Kaufman touts Legislature's accomplishments during recent session
State Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, together with most of his Democratic and Republican colleagues, joined to celebrate recent session accomplishments as the legislature headed into the holiday recess. Before the session closed, the legislature passed major bills dealing with economic development, municipal employee health insurance, civil rights, alimony, redistricting, and pension reform.
“After a slow start, this has turned into one of the most productive sessions in memory. We passed a sound budget, modernized public employee health insurance laws, reformed hiring and promotion practices in the troubled Department of Probation, completed major pension reform, and completed the difficult redistricting process with a much-heralded new map that includes 20 majority-minority districts (including 4 new majority Hispanic districts and three new majority Black districts)” said Kaufman. “We also took a strong stand on civil rights and public safety, passing anti human trafficking and transgender equal rights bills,” he added. He also offered that “my only reservation about the work we did this past year is a deep sense of disappointment that the legislature chose to open the state to casino gambling. I doubt the job and revenue projections that influenced many of my colleagues, and continue to be concerned about the social ills and the economic dislocation casinos will bring to the citizens and communities in the areas around the new facilities. I accept the legislature’s decision, but I stand by my vote in opposition.”
As Revenue Committee chair, Representative Kaufman led the fight to create a special commission to examine the Tax Expenditure Budget, a maze of tax loopholes that have accumulated but, until now, escaped review. The Commission is scheduled to issue its recommendations in the spring. This year also saw the unveiling of another of Kaufman’s priorities, the state’s new online checkbook-level budget detail to make the state’s finances completely transparent.
It also saw major pension reform, with much of the new law tracking recommendations Kaufman proposed five years ago as part of a special commission that included Lexington resident, economist, and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond.
Other highlights include
· Public employee health insurance reform, many years in the making, now allows cash-strapped cities and towns to offer benefits more in line with other public and private sector markets.
· The new law cracking down on human trafficking mandates that anyone involved in the organization of forced labor and sexual servitude will face tough criminal penalties.
· After nearly six years of working on the transgender equal rights bill, supporters of the bill rejoiced at it received a strong endorsement from the House and Senate. The transgender equality bill extended civil rights and hate crime protection to our state’s transgender residents who suffer from bias-related violence and employment, housing, and education discrimination.
· The House and Senate worked together to pass legislation that cracks down on habitual criminal offenders. This bill aims to keep habitual criminals off the streets and keep us safe.
· The legislature passed new guidelines to determine the form, amount and duration of alimony payments. The bill resolves years of controversy and debate, and largely tracks the recommendations of a special commission that worked to reform an out-of-date alimony law and equally dysfunctional practices.
· The House and Senate passed the so-called Evergreen Law, collective bargaining language that resolves uncertainty about what happens when an employment contract expires and has not yet been replaced with a new agreement.
The challenging and consequential debate about casino gaming in Massachusetts has resumed. The bill reported out of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies and the House Ways and Means Committee is, in large part, very similar to the bill voted on in the House of Representatives last session. After carefully studying the bill, learning all that I could about the experience of other states (both those that have and those that do not have casinos and/or slot machines), and after having my own judgments sharpened by contacts from and conversations with the voters who sent me to Beacon Hill, I voted “no” last session and voted “no” once again this session.
I have not done so lightly. For one, the Speaker of the House, Robert DeLeo, who I like, respect, and serve as a member of his leadership team, is the lead sponsor of the proposal and has made it clear that he has strong feelings about it. For another, I believe that the Chairman, Joseph Wagner, and the members of the Committee on Economic Development have given a great deal of careful thought to the bill. It is rooted in a thorough knowledge of the experience of other states and represents careful drafting of language on the myriad issues associated with bringing legalized gaming to the Commonwealth.
I just see things differently than they do.
I share their commitment to the jobs they seek to create. I just do not have their faith in their projections. That there will be short-term construction jobs is unquestionable, but I do not see the prospect for many permanent positions. After considering all the additional factors, I feel the price of any new jobs that would be created is too high.
I also do not subscribe to the rosy picture of new revenues for the Commonwealth. For one, there is increasing evidence that the market for casinos is – or soon will be – saturated. I am not sure we can count on the gaming locations this bill will create for anything close to the kinds of money that some anticipate. Some of the new gaming gains will also be offset by fewer dollars raised by the already-existing form of gambling in Massachusetts, the state lottery. Additionally, some, perhaps all too many, of the dollars spent at casinos will not be spent in the restaurants, theatres, and shops on the Main Streets of the towns that will host and be neighbors to this new industry. I fear that this industry will not grow the economy so much as reshape it in ways that, in my opinion, could and should be avoided. While the proposal has gained favor in part because of our currently weak economy, this new industry will do nothing to counter the impact of future economic cycles. Its fortunes will rise and fall with economic trends, simply adding to rather than offsetting the weight and consequences of the dynamic market.
That this new industry will attract and generate revenue from many who cannot afford to play the tempting but long odds of a big payoff is beyond question. In earmarking some of the anticipated revenue for services for compulsive gamblers, the bill acknowledges that some of our neighbors and family members will join their ranks. The social costs of casino-encouraged gambling include higher crime, bankruptcy, divorce, and suicide rates. I think we can do better than have our state’s budget dependent on gambling losses.
