ReportWire

Tag: Legislature

  • State of the State: Gavin Newsom to deliver final address as California governor

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to deliver his final State of the State address as the state’s governor this Thursday.Newsom will host the address at the state Capitol in front of a joint session of the Legislature, the first time he has done so since 2020. In recent years, he has opted for writing letters to the Legislature, releasing pre-recorded messages or touring across the state to issue new policies and initiatives.Ahead of the address, the governor’s office offered brief outlines of themes Newsom is expected to touch upon. One topic includes homelessness and California’s efforts to resolve the state’s mental health crisis.Housing affordability, education and investment in public schools are other topics outlined. The governor also plans on addressing public safety, violent crime, and theft across the state, and the various levels of law enforcement working to handle those issues.Another major topic Newsom is expected to address is climate initiatives and how California’s policies have implications both nationally and globally.Newsom’s office also shared that Newsom will convey that California is a stable democracy, an economic engine with conscience, and a “functioning alternative to Donald Trump’s federal dysfunction.” The State of the State address begins at 10:30 a.m. Thursday.Because there is a two-term limit on holding the office of California governor, Newsom will not be able to run for a third term.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Gov. Gavin Newsom is set to deliver his final State of the State address as the state’s governor this Thursday.

    Newsom will host the address at the state Capitol in front of a joint session of the Legislature, the first time he has done so since 2020. In recent years, he has opted for writing letters to the Legislature, releasing pre-recorded messages or touring across the state to issue new policies and initiatives.

    Ahead of the address, the governor’s office offered brief outlines of themes Newsom is expected to touch upon. One topic includes homelessness and California’s efforts to resolve the state’s mental health crisis.

    Housing affordability, education and investment in public schools are other topics outlined. The governor also plans on addressing public safety, violent crime, and theft across the state, and the various levels of law enforcement working to handle those issues.

    Another major topic Newsom is expected to address is climate initiatives and how California’s policies have implications both nationally and globally.

    Newsom’s office also shared that Newsom will convey that California is a stable democracy, an economic engine with conscience, and a “functioning alternative to Donald Trump’s federal dysfunction.”

    The State of the State address begins at 10:30 a.m. Thursday.

    Because there is a two-term limit on holding the office of California governor, Newsom will not be able to run for a third term.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DiZoglio launches effort to pry open Beacon Hill

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — With her voter-approved audit of the Legislature stalled, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is leading a new effort to pry open Beacon Hill’s secret legislative process.

    The Methuen Democrat has launched a ballot initiative to make the House of Representatives, Senate and the governor’s office subject to the state’s public records law and she said supporters have cleared a major hurdle to the 2026 ballot by collecting more than 100,000 signatures from registered voters.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“*@F A2J E2I6D[ D@ J@F 92G6 2 C:89E E@ 65:2 2??@F?4:?8 E96 677@CE] “%C2?DA2C6?4J[ 244@F?E23:=:EJ[ 2?5 2446DD:3:=:EJ >2EE6C]”k^Am

    kAmp DF>>2CJ @7 s:+@8=:@’D AC@A@D2= D2:5 :E H@F=5 >2<6 “>@DE C64@C5D” 96=5 3J E96 {68:D=2EFC6 2?5 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46 DF3;64E E@ C6BF6DE 3J E96 >65:2 2?5 AF3=:4]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D AC@A@D65 =2H H@F=5 6I6>AE 5@4F>6?ED C6=2E65 E@ E96 56G6=@A>6?E @7 AF3=:4 A@=:4J 2?5 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 36EH66? =68:D=2E@CD 2?5 E96:C 4@?DE:EF6?ED[ :7 E9@D6 4@>>F?:42E:@?D 2C6 C62D@?23=J C6=2E65 E@ 2 4@?DE:EF6?E’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2DD:DE2?46 😕 @3E2:?:?8 8@G6C?>6?EAC@G:565 36?67:ED @C D6CG:46D @C :?E6C24E:?8 H:E9 2 8@G6C?>6?E 286?4J[” E96 AC@A@D2= C625D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 😀 E96 @?=J DE2E6 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ H96C6 E96 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46[ {68:D=2EFC6 2?5 ;F5:4:2CJ 2== 4=2:> E96J 2C6 6I6>AE 7C@> E96 AF3=:4 C64@C5D =2H] %9:D 92D =65 @A6? 8@G6C?>6?E 8C@FAD E@ 4@?D:DE6?E=J =236= :ED u:CDE p>6?5>6?E AC@E64E:@?D 2D E96 H62<6DE 😕 E96 ?2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm{2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 3:==D 😕 E96 A2DE E@ @A6? FA 2== E9C66 3C2?496D @7 8@G6C?>6?E E@ E96 C64@C5D =2HD[ 3FE E96J 72:=65 E@ 82:? EC24E:@?] v@@5 8@G6C?>6?E 8C@FAD 92G6 C68F=2C=J FC865 v@G] |2FC2 w62=6J 2?5 =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD E@ AC@G:56 >@C6 EC2?DA2C6?4J @7 E96:C :??6C H@C<:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6’D AF3=:4 C64@C5D =2H H2D @G6C92F=65 😕 a_`e E@ :>AC@G6 2446DD E@ :?7@C>2E:@? 2?5 >2<6 :E 92C56C 7@C DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?E E@ D9:6=5 :?7@C>2E:@?]k^Am

    kAmqFE E96 {68:D=2EFC6 564:565 E@ =62G6 :ED @H? 6I6>AE:@? :?E24E[ 2D H6== 2D E9@D6 7@C E96 8@G6C?@C’D @77:46 2?5 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAmtI6>AE:@?D E@ AF3=:4 C64@C5D 2?5 @A6? >66E:?8 =2HD >62? E96 DE2E6’D E@A 6=64E65 @77:4:2=D 42? 5@ >F49 @7 E96:C H@C< 369:?5 4=@D65 5@@CD]k^Am

    kAms6>@4C2ED H9@ 9@=5 2 >2;@C:EJ 😕 3@E9 E96 DE2E6 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 $6?2E6[ 7@C 6I2>A=6[ 42? 5:D4FDD 3:==D 2?5 E96 DE2E6 3F586E 369:?5 4=@D65 5@@CD] ~7E6?[ ?@ C64@C5D 2C6 <6AE]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6’D @A6? >66E:?8 =2H C6BF:C6D @E96C 8@G6C?>6?E2= 3@5:6D E@ 2==@H E96 AF3=:4 E@ 2EE6?5 2?J >66E:?8 😕 H9:49 2 >2EE6C F?56C :ED ;FC:D5:4E:@? 😀 5:D4FDD65]k^Am

    kAm{2H>2<6CD @7E6? 4@?G6?6 E96? G@E6 E@ 8@ :?E@ 4=@D65 D6DD:@? H:E9 =:EE=6 6IA=2?2E:@?[ 32CC:?8 E96 AF3=:4 2?5 ?6HD C6A@CE6CD]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • GOP candidate files lawsuit over legislative audit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Legislature has been hit with another lawsuit over its refusal to open up the books to allow a voter-approved audit of its inner workings.

    The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Middlesex County Superior Court by Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Anne Brensley, who asked a judge to declare a voter-approved law giving State Auditor Diana DiZoglio the power to audit the Legislature constitutional and invalidate an internal state House of Representatives rule on audits.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“’@E6CD DA@<6 =@F5 2?5 4=62C – E96J H2?E EC2?DA2C6?4J @? 9@H E96:C E2I 5@==2CD 2C6 DA6?E[” qC6?D=6J[ 2 (2J=2?5 $6=64E q@2C5 >6>36C[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “}62C=J 2 J62C =2E6C[ =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD 92G6 :8?@C65 E92E >2?52E6 2?5 C67FD65 E@ 4@>A=J H:E9 E96 =2H] %9:D :D?’E 23@FE A@=:E:4D – :E’D 23@FE 244@F?E23:=:EJ E@ E96 A6@A=6]”k^Am

    kAm%96 =2HDF:E 😀 E96 =2E6DE D66<:?8 E@ 6?7@C46 “F6DE:@? `[ H9:49 2FE9@C:K65 s:+@8=:@ E@ 4@?5F4E 2 A6C7@C>2?46 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 2F5:E @7 E96 {68:D=2EFC6 E@ 6?DFC6 E92E :E 😀 2596C:?8 E@ 8@G6C?>6?E C68F=2E:@?D] %96 C676C6?5F> H2D 2AAC@G65 😕 =2DE J62C’D 6=64E:@? 3J ?62C=J faT[ 244@C5:?8 E@ @77:4:2= C6DF=ED]k^Am

    kAmqFE w@FD6 $A62<6C #@? |2C:2?@ 2?5 $6?2E6 !C6D:56?E z2C6? $A:=<2 92G6 4@?E:?F65 E@ AFD9 324< 282:?DE E96 G@E6C2AAC@G65 =2H[ C6A62E:?8 4=2:>D E92E E96 2F5:E H@F=5 G:@=2E6 E96 D6A2C2E:@? @7 A@H6CD 5@4EC:?6]k^Am

    kAm%96 w@FD6 2AAC@G65 2 >62DFC6 E92E 2FE9@C:K6D s:+@8=:@’D @77:46 E@ 9:C6 2? :?56A6?56?E 2F5:E:?8 7:C> E@ 4@?5F4E 2 7:?2?4:2= C6G:6H @7 E96 492>36C 3FE 67764E:G6=J DEC:AA65 96C @77:46 @7 E96 2FE9@C:EJ E@ 56E6C>:?6 E96 D4@A6 @7 E96 2F5:E]k^Am

    kAms:+@8=:@[ 2 |6E9F6? s6>@4C2E 2?5 =@?8E:>6 4C:E:4 @7 =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD[ 92D 9:C65 2 AC:G2E6 2EE@C?6J 2?5 G@H65 E@ AFCDF6 =682= 24E:@? 282:?DE $A:=<2 2?5 |2C:2?@ 3FE 92D ?@E 7:=65 2 492==6?86 J6E] p DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C s:+@8=:@’D @77:46 D2:5 D96 😀 2H2C6 @7 qC6?D=6J’D =2HDF:E 3FE 😀 ?@E 2 A2CEJ E@ :E]k^Am

    kAmx? s646>36C[ 7@C>6C #6AF3=:42? !2CEJ r92:C>2? y:> {J@?D 7:=65 2 D:>:=2C =2HDF:E 2D<:?8 E96 DE2E6 $FA6C:@C r@FCE E@ 7@C46 E96 {68:D=2EFC6 E@ @A6? FA :ED 3@@A36== E92E BF6DE:@?65 E96 =682=:EJ @7 E96 G@E6C2AAC@G65 =2H]k^Am

    kAm{J@?D 7:=65 2? 2AA62= @7 E96 CF=:?8 😕 pAC:= 3FE 92D 2=D@ A6E:E:@?65 E96 $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE E@ 8C2?E 2 “5:C64E 2AA6==2E6 C6G:6H” @7 E96 42D6 E@ C6D@=G6 E96 5:DAFE6]k^Am

    kAmqFE qC6?D=6J[ H9@ 😀 C6AC6D6?E:?8 96CD6=7 😕 E96 =2HDF:E[ 2C8F6D E92E D96 😀 5:C64E=J 27764E65 3J E96 {68:D=2EFC6’D C67FD2= E@ 2FE9@C:K6 E96 2F5:E D@ E96 #:89E @7 !F3=:4 s@4EC:?6 4:E65 😕 AC6G:@FD 4@FCE C6;64E:@?D 5@6D ?@E 2AA=J E@ 96C 2D 2 DE2E6 E2IA2J6C 2?5 564=2C65 42?5:52E6 7@C =:6FE6?2?E 8@G6C?@C]k^Am

    kAmx? E96 =2HDF:E[ D96 2C8F6D =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD’ C67FD2= E@ A6C>:E E96 2F5:E “9FCED 96C 23:=:EJ E@ 36EE6C :?7@C> 2?5 DH2J G@E6CD @? 9@H D96 H@F=5 AC6A2C6[ @A6C2E6[ 2?5 C65F46 E96 3F586E 7@C E96 DE2E6 2?5 F=E:>2E6=J H:? E96 6=64E65 A@D:E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm“~E96C =2HDF:ED 72:=65 3642FD6 E96:C A=2:?E:77D 5:5?’E 92G6 2 5:C64E DE2<6[” qC6?D=6J D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “x 5@] pD 2 42?5:52E6 7@C DE2E6H:56 @77:46[ x ?665 244FC2E6 3F586E 52E2 E@ AC@A@D6 C62= 7:D42= C67@C>D] %96 {68:D=2EFC6’D C67FD2= E@ 7@==@H E96 =2H 5@6D?’E ;FDE G:@=2E6 G@E6C :?E6?E – :E 24E:G6=J 9:?56CD 72:C 6=64E:@?D 2?5 :?7@C>65 A@=:4J>2<:?8]”k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • What is Gov. Gavin Newsom’s role in the California Capitol Annex project?

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week. It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion. | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’ Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing. “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird. A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.” The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion. Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA. It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now. “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday. “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom. KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor. “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said. “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee. When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office. Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has promised to push state lawmakers leading the California Capitol Annex project to be more transparent about how they’re using taxpayer dollars, but documents show Newsom’s office plays a larger role in the project than the governor suggested earlier this week.

    It has been at least three years since project leaders in the California Legislature provided an update on the estimated cost of the taxpayer funded office building that will be used by the governor and state lawmakers. At last check, it was expected to cost more than $1.1 billion.

    | PREVIOUS COVERAGE | Gov. Newsom says California Legislature’s secrecy around Capitol Annex is ‘inappropriate’

    Project leaders, also known as the Joint Rules Committee, have also not been forthcoming with information about how they’re spending the funds; only confirming information that is leaked to KCRA 3, including millions spent on Italian stonework, and the decision to add a hallway system that only lawmakers can use to avoid the public and media. The legislature also continues to withhold documents that KCRA 3 has requested, which could shed light on how much the project is costing.

    “As a taxpayer, I’d like to know as well,” Newsom told KCRA 3 at a news conference Tuesday when pressed about the legislature’s handling of the project and lack of information.

    But documents provided to KCRA 3 show Gov. Newsom’s Director of Operations has been part of a three-member Executive Committee that is expected to meet regularly and vote on final decisions about the project behind closed doors. The committee includes Newsom’s current Director of Operations Miroslava de la O, Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Pacheco and Democratic State Sen. John Laird.

    A 2018 memorandum of understanding between the legislature and governor’s office established the committee to ensure the legislature keeps the governor’s office in the loop on the project. The legislature’s Joint Rules Committee does the bulk of the decision making. The memo lays out the expectations for the committee, stating it should meet as needed, with a monthly standing meeting that can be “more frequent or cancelled as necessary.”

    The memo also states changes to project scope, schedules, budgets and delivery methods made by the committee shall be subject to a majority vote. The memo has allowed everything the committee does to be kept confidential. The agreement was established before Gov. Newsom took office.

    All three members of the committee have signed non-disclosure agreements that the legislature has required since 2018 from people involved in the project in order to keep broad information about it confidential, which KCRA 3 first reported last fall. With the NDAs in place, the project price tag swelled from $558.2 million to more than $1 billion.

    Documents provided to KCRA 3 through a Legislative Open Records Act request this year show de la O recently signed the non-disclosure agreement. Prior to de la O, Erin Suhr served in the Executive Committee role representing the governor. Suhr also signed the NDA.

    It’s not clear when the committee last met, a spokesperson for the legislature’s Joint Rules Committee could not say immediately when asked on Wednesday. KCRA 3 has filed a public records act request for meeting information between 2018 and now.

    “The Executive Committee was designed to ensure collaboration and transparency despite your claims of secrecy,” a spokesperson for the Joint Rules Committee said in part in a statement to KCRA 3 on Wednesday.

    “Consistent with the MOU, the Governor’s office staff is not involved in day-to-day operations or management of the project,” said Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for Gov. Newsom.

    KCRA 3 asked the governor’s office if the NDA kept de la O from sharing information with the governor.

    “Our office’s role on the committee is limited to reviewing significant scope changes as defined in the MOU, which have not been presented to the committee at this time, as well as reviewing security concerns. We are not privy to detailed financial information beyond what is addressed by the committee. The NDA does not prevent the Governor’s staff from briefing him on actions taken by the committee and limited information received in this function,” Gallegos said.

    “Those three people make key decisions on the capitol. More importantly, they made those decisions privately and not have to disclose those to the public,” said Luree Stetson, a member of the Public Accountability For Our Capitol Political Action Committee.

    When asked if she’s convinced the governor does not know how much the building costs Stetson said, “I don’t know if the governor would or not, his staff might, whether his staff informed him of that, we’ve tried to get in touch with the governor over the last five years also and never heard back from him.”

    Newsom will likely never use the 525,000 square-foot building as governor, which is expected to be complete in 2027 after he’s termed out of office.

    Newsom has approved legislation appropriating funds for the project. He also signed a bill in 2024 that exempted the new building from California’s Environmental Quality Act to cease the litigation that had been stalling it.

    The last public update on the project was in a hearing in April of 2021. The California Legislature’s Joint Rules Committee said it planned to provide an update this year, but that never happened before state lawmakers left Sacramento for the rest of the year in September.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘An advocate for human beings,’ Ed Kennedy remembered for decades of service

    [ad_1]

    LOWELL — If you have been involved in politics in Greater Lowell over the last half-century, there is a pretty good chance you encountered Ed Kennedy on more than one occasion.

    From city councilor, to mayor, to state senator, Kennedy spent nearly five decades representing Greater Lowell in many capacities, right up until the day he died on Oct. 1. Through it all, Kennedy worked with countless residents and officials to leave a mark in his home community that will be felt for decades more.

    While many knew him, and knew him very well, one of those who knew the late state senator best was his cousin, Frank Heslin, who grew up with Kennedy and delivered his eulogy at Wednesday’s funeral. As cousins, Heslin said he and Kennedy were as close as siblings. They celebrated many birthdays and holidays together, and when they got older would often go to the Commodore Ballroom to see shows like The Doors.

    When Kennedy, in his mid-20s, decided to take a chance at the Lowell City Council, Heslin said it didn’t really come as a surprise.

    “He had always followed a lot of what was going on in the city,” said Heslin.

    “He loved the action. He loved to help, and he also loved to debate and make decisions and figure out ways to make things better,” Heslin said later.

    When asked what he thought his cousin’s legacy would be in Greater Lowell, Heslin brought up the same topic many others did when reminiscing about Kennedy: The Lowell High School project.

    In 2017, a citywide debate over the location of the new high school building reached a fever pitch, with the City Council voting narrowly to locate it in Cawley Stadium, and a referendum later that year showing widespread voter preference for the downtown site.

    Kennedy, as the city’s mayor and chair of the School Committee during this time, was credited by many in recent days for his major role in pushing for the downtown site, where the new and renovated buildings — some still in progress — stand today. At the time, Heslin said, Kennedy took a lot of flak from other officials and from the local media.

    “He was just able to let it roll. He wasn’t going to get too bogged down in it,” said Heslin.

    Heslin knew Kennedy beyond politics, though. He described Kennedy’s love for the Rolling Stones, and his love for hiking and the outdoors.

    “When I talked with him before he died, I said the thing I am probably most happy about was the same thing as him, how we climbed the northern and southern Presidential Range in 1975 before we each got married,” said Heslin.

    Heslin called his late cousin “a sincere and determined person” who made his decisions based on what he genuinely thought to be in the people’s best interest. He highlighted Kennedy’s initiative, the “Mayor’s Holiday Fest for Homeless Youth,” which he started in 2017 to raise money for Community Teamwork, but it ended with the pandemic.

    “He really was that way,” Heslin said.

    UMass President and former Congressman Marty Meehan met Kennedy during Meehan’s sophomore year at the then-University of Lowell, when both worked at Lowell District Court in 1975. Unsurprisingly, the two would often talk politics, and two years later when Kennedy ran for City Council to start his first tenure there, he brought Meehan on to run his campaign. The two would become close friends through this, even next-door neighbors at one point.

    Among Meehan’s many stories about Kennedy, he said part of his friend’s legacy will also be in his role from the state Senate in the long-awaited reconstruction of the Rourke Bridge, which finally broke ground this year.

    “Which was ironic, because Ed voted in his first [City Council] term for Ray Rourke to be the mayor,” said Meehan, referring to one of the bridge’s namesakes.

    “I never saw him in a political situation lose his temper. He was very even tempered. Even when there were disagreements, he wouldn’t get all worked up about it,” Meehan later added.

    Patti Kirwin-Keilty has known Kennedy for most of her life, with both growing up in the same Belvidere neighborhood. She would start working for Kennedy for the first time when he joined the state Senate in 2019. Through that new lens, Kirwin-Keilty saw, and was a part of, Kennedy’s dedication to his constituents.

    “For most people, we were the last stop, when they called the senator’s office with an issue,” said Kirwin-Keilty. “He would continually advocate for those constituents when they were experiencing some problem. If we weren’t getting anywhere, he would make follow-up phone calls for a commission or whoever was needed.

    “He was an advocate for human beings, for people to get a fair shake, that they receive services they should receive, and that they were treated fairly,” Kirwin-Keilty added.

    Alongside Kirwin-Keilty in Kennedy’s office was James Ostis, who started working for Kennedy in 2017 when he was mayor. Ostis would work under both Kennedy and Bill Samaras during their respective mayoral terms, but he would also join Kennedy’s state Senate office in 2019.

    While Ostis had a front-row seat to the Lowell High School drama from Kennedy’s office, and his advocacy for the Rourke Bridge, Ostis looked back at a part of Kennedy’s legacy from before Ostis was even born: his advocacy in the nation’s capital for the creation of the Lowell National Historical Park in 1978 during his first City Council term.

    “He testified on something like that, which was so fundamental to the last half-century in Lowell,” said Ostis. “There are all these things throughout history he had at least a little role in, and all of these things he had a huge role in.”

    A special election will inevitably be called for Kennedy’s Senate seat, but in the meantime Ostis and Kirwin-Keilty both said their office would continue doing its constituent services work, for anybody who needs it.

    When former Lowell City Manager Eileen Donoghue left the state Senate to work for the city, it was Kennedy who succeeded her. For the start of his time in the Legislature, Kennedy remained in his seat on the City Council, in part because there were still important votes left in the last year of the term for the city.

    “When he was sworn into the Senate, he certainly could have left the City Council and had a special election to fill the seat,” said Donoghue. “It was not an easy thing to do, but he did that to see through the mission of keeping Lowell High School downtown.”

    Donoghue said Kennedy liked to pick big projects he thought would be beneficial for Lowell and put his political weight behind them as much as he could.

    “[Lowell High] was just a fairness decision for so many kids that were able to walk to school. I watched the many times Ed was really hit hard in the media, but he would just let it roll off his back,” said Donoghue.

    “When they say you can’t be a hero in your hometown, they aren’t talking about Ed,” Donoghue said later.

    Councilor Rita Mercier served with Kennedy for his entire second stint on the council. She said while Kennedy was thought to have a rather serious demeanor, “he could laugh with the best of them.”

    “He was a kind and thoughtful gentleman. A friend to all who got things done. The City of Lowell is very grateful for his determination and fight to bring much needed funding in to our city. We will all miss him tremendously,” said Mercier.

    Kennedy was a member of the Democratic Party, but maintained friendships with even the more conservative local faces, like former radio talk host Casey Crane, who said Kennedy was “the most loyal friend you could ever ask for.”

    “You could be personal friends and still be opposites politically. A rare man of character who stood up for the people who mattered to him and made everyone feel like they mattered even if it meant going way out of his way to show you,” said Crane. “I was honored to call him a friend. I will miss him terribly.”

    One of Kennedy’s colleagues in the state Senate, Barry Finegold, noted that when the most recent redistricting process moved the town of Dracut from Finegold’s district to Kennedy’s, Kennedy stepped up to serve his new community.

    “Ed assured me he took the responsibility seriously and sure enough – he did his homework and became an expert on Dracut almost overnight,” said Finegold. “That was Ed – dedicated and community minded. He was in government to serve the people – which he did with expertise and care.”

    Former state Rep. Rady Mom said he was fortunate to know Kennedy for many years, and to have served with him in the Legislature and worked together when Kennedy was on the council. He called Kennedy “a humble man who worked tirelessly for the community and dedicated his life to helping others.”

    “He always had Lowell’s best interest at heart and l appreciated his partnership on many issues, including advancing the replacement of the Rourke Bridge,” Mom said. “His passing is a loss all of us are mourning. He will be dearly missed. My thoughts are with his wife Susan, their children Christina and Eddie, and their grandchildren.”

    [ad_2]

    Peter Currier

    Source link

  • 51 New Oregon State Laws Set to Take Effect on Friday – KXL

    [ad_1]

    HB 3940 — Wildfire funding package features new nicotine pouch tax

    This bill addresses how to pay for the rising cost of fighting wildland fires by levying a tax on nicotine pouches.

    The tax is 3.25 cents per individual unit with a flat charge of 60 cents on packages of fewer than 20 units.

    2024 was the most expensive fire season in state history — costing over $350 million — and left lawmakers split on how to fully fund the Oregon Department of Forestry.

    Democratic lawmakers heralded House Bill 3940 as a “significant update to Oregon’s wildfire finance and response system.” The bill passed in a bipartisan vote of 37-8, though 13 representatives had excused absences for the vote, primarily among Republicans.

    The bill entered the State Senate as something of an all-purpose method of testing wildfire funding methods, with updates to how rural working lands are assessed, taxed and protected and a 5-cent surcharge on beverage containers. Ultimately, those methods were dropped in favor of the oral nicotine tax. It passed the Senate in a bipartisan vote of 20-8 with two absences for the vote.

    SB 163 — Children of sperm and egg donors have a right to know their donor

    This bill allows children conceived from donor sperm, eggs or embryos to gain access to the names of their respective donor or donors, as first reported by The Oregonian.

    At a lengthy 105 pages, the law thoroughly lays out the legal standards for establishing parentage — similar to other laws giving adopted children the same rights and protections.

    As part of the law, clinics are required to ask for the names, addresses, birth dates and contact information of gamete and embryo donors. That information will then be logged on a state registry that will be maintained even if the clinic goes out of business. Previously, these donors were allowed to stay anonymous and records were often lost with the closing of involved clinics.

    Even though the law is taking effect this fall, it’s going to be some time before it sees serious use. Donor-conceived children won’t have access to the registry until they turn 18. Functionally, this means that the registry won’t be used until 2043 or 2044.

    The bill passed 21-8 in the State Senate with one Democrat and seven Republicans voting against it. It saw a similar split in the House, passing 41-9 with only Republicans opposing the bill.

    Similar bills have been popping up around the country. Clinics now face increased scrutiny after it was revealed a few years ago that a Dutch man fathered at least 550 children in multiple countries.

    HB 2563 — Insurers are now required to explain premium hikes

    This bill requires that insurers explain to policy holders why their premium will go up when their policy is renewed, and even specifies how they’re supposed to deliver the news.

    The law applies to either homeowner or personal insurance policies. At the policy holder’s request, their insurance provider must “give a clear and reasonable written explanation for any increase” in the premium. Insurance providers aren’t allowed to use technical language that wouldn’t be easily understood by the average policy holder.

    Insurers will be required to list up to four of the most significant reasons for the price increase. Also, it will now be up to the Department of Consumer and Business Services to define when a factor significantly contributes to a rate hike. This law will only apply to existing policies that are being renewed, and not to new applications.

    Insurance providers will be required to respond within 20 days of the customer’s request.

    The bill made it through the House almost entirely on party lines, passing 33-22 with no Republican support and one Democrat voting against it. It only fared slightly better in the Senate, passing 21-8 with three Republicans voting in favor.

    SB 243 — Banning ‘bump stocks’

    SB 243 bans “bump stocks” and other rapid-fire activators one can attach to guns. They were once banned on the federal level, but that ban was overturned by the Supreme Court last year.

    The bill also allows local governments to decide for themselves if they want to bar people from bringing guns into public buildings, even if that person has a concealed carry permit.

    While the bill was still on the floor, Republicans said they could have backed the ban on bump stocks, but this second part of the bill goes too far. Ultimately, the bill passed both the House and the Senate on a party-line vote.

    HB 2573

    This bill revises two laws from 2021 and 2024 by clarifying the legal meanings of long-term care facility, residential care facility and senior emergency medical services.

    It also adds tighter requirements for the Senior Emergency Medical Services Innovation program and pushes back the end date for that program.

    HB 2685

    This bill makes it mandatory for Oregon hospitals and birthing centers to give each newborn a hearing screening test. Smaller facilities are required to at least give parents more information about the screening and where they can get it done.

    In addition, hospitals and birthing centers will be responsible for screening for cytomegalovirus (CMV) — a disease related to mono that can cause birth defects.

    HB 3294

    This bill regulates staffing plans for health care providers. One of the most notable changes is that a direct care registered nurse can only be assigned to one trauma patient at a time, and no more than five general patients at a time.

    HB 3409

    This bill clarifies the previous laws and spells out when and how insurance providers can require a reimbursement claim for certain federally discounted prescription drugs.

    HB 3824

    Under this bill, physical therapists in Oregon will be allowed to perform dry needling for their patients, and won’t need to get a separate license to use sonographic equipment if it’s for physical therapy.

    Physical therapists will also be able to certify a disabled person’s parking permit application.

    SB 230

    Oral healthcare providers will be required to complete an intake screening within 60 days when someone enrolled in the Veterans Dental Program contacts them.

    This bill passed unanimously in both chambers of the state legislature.

    Energy and Utilities

    HB 2065

    This bill, along with HB 2066, establish a regulatory framework for small-scale power grids that can operate independently from the main grid known as “microgrids.”

    HB 2065 in particular lays the groundwork for hiring consultants, getting engineering evaluations and submitting designs to connect a microgrid to a main power grid.

    HB 2066

    This bill directs the Public Utility Commission to create rules and frameworks for people to own and operate microgrids and community microgrids within the service area of electric companies. It also requires the Department of Consumer and Business Services to establish rules to support buildings with community microgrids.

    Local governments will be able to set their own land use regulations for what areas are considered microgrid zones.

    HB 2095

    This bill makes technical corrections to the tax credit granted for research conducted by a semiconductor company. It’s more legal housekeeping than anything that will impact the average state resident.

    HB 3336

    Under this bill, power companies will be required to file strategic plans for improving the power grid where they can afford to do so. Companies are then given until Jan. 1, 2030 to carry out the plan.

    Forestry, Wildlife and Climate

    HB 2072

    This bill extends the Forest Products Harvest Tax — a tax on timber harvested from any land in Oregon — through 2027. You’re still required to file harvest returns even if the total volume is less than the minimum threshold for being taxed.

    HB 2081

    This bill directs the Oregon Investment Council and the State Treasurer to take action to mitigate the risks of climate change to the Public Employees Retirement Fund.

    HB 2342

    This bill increases certain wildlife license, tag and permit fees. The cost of an annual hunting license for a resident will increase from $34.50 to $39 under the new law. It will then increase again to $45 in 2030. The last time the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife raised license fees was 2020.

    HB 3630

    This bill eliminates the estate tax for farm, forestry and fishing interests owned by trusts and businesses that are entirely owned by family members of the deceased. It will apply to the estates of people that died on or after July 1, 2025.

    HB 3794

    This bill will create the Task Force on Municipal Solid Waste in the Willamette Valley. The committee will be expected to study and identify solutions for waste disposal in Willamette Valley, and will be dissolved at the end of 2026.

    SB 485

    This bill makes it easier for small forestlands to qualify for an exemption from the estate tax after the owner’s death.

    Housing and Land Use

    HB 2316

    This law will allow for the creation of home start lands on certain state and local properties within Oregon’s urban growth boundaries. It’s one approach for the Department of Administrative Services to address the state’s ongoing housing crisis and encourage new developments.

    These home start lands will be exempt from some land use laws, as well as property taxes for up to five years after purchase and are meant to provide grounds for affordable housing — especially for first-time homebuyers.

    HB 3054

    This bill places a cap on the amount by which landlords can increase rent for tenants in mobile homes or floating homes. There are exceptions in place for if tenants collectively approve major upgrades.

    HB 3145

    This bill allows the the Housing and Community Services Department to use Local Innovation and Fast Track Housing Program Fund money for pre-built homes. The department will also be required to report on the outcomes of this spending.

    HB 3963

    The Department of Land Conservation and Development was required to provide a report on their assessment of offshore wind farm developments by the end of the year. This bill extends the deadline until Jan. 1, 2027.

    SB 48

    This bill changes the conditions under which cities can amend their urban growth boundaries. It also opens the door for cities to pay back loans from the state used for more affordable and middle housing with revenue sources other than developer fees.

    SB 347

    Under this bill, land owners won’t face a special tax assessment if it is found that marijuana was grown on their land without their knowledge by the person using said land.

    SB 684

    This bill will expand the definition of “residential housing” to include some types of mixed-income housing. The Housing and Community Services Department will also be required to adopt rules for long-term financing of residential housing by the end of 2026.

    Labor, Business and Taxes

    HB 2087

    This bill expands multiple state tax credits and extends them through 2032.

    HB 2321

    This bill mandates that the Legislative Fiscal Office analyze and report on the current state property tax system and options to modernize it by the end of 2026.

    HB 2337

    This bill allows small businesses to apply for an Oregon Small Business Enterprise certification, which will let them compete for contracts with the state. It will also direct the Department of Administrative Services to make a list of targets and goals for small business contracts across the state.

    HB 2339

    This bill enacts broad revisions to Oregon’s tax statutes and timber revenue distribution, including modifying how timber severance tax funds are allocated.

    HB 2351

    This bill changes how businesses are required to report data from state benefit programs such as tax exemptions. Proponents of the bill hope it will improve transparency with regards to Oregon’s economy.

    HB 2688

    This bill increases wages for work done on off-site work for use in public works such as roads, highways, buildings, etc.

    HB 3024

    This bill removes the eight-week penalty that disqualified workers from applying for unemployment benefits if they quit or were fired, later requalify for those benefits. In short, eligible people can now receive the full 26 weeks of benefits.

    SB 99

    This bill extends the duration of property tax breaks for helping to clean and redevelop environmentally contaminated “brownfields” or structures on said brownfields through 2023.

    SB 143

    This bill changes Oregon’s unemployment insurance tax system by increasing the portion of employer tax rates that goes to the state’s fund. It won’t impact the annual unemployment tax rate, it will just change where that money goes.

    Courts and Elections

    HB 2089

    This bill creates a program for the former owners of foreclosed property to get any surplus money after the property is sold by the county to pay off delinquent property taxes.

    HB 2677

    This bill makes it easier to expunge juvenile criminal records by requiring county juvenile departments to automatically start the process when the youth turns 18 or completes probation.

    HB 3687

    Under this bill, any election to adopt, amend, revise or repeal a county charter will be determined by a simple majority vote, and supermajority requirements are prohibited.

    HB 3825

    This bill clears prior court fines for possessing small amounts of marijuana.

    SB 578

    This bill sets the dates by which time a candidate for office needs to submit their photo and statement for inclusion in county voter guides. The measure passed unanimously in both chambers, not counting absences.

    SB 580

    This bill sets the timeframe that county elections officials have to make a candidate’s name and the office they’re running for public.

    SB 1173

    Under this bill, healthcare providers won’t face product liability claims for products that they provide so long as they weren’t involved in designing, manufacturing or selling/leasing that product.

    Miscellaneous

    HB 2558

    This bill also roughly doubles the Oregon State Marine Board registration fee for all charter guides and outfitters. The fee increase won’t hit until November, but the bill will adjust the definition of charter guide for clarity when it takes effect Friday.

    Annual registration fee for a charter guide will be $500, and the fee for outfitters and other guides will be $350.

    HB 2725

    This bill expands the state’s Strategic Investment Program so that certain ports will be included in the decision-making process for larger development projects, and potentially qualifies them for property tax exemptions.

    HB 2728

    This bill requires the Public Employee Retirement System to provide retiring members with overtime data and more information about how overtime hours were used to calculate their final average salary.

    HB 2809

    This bill raises the fee to register a newly formulated pesticide to a max of $550 depending on the chemical’s toxicity and potential environmental impact.

    HB 3043

    This bill defines “monitoring agreement” and “workplace monitor” for purposes of the impaired health professional program, and allows licensed mental health professionals to refer themselves to the program.

    HB 3045

    This bill allows the State Board of Pharmacy to drug test a licensee they’re investigating, or require that person to take a mental, physical or competency evaluation.

    SB 789

    This bill allows the Oregon Board of Psychology to fine a licensee for the cost of disciplinary action taken against them.

    SB 838

    This bill exempts the State Parks and Recreation Department from certain parts of the Public Contracting Code.

    [ad_2]

    Brett Reckamp

    Source link

  • NM GOP lawmakers call on governor to loop them in on special session agenda

    [ad_1]

    The Roundhouse pictured during the 2024 legislative session. Republican lawmakers on Monday called on Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham to broaden the upcoming special session agenda and de-emphasize looming federal spending cuts. (Photo by Patrick Lohmann / Source NM)

    With a little over two weeks before New Mexico lawmakers will convene in Santa Fe for a special legislative session to respond to anticipated federal spending cuts, Republican leaders are calling on the governor to consult with them on the agenda and consider a host of other issues they’d like to address instead.

    Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a news release earlier this month announcing the Oct. 1 start date of the session along with a few actions the Legislature would likely consider to make up for federal cuts to rural hospitals, Medicaid, food stamps and public broadcasting. It also said she was in “discussions” with the Legislature to address behavioral health and criminal justice issues. 

    But Republican leaders in the House and Senate said in a letter Monday that they have not been consulted on any of the specifics about the session, and that Democrats’ fears of federal cuts are unwarranted this early. 

    “Republican legislators should be given the same courtesy and opportunity to thoroughly review the fiscal impact and programmatic requirements associated with these proposals,” according to the letter. “This review is particularly necessitated because your public statements have, unfortunately, left the impression that New Mexicans will immediately lose Medicaid and SNAP benefits. Needless to say, nothing could be further from the truth.”

    The letter goes on to state changes in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” President Donald Trump signed July 4 are “highly complex” and won’t go into effect for more than a year or longer. 

    The letter’s authors said the Legislature should direct more immediate consideration to other issues in the state, including, crime, the state’s child welfare department, medical malpractice reform  and homelessness, according to the letter.

    They urged her to issue a proclamation for the session that enables lawmakers to consider all of those topics. 

    “The people of New Mexico are convinced these are the real emergencies facing our state and we ask for your leadership in helping provide the Legislature with the opportunity to work in a bipartisan basis to adopt long overdue solutions to these most pressing problems,” according to the letter.  

    Jodi McGinnis-Porter, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, told Source New Mexico on Monday afternoon that her office “just got the letter” and so did not have an immediate response. Source will update this story as needed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge denies Utah lawmakers’ request to pause order tossing out congressional map

    [ad_1]

    Judge Dianna Gibson holds a hearing on Utah’s congressional maps process, in Salt Lake City on Friday, Aug. 29, 2025. Judge Gibson previously ruled — based on a decision last year by the Utah Supreme Court — that the Legislature had violated voters’ constitutional right to make laws when legislators repealed Proposition 4, the citizen-passed Better Boundaries initiative. (Pool photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune)

    Third District Court Judge Dianna Gibson issued a decision late Tuesday denying Utah lawmakers’ attorneys’ request to push pause on her ruling last week that tossed out the state’s current congressional boundaries and ordered lawmakers to draw a new map. 

    “By granting a stay and proceeding with the 2026 election under the current 2021 Congressional Plan, this Court would be sanctioning the Legislature’s violation of the people’s constitutional right to reform their government through redistricting legislation,” the judge wrote in the decision. 

    Last week, Gibson ruled the Utah Legislature unconstitutionally overturned Better Boundaries’ ballot initiative known as Proposition 4, a voter-approved law that created an independent redistricting commission meant to prevent partisan gerrymandering. The 2021 Utah Legislature repealed and replaced it with a new law, SB200, which turned that commission into an advisory body that lawmakers could ignore — which they ultimately did when they adopted the 2021 congressional map.

    Delaying the order “would sanction the wholesale repeal of Proposition 4 and would irreparably harm the people of Utah,” the judge wrote Tuesday. “Given the Court’s ruling, this Court cannot conclude that a ‘stay’ would be just under the circumstances.”

    Gibson’s ruling has major implications for the future of Utah’s federal political landscape. Before the 2021 map was adopted, one of Utah’s four U.S. House seats was competitive for Democrats. Today, Republicans consistently dominate all four. 

    Her ruling comes during a time when fights over redistricting are on the national stage. While redistricting efforts in Texas, California and other states are playing out mid-decade — fueled by President Donald Trump’s aim to bolster the U.S. House’s slim GOP majority in the 2026 midterm elections — Utah’s effort for an independent and nonpartisan process is court ordered.

    Gibson, in her decision issued Tuesday, said the state could set itself apart from other states.

    “Utah has an opportunity to be different,” the judge wrote. “While other states are currently redrawing their congressional plans to intentionally render some citizen votes meaningless, Utah could redesign its congressional plan with an intention to protect its citizens’ right to vote and to ensure that each citizen’s vote is meaningful.” 

    Gibson also acknowledged that the “timing of this ruling,” along with the injunction on the 2021 Congressional Map, “presents challenges for the Legislature … to accomplish its duty” to draw a new map in compliance with Proposition 4 in time for the 2026 elections.

    In an effort to address those timing challenges, Gibson asked the lieutenant governor’s office if there would be any flexibility — even if it’s a matter of days — to push back the previously set deadline of Nov. 1 for the court to select a new map while also allowing enough time for counties to finalize their precincts before candidates can begin filing in January. 

    In a court filing also submitted Tuesday, attorneys for Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson wrote that after consulting with county clerks “and due to the extenuating circumstances of this litigation, the deadline for congressional map submission for this election cycle is Nov. 10, 2025.” 

    Given that new deadline, it’s likely Gibson will offer some adjustments to the proposed timeline she included in her order last week, which gave lawmakers, plaintiffs and third parties until Sept. 24 to submit their proposed congressional maps for the court to choose from.  

    document (78)

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Primary care push by CVS meets resistance

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Primary care physicians and the state Senate’s health care point person are questioning a proposed partnership between Mass General Brigham and CVS that the two companies say will address gaps in comprehensive primary care access.

    “My first reaction was, this is not what we think about when we think about primary care,” Sen. Cindy Friedman, co-chair of the Health Care Financing Committee, told the News Service. “I’m kind of blown away.”

    MGB and MinuteClinic’s primary care practice are seeking state regulatory approval for a clinical affiliation that the companies say will help lower health care costs and provide primary care access for those who presently lack it. About 80 advanced practice providers (APPs) currently staff 37 CVS MinuteClinic sites in Massachusetts, according to papers filed with the Health Policy Commission on June 6. The proposal does not involve opening more clinics or hiring more staff, and MGB does not plan to invest funds into the partnership.

    “Extending primary care to a business such as CVS through MinuteClinics, which typically only have nurse practitioners in them, would be a little concerning because it would seemingly remove the physician from the equation,” primary care physician Dr. Chris Garofalo said.

    Garofalo is a partner at Family Medicine Associates of South Attleboro, where he’s worked for 21 years.

    “I appreciate that we need to have more primary care clinicians of all types,” Garofalo added. “When you leave the physician out of it — I’m not so sure that’s the direction we should be going in. It’s really important to have everybody there who is doing the roles that they are best trained for.”

