10-27-2024 4:20am

Beacon Hill Roll Call

Alan Earls Editor

If you have any questions about this week's report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562.

Volume 49 - Report No. 43

October 21-25, 2024

By Bob Katzen

GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST – Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and influence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications.

MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: https://massterlist.com/subscribe/

THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on the only roll call from the week of October 21-25. There were no roll calls in the House last week.

CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE (S 2967)

Senate 38-2, approved and sent to the House climate/energy legislation that supporters say will make systemic changes to the state’s clean energy infrastructure that will help the state achieve its net zero emissions by 2050 goals. They say it will also expand electric vehicle use and infrastructure and protect residents and ratepayers. A House-Senate conference committee drafted the compromise version to resolve the differences in the competing versions approved by the House and Senate earlier this year.

Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, chairman of the conference committee that drafted this version of the bill and Senate chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on his long battle to secure passage of this legislation.

“I'm so pleased we finally came to terms with some of the outstanding issues to try to get a bill done and get it to the governor's desk,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton).” This is a critical issue that is impacting our world, our region, our state. This legislation helps to address some of the climate policy concerns facing the commonwealth. However, there is much more work that needs to be done, and we need to begin that discussion today.”

"This comprehensive climate bill will help us achieve our obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by moving us forward on clean energy siting and permitting, gas system reform, energy storage procurement, electric vehicle charging, embodied carbon, utility resilience, carbon removal and so many other areas of climate policy," said Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton), the chair of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. "The bill also protects ratepayers by preventing investments in gas infrastructure that are wasteful and contrary to our climate mandates."

“Today the Senate took decisive action to address the climate crisis," said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “While achieving the shared goal of reforming siting and permitting so that we can ensure that clean energy projects get approved and built at the rate necessary to meet our state’s ambitious emissions reduction goals, I’m proud to say that the final bill also contains many provisions that the Senate heard were crucial from those who are on-the-ground leading efforts to fight climate change. We are expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure and incentives, addressing the high cost and long life span of gas infrastructure projects as we strive to move towards cleaner energy sources, and protecting rate payers from bearing the costs of this transformational shift. I believe that the months of bipartisan negotiations allowed us to produce a stronger bill for our residents—and for our long-term clean energy future.”

"Today the Massachusetts Senate voted on 'An Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity and protecting ratepayers,'" said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) one of only two senators who voted against the measure. “Ironically, the effect of the bill and the name are at odds. This bill will raise prices of utilities and electric bills for consumers and, in fact, not protect them from rising costs of living in the Commonwealth. Because of these reasons, I voted no on this bill and stand in opposition of legislation that promises to help when in fact it hurts."

Sen Peter Durant (R-Spencer), the only other senator to vote against the bill, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to explain his opposition to the measure.

The Mass Fiscal Alliance opposed the bill and added that passing such a major and complex bill less than two weeks before Election Day sets a troubling precedent.

“Legislatures across the country should avoid what the Massachusetts State Senate is doing," said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the group. "Rushing through major policy right before an election prioritizes special interests over voters,”

“The Massachusetts Legislature is taking a dangerous turn,” continued Craney. “Whether you support this bill, or oppose it like MassFiscal does, it should concern everyone that this behavior sets a new low for how policies are passed. The worst case scenario is that this practice leads to corruption. It wouldn’t be the first time legislative leaders in Massachusetts have faced corruption accusations, and these actions only make it more likely to happen again,” Craney concluded.

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.)

Sen. Rebecca Rausch Yes Sen. Karen Spilka Yes

ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL

BALLOT QUESTIONS – Here is an in depth look at Questions 4 and 5 that will be decided directly by the voters on the November 5th ballot.

QUESTION 4: LIMITED LEGALIZATION AND REGULATION OF CERTAIN NATURAL PSYCHEDELIC SUBSTANCES

This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess and use certain natural psychedelic substances in some circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline and ibogaine). These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. This proposed law would otherwise prohibit any retail sale of natural psychedelic substances and would also provide for the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances.

WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “We are incredibly optimistic about the campaign,” Emily Oneschuk, campaign director for “Yes on 4” told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Every day, I’m talking to new people who are excited about a new mental health option after decades of the same treatments that don’t work for everyone.”

