers and Juvenile Detention Officers (pp. 103-105): The scope of the commission would relate to regulating use of force, access to records, and suspension/revocation. The commission would consist of the following:
a former judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court who shall serve as chair
the commissioner of correction or a designee
1 correctional officer who shall be appointed by the New England Police Benevolent Association, Inc.;
the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, Inc. or a designee
the commissioner of the department of youth services or a designee
1 correction officer who shall be appointed by the president of the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union;
1member appointed by American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council who shall be an employee of the department of youth services and who shall have not less than 5 years of experience working in a department of youth services secure facility;
the executive director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Inc. or a designee
the executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services or a designee
the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
the executive director of Lawyers for Civil Rights, Inc. or a designee
the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall not be members of the caucus;
the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee;
2 members who shall be appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a member of the LGBTQ community and 1 of whom shall be a formerly-incarcerated woman
Section 104 – Body Cameras (pp. 105 – 109): This section creates a 25-member task force to promote regulations for uniform use of body cameras, with the regulations due July 31, 2022. Of the task force, 11 out of 25 represent cops, sheriffs, and DAs. 8 of them represent civil rights. Here is the breakdown:
the secretary of public safety and security or a designee
the secretary of technology services and security or a designee
the attorney general or a designee
a member appointed by the committee for public counsel services
a district court judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme judicial court
2 members appointed by the Massachusetts Black and Latino legislative caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority Law Enforcement Officers Association
1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Minority State Police Officers Association, Inc.
1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Latino Police Officers Association, Inc.
1 member appointed by the chair of the Massachusetts Association of Women in Law Enforcement, Inc.
2 members appointed by the Massachusetts House Asian Caucus who shall have expertise in constitutional or civil rights law
the president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association or a designee
1 member appointed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police, Inc.
the colonel of state police or a designee
the president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association or a designee
the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
the president of the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association, Inc., or a designee
5 members appointed by the governor, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not fewer than 100,000 people, 1 of whom shall be a police chief in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and a population of not more than 50,000 people, 1 of whom shall be an expert on constitutional or privacy law who is employed by a law school in the commonwealth, 1 of whom shall be an elected official in a municipality with a body camera pilot program and 1 of whom shall be a representative of a law enforcement labor organization.
Section 105 – Commission on use of facial recognition in the Department of Transportation (pp. 109-111)
Section 106 — Commission on emergency hospitalizations (pp. 111-113)
Section 107 — Commission on civil service law reform (pp. 113-116)
Section 108 — Commission on a statewide cadet program (pp. 116-118)
Section 110 — Commission on structural racism in correctional facilities (pp. 118-120)
Section 111 — Commission on structural racism in parole process (pp. 120-121)
Section 112 — Commission on structural racism in probation service (pp. 121-122)
Section 116 — Commission on impact of qualified immunity doctrine (pp. 124-125)
The commission here consists of 15 members:
2 of whom shall be the chairs of the joint committee on the judiciary or their designees, who shall serve as co-chairs;
2 of whom shall be members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house
1 of whom shall be a member of the house of representatives appointed by the minority leader
2 of whom shall be members of the senate appointed by the president of the senate 1 of whom shall be a member of the senate appointed by the minority leader
3 of whom shall be appointed by the gov — 1 of whom shall be a member of a police officers’ union, 1 of whom shall be a member of a firefighters’ union, and 1 of whom shall be a retired justice of the appeals court
1 of whom shall be the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. or a designee
1 of whom shall be the president of the Massachusetts Bar Association or a designee
1 of whom shall be the executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, Inc. or a designee
1 of whom shall the president of the Boston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People New England Area Conference or a designee
Based on what we know of these people, what should we expect? There are 5 members we can expect support reform to qualified immunity: the Senate judiciary chair, the 2 designees of the Senate President, the designee of the ACLU, and the Greater Boston NAACP president (or her designee). I am not sure where the Bar or Mass Municipal stands. One should expect that the other 8 members would all be opposed to meaningful reform, making the commission less than useless. Its report (if it happens) is due next September.
Section 117 — Study requirement for the Community Policing and Behavioral Health Advisory Council on a crisis response and continuity of care system to deliver alternative emergency service (pp. 125-127)