    Nurse practitioners are able to practice independent of physicians in Massachusetts. Clinicians at MinuteClinic primary care sites would “manage end-to-end care with a focus on prevention that includes regularly scheduled health maintenance visits, recommended screenings and addressing existing chronic conditions,” according to CVS. Services would include same-day access, extended hours and virtual care. The term “advanced practice provider” encompasses nurse practitioners and physician associates.

    Massachusetts is grappling with a primary care crisis. CVS has previously said that many of the patients at its MinuteClinics “either don’t have a primary care provider or have not seen one in years.” A Health Policy Commission report named provider burnout and patient access barriers as major reasons behind the sector’s decline. A task force is developing recommendations for sector investments, standardized data reporting requirements and workforce solutions.

    Beacon Hill Democrats have said that addressing the primary care crisis is a session priority, though more than seven months into the session no single legislative proposal has emerged or been tapped as a path forward.

    Friedman called the MGB-CVS proposal “misleading.”

    “I don’t understand how a single person sitting in a CVS, where the MinuteClinics are, is providing ‘primary care.’ To me, what they’re talking about is just urgent care,” Friedman said. “We spent all of this energy and research on what makes primary care [what it is], and it’s fundamentally the relationship between a patient and provider in a place where many of your health care needs can be met, and also where you can find wellness and preventative medicine. We have systems in place for collaborative care. That isn’t going to happen in a CVS.”

    Physician associates and nurse practitioners are viewed by some as part of the formula needed to help fill gaps in access. Under the proposal, each clinician would support a patient panel of about 1,500 patients, which is expected to add capacity for up to 120,000 patients statewide.

    “I think it’s highly doubtful that an APP would be able to carry a [full] patient panel of 1,500 and still feel like they could do it adequately. Quite honestly, our situation has shown that that is not possible without a good, robust system — and that’s what we’re really lacking right now,” said Brigham and Women’s primary care physician Dr. Zoe Tseng.

    Tseng has been with Brigham and Women’s for 11 years and is one of the nearly 200 MGB doctors who recently voted to join a new primary care physician union. She has scaled back to caring for only a partial panel of patients, but said she still often has to work more than 40 hours each week because of the volume of work required on the administrative end of primary caregiving.

    Tseng and others who spoke with the News Service questioned how the proposal would create “team-based” care, and whether clinicians who have staffed primarily in urgent care settings would be able to provide adequate primary care.

    “In their proposal, they didn’t really talk about who would be working in collaboration with these APPs. They don’t have the same training as physicians. Who is helping them to train up to do primary care in a way that is leading the core principles of primary care?” Tseng said, referring to the sector’s “4Cs” framework. “Unless it’s proven to work, I don’t know why they’re rolling it out in such a large capacity. It really risks putting primary care in a more fragmented state than it already is.”

    MinuteClinic clinicians “are board-certified, highly trained medical professionals who are well-positioned to address gaps in comprehensive primary care access,” CVS said in a statement. The company added that nurse practitioners are qualified to do much of what physicians can, like diagnose and treat illnesses, order, perform and interpret medical tests, and refer patients externally.

    Boston University health, policy and law professor Dr. Alan Sager called the proposal “more primary care smoke and mirrors.”

    “We’d need to rely on experienced, salaried NPs who are already providing primary care — but they’re not sitting in drug stores providing episodic relief,” he said.

    Trade and advocacy groups are waiting for more information. Executive Director of Health Care For All Amy Rosenthal said in a statement that the organization is “interested in learning more about where these (new) clinics will be located and look[s] forward to a Health Policy Commission analysis related to cost.”

    According to an MGB spokesperson, the affiliation will expand access statewide with “a particular focus on regions with demonstrated provider shortages and high avoidable [emergency department] use in areas such as Worcester and Bristol counties as well as Western Massachusetts.”

    Massachusetts Medical Society President Dr. Olivia Liao wrote in a statement to the News Service that “careful consideration” is needed for any proposal that could improve primary care access.

    “We believe patients receive the best possible care when they are served by a physician-led team, supported by other health professionals,” Liao wrote. “While we welcome creative ideas to expand primary care access, we must also focus on lasting solutions: rebuilding our primary care workforce through payment and policy reforms that reduce physician burnout, attract new graduates into the field, and ensure our health system remains strong and sustainable for the future.”

    Health Policy Commission regulators must vet the proposal. After additional paperwork is filed, the agency will launch a 30-day review process. While the HPC cannot block transactions, it can call on other state agencies to consider action to do so.

    CVS said it expects a decision from the Health Policy Commission sometime during the fourth quarter of 2025.

    MGB patients could receive in-network primary care at MinuteClinics should the affiliation be approved, which would offer “enhanced access” to MGB hospitals, specialists, diagnostic and radiology facilities, and specialty labs for comprehensive care coordination, according to CVS. Patients could be referred to an MGB specialist or hospital for coordinated care if deemed necessary.

    “If MGB starts adding more people into the specialist system, they’re just going to decrease access for everybody. It’s just going to make wait times even longer,” Brigham and Women’s Faulkner primary care physician Dr. Andrew Cooper Warren said.

    “What it does do is let MGB claim now that for every one of those 80 advanced practitioners, they can tack on a 1,500-person patient panel and add those patients to their [accountable care organization],” Warren said. “This allows MGB to say, ‘Oh, guess what? We just expanded by X number of patients’ to the insurance companies, and then get paid for those people without actually spending any of their money.”

    CVS called the move a “strategic evolution” of the MinuteClinic care model. Friedman said the potential for increased referrals to the MGB system “is a potentially good business model not necessarily for the patient, but for the system.”

    “It’s the continuation of the consolidation of health care and it’s not working for anybody. Except for businesses who are in the business of health care,” the Arlington Democrat said.

    Asked what she sees as a better solution to improve Massachusetts’ struggling primary care sector, Friedman suggested several systemic overhauls.

    “Get rid of the administrative burden and pay primary care practices enough that they can stay in business. That simple. You want to do something else? Pay for residents to go into primary care,” Friedman said.

    Friedman has filed a bill (S 867) for three sessions that would put into place primary care spending requirements, develop recommendations to stabilize the sector’s workforce, and create a different payment and coverage model. The bill was reported out favorably by the Committee on Health Care Financing in June and sits in Senate Ways and Means, where it died last session.

    “It’s just so upsetting to me that this is what people think of when they think about primary care. This is not primary care,” Friedman said of the proposed partnership. “Primary care, to me, is family medicine, and it happens the minute you’re born until the minute you die. It provides a foundation for health care.”

    MinuteClinic already offers in-network adult primary care to some Aetna members in certain markets in places including Texas, Georgia, South Florida, North Carolina, Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, California, Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland, according to CVS.

    [ad_2]

    Ella Adams

    Source link

  • California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting

    [ad_1]

    California’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort.

    California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections.

    The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress.

    In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort.

    In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature.

    The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as “gut and amend,” where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal.

    The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, the state could enact “significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,” according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon.

    Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters.

    “When I go to a restaurant, I don’t need to meet the chef,” said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz).

    Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission’s work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday.

    If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4.

    On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges.

    After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis).

    “I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,” Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours.

    Tangipa and the committee’s vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort.

    Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation.

    “That’s insanity, and that’s heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,” Tangipa said. “How can you say you actually care about the people of California?

    Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long.

    In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented.

    Tom Willis, Newsom’s campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was “publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.”

    But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn’t answer, because he “wasn’t a part of that process.”

    In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt.

    “This is a partisan gerrymander,” she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. “That’s what we’re talking about here.”

    Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, “It made me salivate.”

    California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state’s independent redistricting rules because they would not “call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.”

    But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill.

    “it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,” the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. “These changes to the Elections Code … would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Laura J. Nelson

    Source link

  • Homeowners demand relief from crumbling foundations

    Homeowners demand relief from crumbling foundations

    [ad_1]

    Homeowners clamoring for state help as they deal with the hefty costs of fixing their crumbling foundations, which could eventually render their houses unlivable, called on Gov. Maura Healey Wednesday to wield her executive power to kickstart a potential solution.

    Advocates with Massachusetts Residents Against Crumbling Foundations say they want Healey to issue an executive order to create a committee to develop recommendations on providing assistance for those dealing with crumbling concrete woes. Those recommendations could form the basis for legislation on a relief plan and account, which advocates say would help people who are on the hook for hundreds of thousands dollars in repair or replacement costs for their deteriorating home foundations, caused by pyrite or pyrrhotite minerals.

    “We are asking for the ability to form a committee to start a captive insurance plan or start a plan that would allow us to get assistance to fix these foundations. We are mirroring a plan that’s already in place and working in the state of Connecticut — they’ve replaced over 1,000 homes,” said Cynthia Poirier, an assessor in Brimfield and Holland. “They use a $1 a month surcharge on homeowners’ polices, no more than $12 a year. The first year alone, if we were able to put that together in Massachusetts, we’d raise close to $22 million.”

    A Healey spokesperson did not directly answer a News Service question about whether the governor is willing to issue an executive order sought by advocates.

    “The Healey-Driscoll Administration recognizes the importance of providing support to homeowners whose concrete foundations are crumbling,” Healey spokesperson Karissa Hand said. “We will continue to work together with our partners in the Legislature to evaluate potential solutions that would provide relief to homeowners.”

    Financial relief proposals have failed to gain momentum on Beacon Hill, despite persistent lobbying from affected homeowners.

    The Senate, in its affordable housing bond bill, unanimously adopted an amendment that would have created a crumbling concrete working group and relief fund. The policy did not survive closed-door conference committee negotiations. Amendment sponsors, including Sens. Peter Durant, Ryan Fattman, Michael Moore and Jake Oliveira, joined with advocates outside the State House Wednesday morning.

    Advocates say more than 40 municipalities are affected by what they call the “crumbling foundation crisis” that stymies affected homeowners from selling or refinancing their houses.

    “My position is we have enough money to spend on so many other things and support so many other people, but we need to support the people that have been paying taxes in all of these towns, with these homes that are no fault of their own,” Monson Select Board member Peter Warren said. “And they’re not getting any support.”

    [ad_2]

    Alison Kuznitz

    Source link

  • DiZoglio blasts legislative leaders in audit

    DiZoglio blasts legislative leaders in audit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Legislature lacks transparency and accountability in its dealings, according to a new state audit, which blasts legislative leaders for refusing to open up their books for the performance review.

    The audit, released Monday by Auditor Diana DiZoglio, faults the state House of Representatives and Senate for failing to conduct timely financial reviews of its spending, a lack of transparency in its procurement policies and a website that makes it difficult for the public to navigate, among other criticisms.

    But DiZoglio also leaned into House and Senate leaders for refusing to provide information her office requested for the audit, including tracking year-end budget spending, how they decide which major bills are brought up for a vote and whether the two chambers are following their own rules regarding non-disclosure agreements.

    “It is deeply concerning that legislative leaders have refused to cooperate with our office to help promote transparency and identify ways to improve service to the people of Massachusetts,” the Democrat said in a statement. “Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy and enable the people to participate in government as intended in our Constitution, in a system of checks and balances.”