Oneschuk continued, “There are veterans, end-of-life care patients, people with treatment resistant depression and so many more who can’t get access to this therapy, who are still struggling and who still can’t find relief. This campaign is giving hope to a lot of people who have been left behind and forgotten by the mental healthcare system. Voters should vote yes to bring safe, regulated and effective care to those struggling in Massachusetts.”

WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “This ballot question is poorly written and ill conceived,” Chris Keohane, spokesperson for “No on 4,” told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Our opposition isn't related to questioning the potential medicinal benefits of psilocybin. Our opposition comes from the contradictory language of the question itself and the dangers it opens up. Unlike the marijuana ballot question eight years ago, this one does not contain a community opt out provision. If it were to pass, all 351 cities and towns of Massachusetts would have to allow facilities in.”

Keohane continued, “Allowing 144 square feet of home growth is dangerous and certainly isn't medicine. It is self-medication without a medical professional. To put it in perspective, this allows someone to grow psychedelics in an area equivalent to the average bedroom in Massachusetts. It also allows for distribution to friends and family. We firmly believe this would expand a gray market of distribution. While the proponents continue to make promises of hope for those in need, it is clear that their funding is coming from venture capitalists with a vested financial interest in psychedelics.”

OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, for each side of the question:

IN FAVOR: Written by Mental Health Counselor Lt. Sarko Gergaria, https://maformentalhealth.org

“Vote yes on 4 to provide safe, regulated access to promising natural psychedelic medicines for treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety and depression. Psychedelics will be available in approved therapeutic settings under the supervision of trained and licensed facilitators, not sold in stores to take home.

Research from leading medical institutions including Mass General Brigham, Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Johns Hopkins shows that psychedelic medicines can be effective treatments for depression and anxiety. In fact, the FDA recently granted psilocybin a breakthrough therapy designation.

For many people who are suffering, daily medications and other standard treatments aren’t working. Over 6,000 veterans die by suicide annually, and countless more struggle from service-related trauma. Natural psychedelic medicine can also offer patients with a terminal diagnosis relief from end-of-life anxiety and help them find peace.

That’s why Question 4 is supported by doctors, mental health providers and veteran advocates. Vote yes to expand mental health options.”

AGAINST: Written by Dr. Anahita Dua, Surgeon, Massachusetts General Hospital, www.SafeCommunitiesMA.com

“Question 4 would decriminalize psychedelics, open for-profit centers, allow for growth in a 12-foot by 12-foot area in homes and distribution statewide. A black market is inevitable with this amount of home growth.

In recent years, driver’s license revocations for drugged driving rose 65 percent and fatal DUI crashes increased over 50 percent. With one in three frequent psychedelic users reporting driving under the influence of psychedelics in the past year, this will increase.

The psychedelic ibogaine has life-threatening cardiotoxicity. Heart failure can occur days after one dose. Accidental consumption of edibles is especially dangerous to children and pets. The centers aren’t required to be run by medical professionals, cannot provide critical care during adverse reactions and aren’t prohibited from giving psychedelics to high-risk patients like those with schizophrenia, bipolar illness and pregnant or breastfeeding women.”

QUESTION 5: MINIMUM WAGE FOR TIPPED WORKERS

This proposed law would gradually increase, over the course of five years, the current $6.75 per hour minimum hourly wage an employer must pay a tipped worker, as follows: To 64 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2025; 73 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2026; 82 precent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2027; 91 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2028; and 100 percent of the state minimum wage on January 1, 2029.

WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “Our campaign for Question 5 is building broad support across Massachusetts because voters and workers alike know it’s time to raise the standard for all,” restaurant worker and organizer Grace McGovern told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “This measure is not only endorsed by key organizations and figures like MassVote, the Brazilian workers center, Hillary Clinton, Ayana Presley, Joe Kennedy III and local business leaders, but it’s also driven by the voices of the workers themselves. Thousands of tipped workers across the state have called for One Fair Wage because they know firsthand the challenges of surviving on subminimum wages and the economic instability it creates. A yes vote on Question 5 ensures all workers receive a full minimum wage with tips on top, providing financial security and a pathway to economic justice for over 113,000 tipped workers, 70 percent of whom are women and disproportionately people of color.

