Massachusetts Ballot Question #3 – Public Accommodation Law

This law adds gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination in places of public accommodation, resort, or amusement. Such grounds also include race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, disability, and ancestry. A “place of public accommodation, resort or amusement” is defined in existing law as any place that is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, such as hotels, stores, restaurants, theaters, sports facilities, and hospitals. “Gender identity” is defined as a person’s sincerely held gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not it is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.

This law prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in a person’s admission to or treatment in any place of public accommodation. The law requires any such place that has separate areas for males and females (such as restrooms) to allow access to and full use of those areas consistent with a person’s gender identity. The law also prohibits the owner or manager of a place of public accommodation from using advertising or signage that discriminates on the basis of gender identity.

This law directs the state Commission Against Discrimination to adopt rules or policies and make recommendations to carry out this law. The law also directs the state Attorney General to issue regulations or guidance on referring for legal action any person who asserts gender identity for an improper purpose.

The provisions of this law governing access to places of public accommodation are effective as of October 1, 2016. The remaining provisions are effective as of July 8, 2016.

A YES VOTE would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation.

A NO VOTE would repeal this provision of the public accommodation law.




2018 Massachusetts Ballot Question #2 – Corporations are not humans

This proposed law would create a citizens commission to consider and recommend potential amendments to the United States Constitution to establish that corporations do not have the same Constitutional rights as human beings and that campaign contributions and expenditures may be regulated.

Any resident of Massachusetts who is a United States citizen would be able to apply for appointment to the 15-member commission, and members would serve without compensation. The Governor, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the state Attorney General, the Speaker of the state House of Representatives, and the President of the state Senate would each appoint three members of the commission and, in making these appointments, would seek to ensure that the commission reflects a range of geographic, political, and demographic backgrounds.

The commission would be required to research and take testimony, and then issue a report regarding (1) the impact of political spending in Massachusetts; (2) any limitations on the state’s ability to regulate corporations and other entities in light of Supreme Court decisions that allow corporations to assert certain constitutional rights; (3) recommendations for constitutional amendments; (4) an analysis of constitutional amendments introduced to Congress; and (5) recommendations for advancing proposed amendments to the United States Constitution.

The commission would be subject to the state Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law. The commission’s first report would be due December 31, 2019, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth would be required to deliver the commission’s report to the state Legislature, the United States Congress, and the President of the United States.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2019.

A YES VOTE would create a citizens commission to advance an amendment to the United States Constitution to limit the influence of money in elections and establish that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings.

A NO VOTE would not create this commission.




2018 Massachusetts Ballot Question #1

Question #1
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 2, 2018?

SUMMARY
This proposed law would limit how many patients could be assigned to each registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and certain other health care facilities. The maximum number of patients per registered nurse would vary by type of unit and level of care, as follows:

In units with step-down/intermediate care patients: 3 patients per nurse;
In units with post-anesthesia care or operating room patients: 1 patient under anesthesia per nurse; 2 patients post-anesthesia per nurse;
In the emergency services department: 1 critical or intensive care patient per nurse (or 2 if the nurse has assessed each patient’s condition as stable); 2 urgent non-stable patients per nurse; 3 urgent stable patients per nurse; or 5 non-urgent stable patients per nurse;
In units with maternity patients: (a) active labor patients: 1 patient per nurse; (b) during birth and for up to two hours immediately postpartum: 1 mother per nurse and 1 baby per nurse; (c) when the condition of the mother and baby are determined to be stable: 1 mother and her baby or babies per nurse; (d) postpartum: 6 patients per nurse; (e) intermediate care or continuing care babies: 2 babies per nurse; (f) well-babies: 6 babies per nurse;
In units with pediatric, medical, surgical, telemetry, or observational/outpatient treatment patients, or any other unit: 4 patients per nurse; and
In units with psychiatric or rehabilitation patients: 5 patients per nurse.

The proposed law would require a covered facility to comply with the patient assignment limits without reducing its level of nursing, service, maintenance, clerical, professional, and other staff.

The proposed law would also require every covered facility to develop a written patient acuity tool for each unit to evaluate the condition of each patient. This tool would be used by nurses in deciding whether patient limits should be lower than the limits of the proposed law at any given time.