    The audit comes as DiZoglio urges voters to approve Question 1, which if approved would force legislative leaders to open up their books for an independent review.

    Under current laws, the auditor has the power to examine “all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth” but the ballot question would expand those powers to specifically include the Legislature.

    The referendum was proposed by DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat and former state lawmaker, whose high-profile efforts to audit the House and Senate have been blocked by legislative leaders who argue the move is unconstitutional.

    The partial audit released on Monday found that the Senate and House didn’t ensure annual financial audits were completed, filed with required recipients, or made available to the public in a timely way, in an apparent violation of their own rules.

    The review also found that the Legislature’s procurement policies lack transparency, which auditors said limit the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable.

    The Massachusetts Legislature’s website also lacks content and is hard to navigate, compared to other state’s legislative bodies, which auditors said “hinders the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.”

    Other concerns flagged by auditors included a lack of details about how legislative leaders appoint committee chairpersons and other posts that bump up lawmaker’s prestige and compensation.

    Legislative leaders were asked to respond to the findings of the audit, but DiZoglio’s office said they declined.

    “The purported audit of the Legislature released by the Auditor today confirms only one thing: the Auditor has abandoned all pretext of faithfully performing her statutory responsibilities in favor of using her office for pure political self-promotion and electioneering,” House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a statement on Monday in response to the report.

    “The Auditor should instead be focusing on her statutorily mandated reviews, as she continues to underperform her predecessors in the completion of that important work,” he added.

    DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation.

    Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    DiZoglio has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in Legislature, which is continuously ranked as one of the least effective and least transparent legislative bodies in the country. It is also one of only four state Legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws, DiZoglio points out.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.

    A panel of six lawmakers who reviewed the proposal issued a report concluding that passage of Question 1 would “undermine the separation of powers between the branches of government.” The report included testimony from constitutional scholars and civics educators who oppose the move.

    Despite that, recent polls have shown voters strongly support Question 1 — one of five referendums on the Nov. 5 ballot — which hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is hitting the road to rally voter support for her ballot campaign to open up the state Legislature’s financial books.

    DiZoglio said she plans to begin a 141-mile trek across Massachusetts to raise awareness of Question 1, which asks voters in the election Nov. 5 to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature.

    She argues that the audit would ensure the Legislature is operating in accordance with government rules and regulations.

    The Methuen Democrat’s “Walking for Sunshine” sojourn was to get underway Friday night in Great Barrington, where she was to meet supporters at a local bar before hitting the long road to Boston.

    DiZoglio said she will meet with voters at nightly events along the way and urge them to “demand greater transparency for the state Legislature” by approving the referendum.

    DiZoglio, a former state lawmaker, launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she has not been able to receive access to the people and records her office needs for a forensic investigation. She has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in state government.

    House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation of the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record suggests she does not have standing to file the legal challenge.

    But DiZoglio and other supporters gathered enough signatures from voters to put the question on the November ballot.

    “We believe taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and they deserve transparency, accessibility and accountability from elected officials,” the Yes on 1 campaign said in a statement.

    “But instead of taking meaningful action that makes life better in the Commonwealth, they continue to be characterized as one of the least efficient, least productive legislatures in the country, plagued by late-night horse trading and closed-door discussions, with constituencies cut out of the process.”

    The state’s restrictive records law consistently earns Massachusetts failing grades from First Amendment groups.

    In 2016, the state overhauled its public records law for the first time in decades, limiting how much state and local governments and police departments may charge for public records and setting deadlines for agencies to respond to requests for information, among other changes.

    But lawmakers left in place many of the exemptions shielding the Legislature, courts and law enforcement agencies from disclosing certain records.

    Recent polls have shown voters strongly support for Question 1 – one of five referendums on the November ballot – which so far has not drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    DiZoglio hits road to promote ballot question

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is hitting the road to rally voter support for her ballot campaign to open up the state Legislature’s financial books.

    DiZoglio said she plans to begin a 141-mile trek across Massachusetts to raise awareness for Question 1, which asks voters in the Nov. 5 elections to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature, which she argues will ensure that it is operating in accordance with government rules and regulations.

    The Methuen Democrat’s “Walking for Sunshine” sojourn gets underway Friday night in Great Barrington, where she will meet supporters at a local bar before hitting the long road to Boston.

    DiZoglio said she will meet with voters at nightly events along the way and urge them to “demand greater transparency for the state Legislature” by approving the referendum.

    A former state lawmaker, DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation. She has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in state government.

    House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.

    The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.

    But DiZoglio and other supporters gathered enough signatures from voters to put the question on the November ballot.

    “We believe taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and they deserve transparency, accessibility and accountability from elected officials,” the Yes on 1 campaign said in a statement. “But instead of taking meaningful action that makes life better in the Commonwealth, they continue to be characterized as one of the least efficient, least productive legislatures in the country, plagued by late-night horse trading and closed-door discussions, with constituencies cut out of the process.”

    The state’s restrictive records law consistently earns Massachusetts failing grades from First Amendment groups.

    In 2016, the state overhauled its public records law for the first time in decades, limiting how much state and local governments and police departments may charge for public records and setting deadlines for agencies to respond to requests for information, among other changes.

    But lawmakers left in place many of the exemptions shielding the Legislature, courts and law enforcement agencies from disclosing certain records.

    Recent polls have shown voters strongly support for Question 1 — one of five referendums on the November ballot — which so far hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

    Newsom signs formal apology for California’s role in slavery

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a formal apology for California’s role in slavery and legacy of racism against Black people as part of a series of reparations bills he approved Thursday.

    “The State of California accepts responsibility for the role we played in promoting, facilitating, and permitting the institution of slavery, as well as its enduring legacy of persistent racial disparities,” Newsom said in a statement. “Building on decades of work, California is now taking another important step forward in recognizing the grave injustices of the past — and making amends for the harms caused.”

    Though California banned slavery in its 1849 Constitution, the state had no laws that made it a crime to keep someone enslaved or require that they be freed, which allowed slavery to continue. A disproportionate representation of white Southerners with pro-slavery views also held office in the Legislature, state court system and in its congressional delegation.

    Assembly Bill 3089, which requires the state to issue a formal apology, also mandates that the California install a plaque memorializing the apology in the state Capitol. Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who introduced the bill, called it a “monumental achievement.”

    “Healing can only begin with an apology,” Jones-Sawyer said in a statement. “The State of California acknowledges its past actions and is taking this bold step to correct them, recognizing its role in hindering the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for Black individuals through racially motivated punitive laws.”

    Despite the bill signings, advocates for reparations have criticized the governor and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on its “first in the nation” effort to study, propose and adopt remedies to atone for slavery that began in 2020.

    After a state task force spent two years developing recommendations for the Legislature, the California Legislative Black Caucus announced a package of priority bills in January focused largely on enacting policy changes in education, healthcare and criminal justice, while omitting cash payments in light of the state’s financial troubles.

    Advocates for reparations have criticized Newsom and Democratic lawmakers for making meager progress on the issue.

    (Laurel Rosenhall / Los Angeles Times)

    Newsom also signed bills to provide new oversight of book bans in California prisons, require that grocery stores and pharmacies give written notice at least 45 days before closing, expand a state law prohibiting discrimination based on hairstyle to include youth sports and to try to increase and track participation in career training education among Black and low-income students, among other legislation.

    But the governor took heat when the Legislature refused to take up other bills for a vote that would have created a California American Freedmen Affairs Agency and established a Fund for Reparations and Reparative Justice to pay for and carry out reparations policies approved by lawmakers.

    A day before signing the legislation issuing a formal apology, Newsom vetoed two other reparations bills. One sought to begin the process of reversing racially motivated land and property seizures under the Freedman Affairs agency that lawmakers declined to approve. The other would have expanded Medi-Cal coverage, pending federal approval, to include benefits for medically supported food and nutrition.

    “This bill would result in significant and ongoing general fund costs for the Medi-Cal program that are not included in the budget,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement.

    [ad_2]

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Gov. Roy Cooper vetoes juvenile crime bill, saying it ‘begins to erode’ NC’s reforms

    Gov. Roy Cooper vetoes juvenile crime bill, saying it ‘begins to erode’ NC’s reforms

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Roy Cooper presides over the monthly Council of State meeting Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2022 at the NCDOT building in Raleigh.

    Gov. Roy Cooper presides over the monthly Council of State meeting Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2022 at the NCDOT building in Raleigh.

    North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper took out his veto stamp to oppose a bill that would require more teenagers facing criminal charges to be tried initially as adults.

    House Bill 834 requires 16- and 17-year-olds who commit certain felonies to be tried first as adults in the state’s superior courts.

    Currently, these teenagers are tried in the state’s juvenile court after a petition is filed. They are transferred over to the state’s superior courts after probable cause is found or they are indicted. The bill includes a mechanism for these cases to be transferred back to juvenile court, The News & Observer previously reported.

    In his statement Friday evening, the Democratic governor wrote that “most violent crimes, even when committed by teenagers, should be handled in adult court. However, there are cases where sentences would be more effective and appropriate to the severity of the crime for teenagers if they were handled in juvenile court, making communities safer. This bill makes this important option highly unlikely and begins to erode our bipartisan ‘Raise the Age’ law we agreed to four years ago.”

    “While a number of Senators worked to make this legislation better than the original bill, I remain concerned that this new law would keep some children from getting treatment they need while making communities less safe. Instead, the legislature should invest significantly more in our juvenile justice system to ensure resources are available to help prevent crimes and appropriately deal with children who break the law,” he wrote.

    Cooper’s veto is unlikely to hold. The General Assembly has a Republican supermajority, allowing it to override Cooper’s stamp if three-fifths of the members of both legislative chambers vote together.

    In the House, all GOP lawmakers voted in support of the latest version of the bill except for Rep. John Faircloth of Guilford County. All but seven Democrats opposed the bill.

    Among those who voted in the Senate, all Republicans and all but four Democrats backed the bill. Those opposing it were Democratic Sens. Mary Wills Bode, Lisa Grafstein, Natalie Murdock and Gladys Robinson.

    Raise the Age and juvenile court

    Raise the Age was passed into law in 2017 and implemented in 2019. It pulled 16- and 17-year-olds accused of misdemeanors and low-level felonies in North Carolina from the adult system into the juvenile justice system.

    During debates in committees and on the House floor before the vote, multiple Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns with the bill rolling back these juvenile protections.

    Those in favor have said the bill is a procedural change allowing the juvenile justice system to function more smoothly. A main proponent of the bill, Robeson County Republican Sen. Danny Britt, said in mid-May during a Senate floor vote that the bill is “trying to deal with these violent A-E felonies, trying to deal with these individuals that are mostly prosecuted in superior court but through a lengthy transfer process, a very convoluted transfer process. What we’re not doing is rolling back Raise the Age.”

    With Raise the Age, “we had the goal of rehabilitating many of the youth who had committed crimes,” said Rep. Amos Quick, a Greensboro Democrat, during a House debate.

    “I don’t think anyone in here is in favor of crime. I certainly am not in favor of crime, but I am in favor of juveniles. Juveniles who commit offenses need rehabilitation, not to have the book thrown at them,” he said. This legislation “is the wrong move to make,” he said.

    The ACLU of North Carolina sent a letter to Cooper urging him to veto the bill.

    “Prosecuting children as adults causes significant harm to young people and does nothing to address the underlying causes of youth crime,” says the letter.

    “The juvenile justice system requires far more accountability, counseling, education, and family involvement than the adult system and it works better,” it says. “Recidivism is significantly higher when children go through the adult system rather than receive the services and punishment from the juvenile system.”

    Under the Dome

    Get the latest news about North Carolina politics from The News & Observer’s award-winning team. Get the free digest sent to your inbox by signing up here.

    Related stories from Charlotte Observer

    Luciana Perez Uribe Guinassi is a politics reporter for the News & Observer. She reports on health care, including mental health and Medicaid expansion; higher education; hurricane recovery efforts and lobbying.Luciana previously worked as a Roy W. Howard Fellow at Searchlight New Mexico, an investigative news organization.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Santa Monica Mayor Campaigns to Amend Transfer Tax

    Former Santa Monica Mayor Campaigns to Amend Transfer Tax

    [ad_1]

    Pam O’Connor, the former mayor of Santa Monica, filed a proposal with the city on March 28 seeking to exclude multifamily properties from Measure GS, or the so-called mansion tax, according to a release last week. 

    Measure GS, which came into effect last year, adds a 5 percent transfer tax on residential and commercial sales with a price of or above $8 million or more. 

    This is the first step in a bid to put this proposal up for a vote in the November elections. After the city issues a summary, O’Connor’s team will have to collect signatures. Her representative was not aware of how many signatures would be required for the initiative to proceed.

    “We’re still trying to determine that,” Adam Englander, a representative for O’Connor, told TRD.

    “Not only will this amendment allow us to meet our state-mandated housing requirements, it will help keep rents lower and prevent displacement,” O’Connor, a planning consultant, said in a statement last week. “Sometimes, initiative measures have unintended consequences that must be fixed.”

    She elaborated further that “most of the housing units subject to Measure GS are apartments and renters — not mansions” and called the “mansion tax” name misleading. 

    “Instead of alleviating the housing crisis, Measure GS has actually undercut the production of much-needed multifamily housing in the city and threatens the financial feasibility of such new development projects,” according to the same statement. 

    Voters passed Measure GS through a ballot measure in November 2022 — the same month voters in the city of Los Angeles passed Measure ULA, a similar initiative that added a 4 percent transfer tax on all sales over $5 million and a 5.5 percent tax on all sales over $10 million.

    If the effort is successful, it would likely encourage developers to take a new look at Santa Monica if they’ve previously shied away from the city due to the new measure.

    “The proposed initiative would remove the mansion tax from apartment buildings to stimulate market-rate and affordable housing production so that more people have a place to live and rents can come down,”said Chris Tourtellotte, who runs multifamily developer LaTerra Development, which has been based in Los Angeles for 15 years. “If the measure is approved, investors and developers will immediately look to build more apartments in Santa Monica.” 

    O’Connor worked for Santa Monica’s city government for over two decades, including several stints as mayor, according to her LinkedIn page. Now she’s as a planning and policy consultant.

    Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom designated Santa Monica as a “prohousing” city, a move that raised some eyebrows since Santa Monica was among the first cities where developers took advantage of the builder’s remedy provision. 

    [ad_2]

    Daria Solovieva

    Source link

  • Washington State’s 60-Day Legislative Session Comes To An End – KXL

    Washington State’s 60-Day Legislative Session Comes To An End – KXL

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE (AP) — Over a busy, 60-day legislative session, Washington state lawmakers made strides to address the opioid crisis and ban a controversial policing practice with bipartisan support, but fell short in getting some of the most progressive bills across the finish line.

    The short session, which marked Jay Inslee’s final one as governor, ended Thursday with over 300 bills heading to the Democratic governor’s desk, 80% of which received bipartisan support, according to Democratic House Speaker Laurie Jinkins. Democrats control the state House by a margin of 58-40 and the Senate by 29-20.

    Overshadowing the session were six initiatives, some of which would overturn Democrats’ biggest recent wins, including the year-old Climate Commitment Act, which works to cap and reduce pollution. Three initiatives were passed by lawmakers, while the others, including the carbon pricing program, will be considered by voters in November.

    Here’s a look at key legislation that passed this session — and some bills that didn’t make it.

    CLIMATE CHANGE
    At the start of the session, Inslee described climate as the biggest long-term issue he wanted to address over the next two months. Lawmakers had some success, including when it came to the carbon pricing program, which features quarterly auctions in which emission allowances are sold to businesses covered under the act. The Legislature approved a bill expected to merge the state’s carbon market with those in California and Quebec, which also have emission allowance auctions, in an effort to expand the market and make it more stable.

    Meanwhile an effort to expand the state’s curbside recycling program fizzled out early on. It would have shifted the responsibility from local governments to the companies producing the waste.

    “We’re the greenest state in the nation and we should have a state-of-the-art recycling system in this state,” said Rep. Beth Doglio, chair of the House Environment & Energy Committee. She said they plan to try again next year.

    HOUSING
    Amid staggeringly high home and rental prices, there were three key strategies lawmakers considered to address the issue, but only one made it through.

    A highly anticipated bill that would bar landlords from increasing rents by more than 7% annually during a rental agreement term made it through the House only to face impenetrable hurdles in the Senate. Democratic Rep. Emily Alvarado, who sponsored the bill, said there was concern among some lawmakers about the impact it could have on new construction.

    “It’s really unfortunate that people would put a hypothetical risk above what is a known and devastating problem for far too many Washingtonians, which is sky rocketing rents,” she said, adding that she will introduce the proposal again next year.

    Another bill requiring 10% of the units in new housing structures around transit hubs to be affordable for lower income residents for at least 50 years met a similar fate. But the bipartisan effort to remove barriers to building micro-apartments made it through the Legislature with nearly unanimous support. The move is predicted to increase the supply of more affordable housing and doesn’t require government subsidies.

    OPIOIDS
    With overdose deaths on the rise in Washington, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed to boost public awareness of the crisis and increase availability of treatment options.

    A bill that requires colleges and universities to provide opioid education to students and make naloxone, the opioid overdose reversal medication, widely available, passed easily through both legislative bodies. And a proposed measure that requires the Department of Health to add an overdose prevention campaign received unanimous support.

    Lawmakers also honed in on the group that has been most harmed by the crisis — tribes. A bipartisan effort to provide nearly $8 million each year for the 29 federally recognized tribes in Washington to address the crisis was met with enthusiastic support. The funds are drawn in part from a roughly half-billion-dollar settlement between the state and major opioid distributors.

    It’s “a reflection and a recognition of both the real challenges the tribes face in their communities and a reflection of the good work they’re already doing and we ought to be helping them out where we can,” said Republican Sen. John Braun, the minority leader in that chamber who sponsored the bill.

    Native Americans and Alaska Natives in Washington die of opioid overdoses at five times the state average, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data that includes provisional numbers for 2021-2022.

    LAW ENFORCEMENT
    Lawmakers made some changes to policing in Washington, including barring law enforcement officials from hog-tying suspects, a restraint technique that has long drawn concern due to the risk of suffocation. Despite some questions from Republicans about smaller jurisdictions potentially not having the money to start using alternative restraints, overall there was widespread support.

    “To pass that bill for the impacted family, as it approaches the anniversary of the death of Manny Ellis, during Black History Month, to do this kind of bill, it just felt like a moment,” said Democratic state Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, who sponsored the bill.

    A conservative-backed initiative to give police greater ability to pursue people in vehicles also made it through the Legislature just days before the session ended. But some have spoken out about the risk it could pose to public safety, amid hundreds of deaths caused by police chases in the U.S. each year.

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Mass. Senate plans another sex education reform vote next week

    Mass. Senate plans another sex education reform vote next week

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Senators next week will vote again on a bill to update the state’s sex education guidelines, something the chamber has already approved four times without getting buy-in from the House.

    The Senate Committee on Ways and Means polled the so-called Healthy Youth Act (S 268) on Thursday morning, getting it ready for action next Thursday in the Senate’s first formal session in four weeks.

    The bill would update Massachusetts’ sexual health laws and create guidelines for districts that opt into teaching sex education to go over human anatomy; how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, AIDS and unwanted pregnancy; effective use of contraceptives; how to safely discuss sexual activity in a relationship; skills to identify and prevent sexual violence and relationship violence; and age-appropriate and affirming education on gender identity and sexual orientation.

    “As I said on the floor the last four times, we know our students are talking about these issues in the classroom or not,” Sen. Sal DiDomenico, the lead sponsor of the Senate bill, said. “If they’re not learning medically-accurate information taught in our classrooms, they’re getting bad information that could have long-term consequences.”

    Though the Senate has voted to remodel the education frameworks four times in the last decade, House Democrats have never taken it up. On the House side, Rep. Jim O’Day has sponsored the bill for the last 10 years, joined by Lowell Rep. Vanna Howard this session and last.

    “When I started on this bill, the last time a framework for healthy youth, for sexual education, was addressed was in 1999,” O’Day said last month as a guest on former Senate President Harriette Chandler’s local cable show. “So here we are now in 2024, where we at least now have a good, solid, well-rounded, medically-accurate, age-appropriate, evidence-based [bill] … and this is not a mandate for this bill. We do now have a framework that if you are going to teach — if you are going to teach — health ed, sexual education, it needs to be consistent with what’s being taught in Framingham or Provincetown or Pittsfield or Worcester.”

    “That’s a disgrace,” Chandler, a supporter of the bill, said when O’Day initially raised the subject.

    The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education updated its sexual health education standards on its own accord last year to mirror some of what the so-called Healthy Youth Act calls for, after Gov. Maura Healey threw her support behind the controversial measure.

    Under the board’s new physical and sex education guidelines, students will receive sex and health education that is intended to be more inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community and teach about bodily autonomy, mental and emotional health, dating safety, nutrition, sexually transmitted infections and consent.

    Neither the guidelines nor DiDomenico and O’Day’s bill would change the Massachusetts law that allows districts to opt-in to teaching sex education. The bill before senators would also require that parents get a letter at the beginning of the school year with details about the sex ed curriculum and the opportunity to opt their child out.

    Asked by the News Service how the bill differs from the updated frameworks the board of education adopted, DiDomenico said passing the Healthy Youth Acts would codify the new guidelines.

    The bill would require data collection on what’s being taught in schools, reported to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education every two years. It would also require that the state revisit the framework every 10 years, as it took 24 years this time around to update the guidelines.

    “Lastly, the framework is more of a suggestion for schools. Healthy Youth is an actual curriculum. And so there’s a lot more flexibility with the framework. Theoretically ‘abstinence only’ can still be taught with the framework,” DiDomenico said. “Under this bill, sex ed would talk about consent, LGBTQ language and healthy relationships as well. It’s a lot more detailed, unlike a suggestion.”