McGovern continued, “Question 5 is fundamentally about fairness. We’re addressing an outdated policy that leaves so many tipped workers in Massachusetts vulnerable to wage theft, harassment and income instability. Independent research and economic studies confirm that in states like California and New York, where One Fair Wage policies are in place, workers have higher earnings and businesses thrive. By passing Question 5, Massachusetts voters have an opportunity to create a stronger, more equitable economy where both workers and small businesses can succeed. It’s time to leave the subminimum wage behind and set a new standard for fair pay and respect.”

WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “The more voters have learned about this ballot question, the more they have flocked to no,” Chris Keohane, spokesperson for “No on 5,” told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “This comes as no surprise because the very people they are supposedly trying to help overwhelmingly oppose it. That is why you have seen zero contributions from a Massachusetts server or bartender to the yes campaign. Over 90 percent of servers and bartenders polled say they will vote no on 5 because it will hurt their tips, their restaurants and their customers. Well over 1,000 restaurants have joined in their opposition by posting vote no messages and materials in their establishments and support for no is surging in the closing weeks with endorsements from Gov. Healey, dozens of elected officials, Chambers of Commerce and every single newspaper that has made an endorsement so far.”

Keohane continued, ”Washington, D.C. implemented this policy late last year. In the first nine months, over 10 percent of tipped employees have either been laid off or left the industry due to lower take home pay and closures. If this proposal were to pass in Massachusetts, some bars and restaurants simply will not survive. Out-of-state activists are saying that there is a ‘sub-minimum wage’ here in Massachusetts. This is a lie. Every worker in Massachusetts is already guaranteed to earn at least the current minimum wage of $15 including tipped employees.”

OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, for each side of the question.

IN FAVOR: Written by Estefania Galvis, of “Yes on 5,” www.yeson5ma.com

“Instead of being paid the current tipped worker wage of just $6.75 an hour, Massachusetts tipped workers deserve the full minimum wage with tips on top. Workers in seven other states earn a full wage plus tips, and they enjoy robust tips and growing restaurants where menu prices are comparable to Massachusetts. This law would create greater financial stability and predictability, acknowledging workers’ skills and professionalism.

Many Massachusetts small businesses are already paying the full minimum wage plus tips. Big restaurant corporations should do the same. This would reduce employee turnover and improve service quality.

Big restaurant corporations are not paying their fair share and are forcing consumers to cover their employees’ wages through tips. Tips should be a reward for good service, not a subsidy for low wages paid by large corporations.”

AGAINST: Written by Doug Bacon, former server and bartender and current restaurant owner, www.ProtectTips.org

“This question is funded by a radical group from California.

Tipped employees have made it abundantly clear the way they earn money does not need to be changed. State and Federal law guarantee them the $15 hourly minimum wage with many earning over $40 per hour and 90 percent reporting at least $20 per hour. A recent survey also showed that 88 percent oppose ‘tip pools’ where tips are shared with non-service employees and 90 percent believe that if tipped wages are eliminated, they will earn less.

Other attempts to implement this have seen catastrophic results. In Washington, D.C., nearly 10 percent of tipped employees have lost or left their jobs. This follows increases in menu prices, the implementation of 20 percent service fees and a wave of closures.

This would reduce overall wages for servers, increase costs for restaurants and skyrocket the cost of eating out. It will be disastrous with many neighborhood restaurants being forced to close.”

HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK’S SESSION?

Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature’s job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been filed. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session.

During the week of October 21-25, the House met for a total of five hour and 17 minutes and the Senate met for a total of seven hours and 46 minutes.

Mon. Oct. 21 House 11:01 a.m. to 12:47 p.m.

Senate 11:10 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.

Tues. Oct. 22 No House session

No Senate session

Wed. Oct. 23 No House session

Senate 11:08 a.m. to 3:12 p.m.

Thurs. Oct. 24 House 11:03 a.m. to 2:34 p.m.

Senate 11:20 a.m. to 2:52 p.m.

Fri. Oct. 25 No House session

No Senate session

Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com