Senate rejects COVID-19 restaurant measures
Would have helped pubs during pandemic.
The House and Senate: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.
Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on roll calls from recent sessions on debate of the Senate version of the state’s $46 billion fiscal 2021 state budget.
Bars and pubs during COVID-19
The Senate, 4-35, rejected an amendment that would allow bars and pubs and any other establishments that don’t serve food to reopen during the pandemic under the same timetable as restaurants that do serve food. Under current law, restaurants can offer takeout and delivery in phase 1, outdoor seating in phase 2, step 1 and indoor seating in step 2 of phase 2. Bars and pubs and other nonfood establishments are designated as phase 4 businesses and cannot reopen until there is a treatment or vaccine for COVID-19.
“We have a duty to examine the administration’s executive orders for fairness and rationality and how these orders are playing out in our districts,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen. “How are seated patrons in a restaurant confined with socially distanced seating, capacity and cleaning requirements safer when removing their masks to ingest food and wine or beer, than seated patrons in a pub complying with requirements and removing masks to ingest just a glass of wine or beer? I have yet to receive a valid explanation for this. We need to acknowledge this order is making a morality judgment and not one based on public health.”
“I voted against this amendment to preserve the ability for our local boards of health to keep people safe and ensure current public health protocols and standards — as issued by the governor to provide owners, operators, workers and patrons of restaurants with instructions to help protect the public against the spread of COVID-19 — are not compromised,” said Senate Ways and Means chair Sen. Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Michael Barrett, No; Sen. James Eldridge, No; Sen. Barry Finegold, No; Sen. Cindy Friedman, No; Sen. Anne Gobi, No; Sen. Edward Kennedy, No; Sen. Bruce Tarr, No; Sen. Dean Tran, Yes
Serving alcohol with food in a restaurant
The Senate, 9-30, rejected an amendment that supporters say eliminates a current contradiction in the law that allows some restaurants to open and others not to open based on what food is on the menu.
“This amendment allows restaurants to serve seated patrons without restriction or limitation or requirement as to which menu items are being served,” said DiZoglio, the amendment’s sponsor. “Yes, we need to protect the public, and this does not remove Department of Public Health safety protocols. What the amendment does is give restaurants and pubs the ability to survive without arbitrary restrictions on what type of food and drink they serve. We affect their livelihoods with every action, or inaction, we take.”
DiZoglio said there was a pub in her district that obtained a food service license (serving sandwiches) for the purposes of qualifying as a restaurant but somehow this was not sufficient for the state to allow the pub to open. She noted she filed this amendment because of this confusion around what exactly qualifies as a restaurant.
Rodrigues said his arguments against the prior amendment on treating bar and pubs the same as restaurants also applies to this amendment.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Michael Barrett, No; Sen. James Eldridge, No; Sen. Barry Finegold, No; Sen. Cindy Friedman, No; Sen. Anne Gobi, Yes; Sen. Edward Kennedy, No; Sen. Bruce Tarr, Yes; Sen. Dean Tran, Yes
Supply and Buy Mass
The Senate, 39-0, approved an amendment that would establish an online “Supply and Buy Mass” program that would support the Massachusetts economy during its recovery from the economic shutdown in response to the pandemic. The amendment includes creation of an interactive database to identify, connect and support businesses that produce consumer goods in Massachusetts; identifying obstacles to conducting business here; and acting as a resource to connect local suppliers and purchasers.
“I’ve had the humble opportunity to engage with small business owners to generate proposals to benefit small businesses, which are all the more relevant in light of COVID-19,” DiZoglio said about her amendment. “It will be of tremendous help to have the Supply and Buy Mass program created by this amendment. Having online accessibility to producers of personal protection equipment before needs outpaced supply would have put us much further ahead than we found ourselves. The amendment updates our resources to be in line with the times.”
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.)
Sen. Michael Barrett, Yes; Sen. James Eldridge, Yes; Sen. Barry Finegold, Yes; Sen. Cindy Friedman, Yes; Sen. Anne Gobi, Yes; Sen. Edward Kennedy, Yes; Sen. Bruce Tarr, Yes; Sen. Dean Tran, Yes
Also up on Beacon Hill
Gov. Baker proposes amendments to policing bill — Gov. Charlie Baker has returned the bill making changes in the state’s policing system to the Legislature without his signature. He offered several amendments for legislators to consider.