    The senator added that 17 states require sex education to be medically accurate and 26 require it to be age appropriate. Massachusetts is not on either of those lists.

    “I think that’s a pretty compelling argument. Many states across the country have seen the value of this education,” DiDomenico said. “This bill will give students information they need to protect their health, have respectful relationships, and have a better future for themselves. In my mind, it’s just as important as math and science and English.”

    [ad_2]

    Sam Drysdale

    Source link

  • 3 bills targeting transgender students approved by Arizona Senate panel

    3 bills targeting transgender students approved by Arizona Senate panel

    [ad_1]

    Faced with the certainty of Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto, GOP lawmakers are hoping to circumvent her entirely by sending a proposal to voters in November that would restrict how teachers respect the identities of their trans students, and bar those same students from using school facilities that best fit who they are.

    “This bypasses the governor and goes right to the ballot, where — if all the polling I’ve seen is correct —  it’ll probably pass with 60, 65 percent of voters who don’t really believe that this type of stuff should be going on in our schools,” said Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, the proposal’s sponsor, during a Senate Education Committee hearing on Feb. 7. 

    Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013 combines two bills rejected by Hobbs last year that targeted preferred pronoun use and inclusive policies in schools. The proposal would ask voters to require that teachers obtain written parental permission before using a student’s preferred pronouns or name and mandate that schools separate their restrooms, locker rooms and sleeping accommodations by biological sex and provide a single-occupancy alternative for trans students. 

    Schools that allow trans students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity would open themselves up to lawsuits from cisgender students, who could win monetary damages for their “psychological, emotional and physical harm.” And school employees with a “religious or moral conviction” against using preferred pronouns or names would be protected from being forced to comply with a student’s request — even if that student’s parents gave their express written permission. 

    Samual Kahrs, a trans teen, implored lawmakers on the panel to kill the measure, saying that schools are often the only supportive places for young people navigating their identities. Kahrs first came out at school at 11, and the acceptance of his teachers helped persuade his mother. 

    Making it more difficult for teachers to create an affirming environment in school is a mistake, he warned, and jeopardizes the mental health of trans youth across the state. 

    “I remember the first day my teachers called me Samual, and it was the best day of my life,” Kahrs said. “I’m begging you to vote no on this. I’m begging you to just leave trans kids alone.”

    click to enlarge

    Transgender teen Samual Kahrs spoke out against anti-trans bills during a legislative hearing on Feb. 7.

    ACTV

    Measure will ‘harm god knows how many kids’

    The committee, which is made up of four Republicans and three Democrats, voted 4-3 along party lines to approve the measure and send it to the full Senate for consideration.

    Sen. Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix, denounced the GOP’s push to move its legislative hostility directly to voters. She said she fears what the effects will be on trans youth if they’re forced to contend with an anti-trans ballot campaign. 

    While Arizona Republicans have increasingly focused on anti-trans laws and rhetoric in recent years — succeeding in passing a trans athletic ban and a prohibition on gender-affirming surgeries for minors under former Republican governor Doug Ducey — LGBTQ+ advocates hoped the election of Hobbs, a Democrat, would help prevent any more discriminatory laws. And that has largely been the case, with Hobbs vetoing a bevy of anti-LGBTQ proposals last year, including several that sought to criminalize drag performers and another that would have allowed domestic violence shelters to discriminate against trans women

    But, if GOP lawmakers send Kavanagh’s proposal to the November ballot, it’s likely that a wide-reaching messaging effort from anti-LGBTQ+ groups to convince voters to support it would emerge. 

    “This will become a debate on a statewide level, harming god knows how many kids, forcing them into further isolation and harassment,” Marsh said. “I think that the effect of that will be incalculable.” 

    Also considered and approved by the Republican-majority Senate Education Committee on Feb. 7 were two revised iterations of Kavanagh’s pronoun and bathroom ban from last year. Kavanagh reworked the bills on the off-chance that, in their pared down forms, Democrats and Hobbs might be more amenable to supporting them. 

    Senate Bill 1166 requires a public school to notify a parent within five days of the first time their child requests the use of preferred pronouns or a name that doesn’t match the biological sex or given name the child was enrolled under. The caveat shielding school employees who refuse to honor the student’s request was still included in the new version. 

    Kavanagh said he hopes the revisions will result in less opposition from Hobbs, noting that this year’s iteration simply requires a parental notification and doesn’t prevent teachers from using a student’s preferred pronouns or name until parental permission is obtained, like last year’s version. 

    Parents need to be kept in the loop, he added, pointing to gender dysphoria as the reasoning for the notification requirement. Gender dysphoria is a medical condition in which a person feels extreme discomfort when their biological sex isn’t aligned with their gender identity.

    “Students that identify with a different gender than their biological sex at birth have a recognized psychiatric disorder called gender dysphoria, which sometimes manifests itself with depression and even suicidal thoughts,” Kavanagh said. “So, if the school knows that a student has this, I think it’s really incumbent (on them) and their responsibility to at least let the parents know what’s going on.” 

    But LGBTQ+ Arizonans, who crowded the hearing room to speak out against the proposals, disputed that justification. Erica Keppler, a trans woman, said that suicidality among trans youth isn’t caused by gender dysphoria, but rather by the lack of social acceptance and sometimes outright hostility they deal with.

    “No one commits suicide because they are gender dysphoric. They do it because family and society won’t accept them or allow them to live as their true selves,” she said. “The biggest threat to the lives and futures of gender dysphoric youth are unaccepting parents.”

    Removing the ability of schools to be welcoming, Keppler added, would only exacerbate the distress trans youth feel. A 2022 national survey from the Trevor Project found that only 32% of transgender respondents thought of their homes as supportive, compared to 51% who found their schools to be affirming.

    And while suicidality among transgender youth is disproportionately high, research shows that simply respecting their preferred pronouns and names can decrease that risk by as much as 65%.

    click to enlarge Sen. Ken Bennett

    Sen. Ken Bennett, chair of the Senate Education Committee, voiced concerns about the bills targeting transgender students. But he voted for them anyway on Feb. 7.

    ACTV

    Senator concerned about bills, OKs them anyway

    The testimony from several speakers echoed the criticism made against last year’s bills. Both measures were denounced for threatening to expose the identities of questioning students to their parents without their consent, and both were accused of greenlighting the disrespect of LGBTQ+ students by protecting school employees who disagree with preferred pronoun use.

    Skylar Morrison, a trans teenager, urged lawmakers not to make high school more difficult for her and her gender nonconforming classmates. She warned that the bill forces trans youth to come out to their parents, and not all families are welcoming. 

    “Requiring a parent or guardian to be notified puts vulnerable students at risk — particularly those with unsupportive families — jeopardizing their mental health and, unfortunately, in a lot of cases their physical well-being,” she said. 

    Kavanagh disputed that claim, however, arguing that the vast majority of parents are supportive. And he defended the provision that protects dissenting school employees by saying that many laws include religious carve-outs to acknowledge the rights of Arizonans with different beliefs. 

    The bill received lukewarm approval from Sen. Ken Bennett, Senate Education Committee chair, who said he objected to the religious and moral shield because it was too broad. The Republican from Prescott similarly criticized last year’s version, but repeatedly voted for it anyway. 

    With his voice shaking from emotion, Bennett told lawmakers on the committee that he found it difficult to consider the bill, despite being an advocate for parental rights, both because of his Mormon faith and because he has close relatives who would have been affected by the bill if it had become law when they were still attending school. 

    “The author of the faith that I believe said, at least in my opinion, about the worst thing you can do in this thing we call life, is offend a child,” he said. “So, I find myself nearing that point where it’s very difficult to advance this legislation in the way that it’s written.”

    Ultimately, Bennett joined the other Republicans on the panel to move the measure out of the committee on a 4-3 vote, with the addendum that significant changes would need to be made to earn his support on the Senate floor.

    click to enlarge Sen. Justine Wadsack

    Sen. Justine Wadsack, who targeted LGBTQ+ people in the 2023 legislative session, was among Republicans who voted for three anti-transgender bills on Feb. 7.

    ACTV

    Bills criticized for targeting trans youth

    Senate Bill 1182, focuses on mandating that schools separate shower facilities by biological sex, and prohibit transgender students from accessing shower areas consistent with their gender identity. Schools would be required to provide a separate showering space for transgender students who refuse to use the areas designated for them on the basis of their biological sex, or else face lawsuits from uncomfortable cisgender students.

    Kavanagh noted that he would have preferred that the proposal retain its original form, which required the same rules for bathrooms, locker rooms and sleeping areas, whether on school grounds or during school trips, but said he felt it was necessary to focus on the most “egregious” issue. 

    “This bill simply says a 15-year-old biological female should not have to stand next to, terrified or certainly very uncomfortable, a 20-year-old biological male who identifies as a different gender,” he said. 

    Kavanagh has frequently invoked alarming imagery to defend his school facilities bills — of which this is the third iteration — but has been unable to provide any examples of the hypothetical situation occurring in an Arizona public school. When pressed for evidence by Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday, he was still unable to offer any.

    Lisa Bivens, an attorney who has represented teachers in court, warned lawmakers that the bill is too vague and would burden schools with lawsuits until the legal parameters can be clarified by the courts. 

    The proposal prohibits transgender students from using showers consistent with their gender identity if people of the opposite biological sex “are or could be” present. That language, Bivens said, depends on a theoretical possibility that would be hard for judges to determine. And a provision stating that the bill doesn’t seek to prevent schools from accommodating young children in need of physical assistance during showers only adds further questions, she said. 

    “How are my clients supposed to know when the child is young enough or the need is great enough?” she asked. “I am worried our educators will be put into positions where they hesitate to help students because they are unsure what is permitted.” 

    Dawn Shim, a Chandler High School student who is nonbinary and founded a student-led organization to call for protections for LGBTQ+ Arizonans and speak out against hostile legislation, pushed back on Kavanagh’s claims. There is no problem for the proposal to resolve, she said, because shower facilities in schools already have single-occupancy, separated stalls.  

    “Every single year, we hear bills that needlessly target trans youth and demonstrate ignorance towards the basic functions of public schools,” they said. “This anti-trans shower bill is a needless measure that only serves one purpose: to exclude transgender youth.”

    Gaelle Esposito, a trans woman and a lobbyist for the Arizona branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the bill likely violates federal nondiscrimination protections. Title IX prohibits schools that receive federal funds from engaging in sex-based discrimination, including on the basis of gender identity. Ultimately, Esposito said, the proposal would only serve to hurt trans youth still navigating their identities and the reactions of those around them. 

    “It is stigmatizing and it is discriminatory to expel trans young people from common spaces. No one should be told that they are so shameful that they shouldn’t be allowed in the proximity of their peers,” she said. 

    The committee voted to approve the bill 4-3, with only Democrats in opposition. Bennett once more warned that his vote on the Senate Floor is not guaranteed.

    This story was first published by Arizona Mirror, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

    [ad_2]

    Gloria Rebecca Gomez | Arizona Mirror

    Source link