The proposed law would not override any contract in effect on January 1, 2019 that set higher patient limits. The proposed law’s limits would take effect after any such contract expired.

The state Health Policy Commission would be required to promulgate regulations to implement the proposed law. The Commission could conduct inspections to ensure compliance with the law. Any facility receiving written notice from the Commission of a complaint or a violation would be required to submit a written compliance plan to the Commission. The Commission could report violations to the state Attorney General, who could file suit to obtain a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation as well as up to $25,000 for each day a violation continued after the Commission notified the covered facility of the violation. The Health Policy Commission would be required to establish a toll-free telephone number for complaints and a website where complaints, compliance plans, and violations would appear.

The proposed law would prohibit discipline or retaliation against any employee for complying with the patient assignment limits of the law. The proposed law would require every covered facility to post within each unit, patient room, and waiting area a notice explaining the patient limits and how to report violations. Each day of a facility’s non-compliance with the posting requirement would be punishable by a civil penalty between $250 and $2,500.

The proposed law’s requirements would be suspended during a state or nationally declared public health emergency.

The proposed law states that, if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2019.

A YES VOTE would limit the number of patients that could be assigned to one registered nurse in hospitals and certain other health care facilities.

A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws relative to patient-to-nurse limits.




Three City Councilors push for jaywalking ordinance in New Bedford

The following is being presented at the New Bedford City Council session scheduled for Sep 13, 2018:

Councillors Coelho, Lopes and Giesta, requesting, that the Committee on Ordinances look into the possibility of creating an Ordinance addressing jaywalking in the City of New Bedford, jaywalking as defined by crossing the street in an illegal or unsafe manner, whereupon Police can enforce jaywalking laws by issuing citations, the penalty for violating jaywalking laws typically would include a fine similar to a parking ticket, in many jurisdictions, fines increase with repeat jaywalking offenses. (To be Referred to the Committee on Ordinances.)




Mayor Mitchell pushes for retired police officers to perform paid details

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell is submitting the following home rule petition to the New Bedford City Council. If approved it would authorize the appointment of retired police officers as Special Police Officers in the City of New Bedford. This would allow retired police officers to perform paid details.

The home rule petition will be in front of the New Bedford City Council session scheduled for Sep. 13, 2018.

Communication-Home_Rule_Petition-_Retired_Police_Officers_as_Special_Police_Officers




Five City Councilors propose resolution against expanding charter schools in New Bedford

Edit: There are now only four City Councilors supporting the resolution.

The following resolution is being submitted to the New Bedford City Council on Sep 13, 2018, by Councillors Dunn, Lopes, Giesta, and Markey against expanding charter school enrollment in the City of New Bedford.

Two existing New Bedford charters are looking to expand, asking the state to approve more than 1,300 new charter seats. A third group is applying to open a new charter in the New Bedford.

RESOLUTION_AGAINST_CHARTER_SCHOOL_ENROLLMENT




Warrant Issued for Dominican Woman Who Failed to Appear for Trial in Federal Court

A Dominican national failed to appear in federal court in Boston yesterday morning for the first day of her trial; she was previously charged for her role in a widespread heroin and fentanyl conspiracy.

Isis Y Lugo-Guerrero, 46, a Dominican national residing in Dorchester, was arrested on Feb. 14, 2017, and charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine. On March 2, 2017, Lugo-Guerrero was released from custody on $10,000 unsecured bonds and additional conditions. The first day of her week-long trial was scheduled to begin today, but she failed to appear in court. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a warrant for Lugo-Guerrero’s arrest.

Lugo-Guerrero is the sister of Jose Antonio Lugo-Guerrero, the convicted leader of a Boston-based heroin and fentanyl trafficking organization. Isis Lugo-Guerrero is alleged to have conspired with her brother and others by regularly obtaining heroin and cocaine from him and by supplying him with substances to cut his drugs to make additional profit.

Jose Antonio Lugo-Guerrero pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, more than 400 grams of fentanyl, and more than five kilograms of cocaine, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and up to life in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 27, 2018.

The charge of conspiring to distribute heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine provides for a sentence of no greater than 20 years in prison, a minimum of three years and up to a lifetime of supervised release, and a fine of up to $1 million. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Heinrich of Lelling’s Narcotics and Money Laundering Unit is prosecuting the case.

The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.




Community Preservation Committee launches 2019 application round

The City of New Bedford’s Community Preservation Committee (CPC) will launch the Community Preservation Act application round for Fiscal Year 2019 on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. with an informational “Technical Workshop” at the New Bedford Public Library located at 613 Pleasant Street, in the 3rd Floor Meeting Room.

The CPC anticipates a budget of $1.1 million to fund CPA eligible projects in FY19 and strongly encourages organizations, businesses, and residents who are considering applying for funding in this round to attend the workshop for detailed information and the opportunity to ask questions about CPA and the application process.

About the Community Preservation Act in Massachusetts

The Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a Massachusetts state law (MGL Ch. 44B) designed to help Massachusetts towns and cities plan for sustainable growth and provide funds to achieve their community preservation goals. CPA allows participating cities and towns to adopt a real estate tax surcharge of up to 3% to raise funds and create a local dedicated fund for preserving open space and historic resources and expanding community housing and outdoor recreational activities. The CPA stipulates that decisions regarding the allocation of CPA funds in cities and towns that adopt the initiative are to be made by a local community preservation committee (CPC) whose task is to receive and review applications and to make recommendations to the City Council, which in turn makes the final allocations.

In addition to the community tax surcharge, the state provides matching funds that are not less than 5% and not more than 100% of the funds raised by the community. The actual percentage varies from year-to-year dependent on the health of the state’s Community Preservation Trust Fund, which is funded by a surcharge on Registry of Deeds transactions.

About the Community Preservation Act in New Bedford

New Bedford voters adopted the CPA program through a ballot question in November 2014. New Bedford elected to fund the CPA account through a 1.5% surcharge on annual tax assessments and established a Community Preservation Committee in 2016. The city began collecting surcharge revenue on the 2016 tax bills and will continue collection on a quarterly basis. There are two surcharge exemptions available:

· The first $100,000 of taxable value of residential and commercial properties.
· Residential property owned and occupied by any person who qualifies for low income housing or low to moderate income senior housing.

For FY 2018 the selections were:

Under open space, the CPC selected:

– Acushnet Sawmill New Bedford expansion and community garden.

Under historic preservation, the CPC selected the following projects:

– Schooner Ernestina Morrissey rehabilitation
– Veterans Transitional Housing expansion at 1060 Pleasant Street
– Seamen’s Bethel continued restoration
– First Baptist Community Theatre
– Sgt. William H. Carney House restoration
– Rotch-Jones-Duff House restoration
– 305-307 Pleasant Street foreclosure restoration
– Strand Theatre restoration as Cape Verdean Cultural Center
– Zeiterion Theatre Marquee project
– James Arnold Mansion restoration

Under recreation, the CPC selected the following projects:

– Hazelwood Park rehabilitation
– Abolition Row Park
– Buttonwood Diamond 1 field lighting
– Dias Field rehabilitation
– Brooklawn Basketball Court upgrades
– Buttonwood Brook trail and bridges project

Questions concerning CPA and the application process can be directed to the Department of Planning, Housing & Community Development at 508-979-1500 or CPA@newbedford-ma.gov.

On September 12, 2018, application materials will be made available on the city website at: http://www.newbedford-ma.gov/planning/community-preservation/.




PODCAST: Mayor Mitchell on ABC Disposal reject recycling carts across the city

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mithcell discusses a new trend of ABC Disposal rejecting recycling carts across the city.




Governor Baker Proposes Reforms To Protect Public From Dangerous Individuals

Governor Charlie Baker today filed legislation that will provide law enforcement and prosecutors with additional tools to prosecute people who repeatedly break the law. The reforms put forth in today’s legislation include expanding the list of offenses that can provide grounds for a dangerousness hearing and closing certain loopholes at the start and end of the criminal process that currently limit or prevent effective action to address legitimate safety concerns.

“Recent tragedies have demonstrated the tremendous damage that can occur when our criminal justice system fails to identify and detain dangerous people charged with serious crimes,” said Governor Baker. “The alarming frequency of these events confirmed for us that we need to fix a broken law, so we worked closely with law enforcement, district attorneys and victims advocacy groups across the Commonwealth and consulted with the courts to develop this proposal to do a better job of protecting Massachusetts communities from dangerous defendants.”