“There are … a small number of proposals in (the bill) that I cannot accept because they introduce barriers to effective administration and the protection of public safety without advancing the central goal of improving police accountability and professionalism,” Baker told legislators in a letter along with his amendments. He added, “If they are not addressed, I do not intend to sign the … bill.”
One of those proposals unacceptable to the governor would ban police from using facial recognition systems to solve crimes.
“I propose to enhance the study of facial recognition already proposed in the bill while striking out the law change that drastically limits its use by any public agency,” continued Baker. “The restrictions on the technology, with only significantly limited exceptions for law enforcement, ignores the important role it can play in solving crime. For example, in the last few years here in Massachusetts, a child rapist and an accomplice to a double murder are both now in prison thanks to facial recognition technology.”
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, supports the ban.
“Unfortunately, Gov. Baker rejected a crucial due process provision that would protect Massachusetts residents from unregulated police use of face surveillance technology, which has been proven to unfairly target Black and brown people, leading to the arrest of innocent people,” Rose said.
“Unchecked police use of surveillance technology also harms everyone’s rights to anonymity, privacy and free speech,” continued Rose. “We urge the Legislature to reject Gov. Baker’s amendment and to ensure passage of commonsense regulations of government use of face surveillance.”
The governor was in agreement or willing to accept most of the bill including creating an independent, civilian-led commission with the power to investigate police misconduct and to certify, restrict, revoke or suspend certification for police officers and maintain a publicly available database of decertified officers; setting standards for qualified immunity under which qualified immunity would not extend to a law enforcement officer who violates a person’s right to bias-free professional policing if that conduct results in the officer’s decertification; banning the use of chokeholds; limiting the use of deadly force; requiring police officers who witness another officer using force beyond what is necessary or reasonable to intervene; and limiting noknock police warrants in instances where children or people over 65 are present.
Protect victims of violent crime and human trafficking — The Senate gave initial approval to legislation that would provide victims of violent crime and human trafficking enhanced protections under the law. The bill standardizes the process for law enforcement, prosecution, judicial and investigatory agencies to provide noncitizen victims, who have been helpful in the investigation or prosecution of serious crimes, with the certification form they need to apply for a U-visa or T-visa.
In 2000, Congress created the U-visas and T-visas as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to help immigrant victims come forward to law enforcement. As part of this visa process, a state or local government agency must complete a visa certification form, certifying that the applicant is a victim of a violent crime or trafficking and that person was helpful in the investigation or prosecution of said crime.
Supporters said that 13 states have implemented statewide standards for visa certifications but noted the standards around victim certification are still inconsistent across Massachusetts.
“Human trafficking is a vicious crime and modern-day version of slavery that has little understanding amongst the general public both locally and globally,” said Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, who sponsored an earlier version of the proposal. “Many victims are vulnerable women or children with very few financial resources and are lured into trafficking with false promises of economic opportunity and prosperity. Many victims are also immigrants who may fear retaliation from their trafficker should they seek to contact law enforcement or any other resource for help.”
“This bill makes a tremendous difference in the lives of immigrant survivors at such a critical moment during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Julie Dahlstrom, director and clinical associate professor at the Immigrants’ Rights and Human Trafficking Program at Boston University School of Law. “It sends a clear signal to immigrant survivors, who are often fearful to report to law enforcement, that they can step forward to report violent crime and human trafficking and access important protections.”
“As a former legal services attorney, I helped hundreds of victims of crimes with various legal issues and saw firsthand just how important it is to pass laws that would increase victim and witness participation in the criminal legal system,” said Rep. Tram Nguyen, D-Andover, a sponsor of an earlier version of the measure. “This bill will not only promote justice and keep victims safe, but it will also help law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes and enhance public safety for everyone in our communities.”
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 Dec. 7-11, the House met for a total of 19 minutes while the Senate met for a total of 16 minutes.
▪ Monday: House 11:01 to 11:07 a.m., Senate 11:10 to 11:12 a.m.
▪ Tuesday: No House session, no Senate session
▪ Wednesday: No House session, no Senate session
▪ Thursday: House 11 to 11:13 a.m., Senate 11:32 to 11:46 a.m.
▪ Friday: No House session, no Senate session.
‘We have a duty to examine the administration’s executive orders for fairness and rationality and how these orders are playing out in our districts.’
– Sen. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen