It’s been a busy week, friend,
The House met in a rare late-November formal session Thursday to pass some final outstanding priorities, namely the massive economic development bill and the climate bill. Our reps also took the opportunity to make a last-minute alteration to the House rules which seems to have some serious implications for Question 1 on the ballot to allow the state auditor to audit the legislature.
It’s prompting us to launch an initiative to Defend Question 1. We need to make sure that the will of the voters is not undone behind the scenes. We’re asking all our members to reach out to your state rep to reaffirm your commitment to a full legislative audit by the state auditor.
But what exactly was the rules change? And what was in the famous economic development bill? Let’s get into it.
---
State House Scoop
Defending the People's Audit
On Thursday, the House voted 135-10 to pass H.5105, an alteration to the house rules. This change purported to “acknowledge” the result of the voter’s decision on Question 1 by granting the state auditor the authority to appoint the private firm that completes the legislature’s financial audits.
Record scratch– what? You might be thinking: hey Scotia, didn’t we vote to give the democratically-elected state auditor the power to audit the legislature herself? Doesn’t the House already employ a private firm to conduct financial audits? Didn’t we vote for the legislature to undergo the same audit as all other state agencies (that is, not just financial)? And– didn’t Question 1 pass with 72% of the vote, winning every town in Massachusetts?
Yes. Yes, we did. Yes, they do. Yes, we did. Yes, it did.
Say, could it be that they’re trying to distract voters from our overwhelming demand from an audit by seeming to give a voluntary concession, while in fact, not giving up anything at all?
...Certainly seems like it.
This surprise rules change was announced mere hours before it was voted on, giving advocates no time to act. And, to top off a two-year session where 112 out of 132 Democratic reps voted with the Speaker 100% (!!) of the time: the change passed 135-10, without a single Democrat voting against it.
Some progressive reps defended their vote by arguing that this measure merely “strengthens” current auditing procedure and will not interfere with Question 1. Make no mistake– I would love to believe that. However, comments made by members of leadership suggest openly that they intend this change to be an alternative to Question 1.
For example, First Division Chair Rep. Danielle Gregoire stated that this change would ensure that “any audit pursuant to the passage of Question 1 will be a professional audit, not a political one,” both implying that the elected state auditor is not professional (!?) and that the external financial audit is an answer to Question 1– and a preferred alternative. Speaker Ron Mariano described this change as an "an opportunity to acknowledge the 70-30 vote of the electorate.” Last I checked, the best acknowledgement of a vote by that margin is compliance with the will of the voters!
Hey, we knew that our legislative leaders would try to avoid additional scrutiny at all costs– we just didn’t think they’d do it so blatantly. As we said in a recent press statement, this move highlights exactly why the audit is so needed: if our state leaders are willing to publicly ignore the will of the voters, what might they be doing behind closed doors?
We’re launching an initiative to Defend the People’s Audit. If you can, please contact your legislator and let them know that the voters will not be fooled: from the Cape to the Berkshires, we demanded a full legislative audit by the state auditor, and we won’t let up until we have it.
This form will automatically populate an email to your legislators, for you to personalize: Defend Question 1. Please take 5 minutes right now to fill it out and send it! And if you’re really fired up, find your legislator’s phone number here and give their office a call. Giving our representatives feedback reminds them who they’re accountable: not the Speaker, but the people. And the people voted YES on 1!
What's in the economics development bill - or as the insiders call it, "econ dev"?
The legislature passed the long awaited economic development bill this week, which is intended to be chock-full of legislation that aids in job development, as well as science and technology-related projects. The bill allocates $3.96 billion in appropriations, centered around additional state investment in the life sciences industry, and was also used to make some policy adjustments.
So - what actually made it into the final version of the $3.96 billion bill?
Well, to begin, we get the rare opportunity to make a retraction on a previous Scoop! In the last Scoop, our Graveyard of the 193rd Session edition of Syd’s Sprinkles covered the death of An Act Supporting Parents Running for Public Office, which would permit candidates for public office to use campaign funds to cover childcare. We are delighted to report that the language of this bill was included as part of this economic development bill! In other words, “my bad, I spoke too soon” (Sincerely, Syd).
The version of the economic development bill that was passed by the House and the Senate also includes:
- $400 million in ClimateTech investments ($200 million toward offshore wind industry and $200 million toward innovation and organizing of climate tech technologies)
- $400 million for local infrastructure grants to support projects and create jobs through MassWorks
- $150 million for the construction and rehabilitation of public libraries
- $100 million for a Rural Development fund and another $100 million in support for coastal cities to address climate change-related impacts
- Rezoning in Everett to allow for the building of a new soccer stadium
- Temporary licenses to be offered to foreign physicians and out-of-state nurses so that they can work in Massachusetts (specifically focused on areas with physician and nursing shortages)
- Alternative processes to become a teacher in Massachusetts, intended to improve diversity among educators
- And even more legislation that you can read about on the Senate President’s very own website
It certainly looks like a lot of legislation was jam-packed into this bill, but what ended up being left out?
- The Senate’s proposal to allow for cities and towns to decide if they will legalize happy hour
- Another proposal from the Senate which would raise the age for trial in juvenile courts to 18 years old
But what does this all mean?
The passing of the economic development bill brought about the passage of this session’s major climate bill by the House as well, just as Mariano promised a few weeks ago. We’ve covered this bill in a few previous Scoops– it will streamline the process of clean energy siting, place restrictions on the expansion of natural gas infrastructure, and facilitate electric vehicle expansion, among other provisions. With this push toward clean energy and a reduction in fossil fuels, Massachusetts will hopefully be on the right track and some steps ahead of president-elect Trump’s plans to leave climate action in the dust.
Aside from our usual frustrations with the amount of money being spent on subsidizing industries that are already wealthy while popular redistributive programs face budget cuts, we are disappointed in the failure to pass legislation that would raise the age to be tried in juvenile courts to include 18 year olds. This means that 18 year olds – teenagers who could very well still be in high school – are still going to be tried as adults.
Since high schoolers and recent high school graduates are tried as adults and placed in adult prisons, their access to resources, education, and rehabilitation – which are all vital to decrease the rate of recidivism – is reduced significantly in comparison to their under 18 peers who could very well be in the same graduating class as them – where's the sense in that?
Both the economic development and climate energy bills are both awaiting Governor Healey’s signature, but given how long we’ve been waiting for action to be taken and a compromise on both of the bills – and with Trump being elected president – hopefully a sense of urgency will be felt by all members of the Massachusetts state government.
--
Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.
--
Syd’s Sprinkles: the MCAS Ballot Question
With great support for ballot question #2, I can get ahead of what would’ve been my next retraction, i.e. retracting a graveyard for part of the THRIVE Act (H.495,S.246), which would’ve enacted a moratorium on standardized testing being a requirement to graduate high school in the state.
Ballot Question 2, regarding MCAS as a graduation requirement, essentially enacts much of the language of the THRIVE Act. The “Yes on 2” campaign, which was spearheaded by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, was victorious with about 59% of voters supporting their efforts. Ballot question #2 doesn’t fully get rid of the MCAS, but it does get rid of the use of the exam as a prerequisite for high schoolers to graduate.
The victory of Question 2 is an example of an approach to legislative dysfunction that is becoming more common: despite having 80 co-sponsors (half the House!), the THRIVE Act was sent to study again this year for the third session in a row. Advocates decided that they couldn't wait around for the State House to act, so they raised the funds and the energy to take it to the ballot.
Educators have told Bay Staters and legislators alike that having the MCAS graduation requirement didn’t have the best interest of students and their needs in mind, and have finally seen their efforts succeed about two decades after the requirement was put in place through a ballot question in 2003. Students with special needs and students who are learning English as a second language are first among those disadvantaged by the MCAS requirement, but without the requirement teachers can focus more intently on the immediate and life skills-based needs of their students.
What’s missing from the ballot question, however, is the funding that would’ve been given to schools so that they could establish task forces to develop alternative assessment models, which was another part of the THRIVE Act.
So, while the THRIVE Act is technically still in the grave, ballot question #2 was a great victory in terms of testing requirements. That being said, there definitely is still a lot of work to be done down the line to ensure that schools have ways to help every single student succeed.
---
Take Action
Take action to Defend Question 1!
Last week, legislators approved a rules change that seems intended to serve as a watered-down version of Question 1, which voters approved by a margin of 72%-28%. Leadership described this rules change, which would give the auditor the ability to appoint the private firm who completes the legislature's financial audits, as an attempt to "acknowledge" the will of the voters. We need all hands on deck to protect the People's Audit from this backsliding. Tell your rep: no acknowledgement but compliance. We demand a full legislative audit.
Reminder: End of Year Fundraiser ongoing!
We're still collecting donations for our End of Year fundraiser, with a goal of raising $5000 by the end of the year to close out our books. Your support will help us keep up the pressure on our state leaders in the new year, especially as the new presidential administration takes office in January and our state house becomes even more critical.
A little goes a long way for a small organization like ours and we so appreciate it– please pitch in if you can.
---
That's all for today folks. Please take some time this weekend reach out to your legislators to Defend Question 1. It's times like these that we all need to band together as democracy defenders– ever the more reason why I'm looking forward to seeing many of you at our member meeting on Thursday!
Have a great weekend,
Scotia
Scotia Hille (she/her)
Executive Director, Act on Mass