Well, well, well… 

It’s not always clear to see the impact our little movement is making on the powers-that-be on Beacon Hill. We caught a glimpse of it earlier this year, when legislative leaders were finally forced to implement some of our key transparency demands in the legislative rules. In tracking compliance with these rules, we’ve made a few calls to committee staff and seen bill summaries and committee votes suddenly appear on the website. 

Cut to last week’s Scoop, where we did a deep dive into the number of laws the legislature has passed so far this year. At the time, the website page with the legislature’s record of session laws showed that only 21 laws had been passed, which is what we wrote about. Following our Scoop, many of you contacted your legislators to ask them: “why so slow?” 

2.5 days later, on Monday evening, I checked the same page to triple check our numbers for a social media post. Imagine my surprise to see that 11 new laws had materialized on the page! Apparently, the page had not been updated since August, although it was impossible to tell. 

This update didn’t change our takeaways much, as you can see in our resulting social media posts. The session is still much slower than the last one and almost 3x slower than a decade ago. All of the 11 “laws” either pertained to a single employee or a single municipality, leaving us still at two (2) policy changes for the year. Our legislators are still failing to act to protect us from the Trump administration and move us forward as a Commonwealth. 

However, the incident did remind me why the work we do is important. Sure– I can’t be certain that it was our Scoop + your outreach that prompted the website update. Still, this is critical information that should be shared regularly with the public! Having an independent watchdog and folks that are willing to contact your legislators ensures that issues like this don’t go ignored. And if someone should do it, I’m grateful that it’s us! 

Speaking of which, if you’re interested in boosting your watchdog skills and learning how to navigate the pitfalls of the legislature’s website with ease, you should sign up for our State House 201 Workshop. Due to feedback from members, we’ve shifted the date to October 9th at 6:30 p.m. I hope you’ll join us!

SIGN UP FOR STATE HOUSE 201>>

---

State House Scoop

Senate passes data privacy act, no news on House action

Thank you to those who responded to our action alert on Wednesday and contacted your senator to support the Senate’s new Massachusetts Data Privacy Act (S.2608), along with key amendments to strengthen it. Good news: the bill passed unanimously. 

The final bill would limit the types of personal data that tech companies are allowed to collect, and would ban outright the sale of “sensitive data,” including health care data, precise geolocation, and identity markers such as ethnicity or immigration status. It would also grant the public much greater control over the use and sale of our personal data, create new opt-outs for targeted advertising, and strongly boost protections for minors.

Of the amendments our allies were pushing for, two were successful. Senators adopted Amendment 4 by Sen. Cindy Creem, which would extend the bill’s ban on selling precise geolocation to any individual located in Massachusetts. This amendment builds on the philosophy of the Shield Law, which shored up protections for people coming to Massachusetts for reproductive or gender-affirming care. Senators also adopted Amendment 52 by Sen. Becca Rausch, which closed a loophole that allowed exceptions for some industries. 

Two other key amendments went the way of most amendments unsupported by leadership in our state house: they were withdrawn without a vote. One of these, #52, also filed by Sen. Rausch, would have restored a “private right of action” as an enforcement mechanism on the bill. This would have granted individuals the right to sue private actors for violation of the rights included in this law, rather than going through the Attorney General’s office. For now, the power of enforcing this set of protections will rest with the AG, at least as far as the Senate is concerned.  

There’s the key: although Senate leaders are claiming victory in passing this sweeping legislation, it will not enter into effect until the House passes the bill. A similar piece of legislation in the House has yet to receive a vote from its first committee. 

To be “fair,” the Senate has reacted similarly to one of the House’s early big moves, a bill to reform the Cannabis Control Commission that passed in June. If history is any guide, both chambers are likely to stall on the other chamber’s priorities until a deadline forces them to act (or not!), sometime next year. Meanwhile, companies are still exploiting our personal data for profit. 

Did your lawmaker get an all-expenses paid trip to Israel? How could you know?: A dive into Massachusetts ethics disclosures 

Last week, the largest-ever delegation of U.S. state lawmakers visited Israel for a summit entitled "50 States, One Israel.” The bipartisan group of 250 U.S. state lawmakers spent five days in Israel, which included a meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and a gala hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Six members of the Massachusetts General Court were in attendance. The trip was expected to cost $6,500 per lawmaker (paywall), fully paid by the Government of Israel. 

Generally, constituents want to know when their elected representatives are accepting large sums of money from a foreign government. This is likely even more true in this case, as the lawmaker's trip coincided with a major military escalation in Gaza, in a conflict that has drawn attention worldwide to Israel's human rights abuses. Yet, it has been extremely difficult to find out information about the trip, and it has seen almost no coverage in the local press. (Editor's note: after this Scoop had been written, the Boston Globe did run a story Friday evening. If you have a subscription, check it out.) 

The cost of the trip is known because State Rep. Alan Silvia (D) filed an early ethics disclosure that was picked up by the Boston Herald. State Sen. Becca Rausch (D) was quoted in a story on the trip by Jewish News Syndicate, but she does not appear to have made any other public statement. Other attendees included Rep. Hannah Kane (R), Sen. Peter Durant (R), Rep. David Muradian (R), and Rep. Aaron Saunders (D). Though all attendees have active social media accounts where they regularly share their activities with constituents, Sen. Durant appeared to be the only one to publicize his attendance. For the most part, constituents may not have even been aware that their representatives were out of the country. 

The secrecy behind this trip and others like it (paywall) can be partially attributed to the opaque system of ethics disclosures in our state, which is an aspect of our lack of transparency that we haven’t discussed in a while. 