The governor’s legislation strengthens the ability of judges to enforce the conditions of pre-trial release by empowering police to detain people who they observe violating court-ordered release conditions; current law does not allow this, and instead requires a court to first issue a warrant.

“Far too often, there are few consequences for defendants who violate the conditions of a court issued release,” said Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito. “This legislation will empower police officers with the tools they need to protect their communities and hold until trial defendants who pose a continuing danger to our communities.”

This legislation empowers judges to revoke a person’s release when the offender has violated a court-ordered condition, such as an order to stay away from a victim, or from a public playground. Current law requires an additional finding of dangerousness before release may be revoked.

“A person who is so dangerous that his or her release threatens the safety of a specific victim or of the community at large does not become safe to release merely because three or four months have passed since the time of their arrest,” said Secretary of Public Safety and Security Daniel Bennett. “This legislation would ensure that a person who a court determines is a danger or who violates his or her conditions of release is held until the time of trial or other disposition of the case, rather than being released after a defined period.”

“I’m very pleased with the governor’s proposed bail reform legislation,” said Bristol County District Attorney Thomas M. Quinn III. “This will make it more difficult for the court to release dangerous defendants. Dangerous criminals should be held without bail until their cases are resolved. The public and law enforcement have a right to be protected from dangerous criminals. This legislation goes a long way towards doing that. I have long advocated for changes to the bail system, and I appreciate the governor’s leadership on this very important issue.”

“It is encouraging to see that the call for action to keep dangerous and repeat criminals off the streets that began as a result of Sgt. Gannon’s murder is being taken seriously,” said Yarmouth Police Chief Frank Frederickson. “In July the Governor signed the MPTC Training Bill and now the announcement of this proposal is another significant move that will provide needed protection for our citizens from violent criminals.”

“Regardless of whether their cases can be prosecuted, survivors of sexual violence who are respected and believed throughout the process have better health and wellness outcomes,” said Katia Santiago-Taylor, advocacy and legislative affairs manager at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center. “The first and most powerful way to do this is to ensure that survivors are informed about what is happening with their case, including timely notification when an offender is released from custody.”

The legislation expands the list of offenses which can provide grounds for a dangerousness hearing and follows the long-standing federal model in including a defendant’s history of serious criminal convictions as grounds that may warrant a dangerousness hearing. Current law requires courts to focus only on the crime charged and ignore a defendant’s criminal history when determining whether the defendant may be the subject of this sort of hearing.

Additional provisions of this legislation:

· Improves the system for notifying victims of crimes of abuse and other dangerous crimes when a defendant is going to be released by creating clear lines of responsibility among police, prosecutors and corrections personnel to notify victims about an offender’s imminent release from custody, and create a six-hour window for authorities to inform a victim before an offender is allowed to be released.

· Creates a new felony offense for cutting off a court-ordered GPS device.

· Requires that the courts develop a text message service to remind defendants of upcoming court dates, reducing the chance they will forget and have a warrant issued for their arrest.

· Allows dangerousness hearings at any point during a criminal proceeding, rather than requiring a prosecutor to either seek a hearing immediately or forfeit that ability entirely, even if circumstances later arise indicating that the defendant poses a serious risk to the community.

· Requires that the probation department, bail commissioners and bail magistrates notify authorities who can take remedial action when a person who is on pre-trial release commits a new offense anywhere in the Commonwealth or elsewhere.

· Creates a level playing field for appeals of district court release decisions to the superior court by allowing appeals by prosecutors, in addition to defendants, and giving more deference to determinations made in the first instance by our district court judges.

· Creates a task force to recommend adding information to criminal records so that prosecutors and judges can make more informed recommendations and decisions about conditions of release and possible detention on grounds of dangerousness.

The legislation also closes loopholes at the start and end of the criminal process that currently limit or prevent effective action to address legitimate safety concerns. It extends the requirement that police take the fingerprints of people arrested for felonies to all people arrested, regardless of the charge, to ensure that decisions about release can be made with knowledge of a person’s true identity and full criminal history. It also allows, for the first time, bail commissioners and bail magistrates to consider dangerousness in deciding whether to release an arrestee from a police station when court is out of session.