It is illegal in Massachusetts for state employees to accept most gifts connected to their role as a state employee. However, a common exception is the reimbursement of travel expenses “when doing so advances a public purpose and a written disclosure is made.” This is the disclosure that the legislators traveling to Israel would have made. The problem is tracking down these written disclosures– a 2019 study by the Pioneer Institute found that MA ranks 49th out of the 50 states in financial transparency. 

Ethics disclosed– if you can find it

When disclosing reimbursed travel expenses, state lawmakers must file an ethics disclosure with either the State Ethics Commission OR the clerk’s office of their particular chamber. This option, which does not exist for any other kind of state employee or elected official, creates opportunities for confusion in locating ethics filings. Where to look for your lawmakers’ ethics disclosures? 

Let’s start with the State Ethics Commission. When something is filed through them, it is listed on the website that that person has filed a disclosure. However, the details of the disclosure are not available. For example, I (Scotia) learned from that link that my state senator, Sal DiDomenico has filed a disclosure of “the Appearance of Undue Favor or Improper Influence.” Yet, in order to find out what that improper influence is, I had to call the ethics commission within business hours and request a copy. The guy on the phone was very nice and the disclosure was emailed to me within a few hours. I’ll prompt us all to take a quick pause from the Scoop, peruse this year’s list of filers from the state ethics commission, and make a note of anything your state representatives have filed so you can ask the Commission for it on Monday: 

|

|

| 

Back? You may have noticed in your scroll that, interestingly, only members of the Senate appear to have filed disclosures with the Ethics Commission related to reimbursed travel expenses. We can only assume that House members have filed all their disclosures with the House clerk, as is their right. 

It’s easy to see why they would choose that option. To view a disclosure filed with the House or Senate clerk, you have to go to the House and Senate clerk’s office in person to view the paper copy. The file cannot leave the clerk’s office. No perusing– you have to name the filer whose disclosure you are looking for in advance and just hope they’ve filed something. Once you’ve made the request, you may have to make an appointment to access it. 

In at least 35 other states, this type of disclosure is posted online automatically and free to access. Massachusetts is among a small minority of states that make ethics disclosures incredibly difficult to access. Unfortunately, another aspect of our state laws shielding our elected officials from scrutiny and allowing the connections between money and power to consolidate.

Worth reading: more stories from this week

Important stories from local, regional, and national news.

---

Syd's Sprinkles: New Blog Post

Are we really #1? Maternal Health in Massachusetts 

After having had the great opportunity to attend the MassDems convention this year, I’ve had the idea of Massachusetts being “first” in state rankings on my mind. These numbers were featured on a bag that was passed out at convention: 


“#1 for women…”

“#1 in health care…”

“#1 to have a baby…”

Unsurprisingly, I was questioning these statements that many people seemingly took as fact – perhaps because of my knowledge of the Massachusetts State House being ranked #50 in transparency and effectiveness. 

I was asking questions like, “how do they calculate these things?,” “who is the ‘they’ doing these calculations,” and “how many people are actually benefitting from what has made Massachusetts the #1 state?”

There is no singular answer to that last question, of course. 

But one of the many communities that is not benefitting from some parts of Massachusetts' #1 status is Leominster. 

Only a couple of years out from the closure of the maternity unit in UMass Memorial Health Alliance-Clinton Hospital, the Leominster community is facing the unfortunate results of maternal health being pushed to the side (or simply done away with). 

But Leominster is not alone in this. In the past decade, 11 maternity units have been closed in hospitals across the state, leaving only 39 hospitals with maternal beds – 38 with actual labor and delivery units. 

While there have been conflicting conclusions on whether or not Massachusetts has any “maternity care deserts,” the reality is that the lack of maternity units has caused enough issues to warrant coverage in CommonWealth Beacon. 

In Leominster, there are increasing amounts of babies being delivered by emergency responders in the backs of ambulances, rather than by doctors and other trained professionals who have devoted their careers to safely delivering babies and taking care of mothers in dedicated settings. 

Having to find new hospitals with maternity units which may be farther away than the now-closed units is not the only issue that has come with the closures. 

Even if there are other options for maternal care in the vicinity of expectant mothers, they may not be feasible to those in need if they do not have access to the right health insurance. 

And unfortunately, this issue is only expected to worsen as that bill from Congress makes its way into the lives and pockets of Americans in the upcoming fiscal year. 

At the end of the day, I – as I am sure many of us are – am grateful to live in a state like Massachusetts. 

But what is important to keep in mind is that there is always more work to be done to help protect all Bay Staters, including expectant mothers, even in a state that proudly boasts being “#1 for women,” “#1 for health care,” and “#1 to have a baby”.

---

Missed a Scoop or two? You can find a full archive of all past Saturday Scoops on our blog.

---

Take Action

The Climate for Climate Policy under a Hostile Regime - Policy forum by Progressive Mass, 9/30 at 7 pm 

Join our friends at Progressive Mass for a forum on what we can do at the city and state level to fight against federal crackdowns on climate policy! 

SIGN UP FOR MA FIGHTS BACK: CLIMATE>>

Help us support a documentary about Beacon Hill dysfunction

Shadows on the Hill is a documentary about the real reason popular bills don’t pass: leadership decides which ones live, which ones die, and who gets punished for speaking out. The film is fundraising now to finish production.** Watch the trailer (featuring a familiar face!) and help amplify the campaign.** 

---

That's all for this week, I hope you find something interesting on the State Ethics Disclosue website, and hope to see you on October 9th! 

In solidarity,

Scotia

Scotia Hille (she/her)

Executive Director, Act on Mass