The bill, in addition to authorizing three destination casinos, also allows for the licensure of one slot machine parlor. These machines are not your grandfather’s one-armed bandits. They are programmed to addict. They will hook new gamblers and we will be hooked on the revenues from these predatory devices. Moreover, by allowing casino gaming and slot parlors for the first time in Massachusetts, we are guaranteeing that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, the state’s sovereign Indian tribes will open their own gaming facilities, competing with and adding to the weighty consequences of the three sites authorized in the bill.
In the end, I am disappointed because I believe this bill will only help us avoid confronting difficult but critical debates about how we should raise revenue in the Commonwealth. Our current tax system does not provide the resources that we need. It is regressive, taxing the poorest among us the most. It is structurally unstable, resulting in the need to cut services in a down economy, just as our citizens need those services the most. Gambling will now be another piece of an unstable, regressive revenue system. To the extent it is successful, the lure of those dollars will further lull us into complacency and dull the passion for comprehensive revenue reform. I asked for the chairmanship of the legislature’s Committee on Revenue because I believe such reform is desperately needed. I see the casino vote as a setback for that effort.
More debate and a vote on this bill will soon follow in the Senate, and then perhaps again after the Governor reviews any bill that might arrive on his desk. The action of the House in endorsing gambling in Massachusetts is certainly not the panacea some hope it will be. The challenges of creating good jobs and a sustainable economy remain. The challenges of fixing our broken revenue system remain. I appreciate the many calls, letters, emails, and conversations offering thoughts on the casino debate that is now ahead of us, and look forward to your ideas about the challenges and opportunities to come.
(Sep. 1, 2011) - There’s no denying the excitement when a major motion picture production comes to your neighborhood. Increasingly, in recent years, movie making has moved out of the Hollywood soundstages to our streets and hometowns. Producers hunt for attractive locations and, in the parlance of today’s motion picture industry, “attractive” is measured, in part, by the lucrative incentives states offer to bring the production into town.
Enter the Commonwealth and its film tax credit. That credit – which a filmmaker can sell to raise money - has brought the promise of jobs, increased tourism, and state and local revenue, along with movie stars, our state on the big screen, and Oscar-nominated films showing off the Commonwealth.
But the film tax credit has also cost the Commonwealth’s treasury hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, money not available for educating our youth, providing public safety, or funding public works and critical human services. How do we know if this tradeoff is worth it?
The film tax credit is one of the most controversial tax incentive programs.
Recent studies from the film industry, the Tax Foundation, the University of Massachusetts, and the Department of Revenue suggest widely divergent returns on the millions we’ve invested. The program gets mixed reviews, in part, because there is no agreement about how to measure its effect. How do we count the number of direct and indirect jobs associated with a film production, and what taxes – on salaries paid now and on the film’s profits realized later – result from that production? How do you really measure increased tourism and the intangible benefits it brings? How do you determine if the benefits of this tax incentive outweigh the attendant reduction in funding for other programs? Should the average taxpayer foot the bill for local film making?
The controversy surrounding the film tax credit is, in many ways, reflective of the larger issue with all tax credits. We have no system in place that identifies the public policy goal of our many tax credits and accounts for the public costs and benefits. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue, in a document called the Tax Expenditure Budget, produces an annual report of all the credits, exemptions, and deductions associated with our state’s sales, corporate, and income taxes. Add them up, and we annually forego an estimated $20 billion, an amount approximately equal to the revenue the state collects each year. While many of us would defend some of the expenditures, we need a serious public conversation about how we decide which ones we are willing to prioritize and pay for.
We recently took a major step in this direction, creating a special commission to “review and evaluate the administration and fiscal impacts of tax expenditures” and to provide recommendations for how to improve the evaluation of current tax expenditures and proposals in the future.
The Committee on Revenue recently advanced a bill to go beyond the study commission and establish a permanent tax expenditure oversight board. It would put in place a three-year review cycle for each item in the tax expenditure budget, require a clearly identified public policy purpose for any exception to our taxes, and require specific metrics that will allow us to evaluate the efficacy of a tax credit, as well as an accounting of anticipated costs and benefits.
It would give consideration to sunset clauses and clawback provisions so that taxpayers don’t get left with the bill when an investment doesn’t pay off. Finally, it would mandate complete public disclosure so that we, the people, can keep watch.
To date, there’s more heat than light in the debate over the film tax credit and tax incentive programs in general. The commission and the proposed permanent oversight board offer the promise of an important public conversation and the hope that we’ll stop flying blind on these incentives. For now, let’s just call that a wrap.
2011-2012 session kicks off!
Representative Kaufman was pleased to be reappointed House Chair of the Joint Committee on Revenue on January 28.
He has filed a number of bills for the 2011-2012 legislative session, and those can be found on the "issues and links" portion of this website under "legislative priorities."
The differences between the candidates and propositions on the November 2nd ballot are stark. Here are my thoughts on the choices before us.
Question 1 proposes to repeal the sales tax on alcohol. In the name of fairness, we exempt basic necessities like food and clothing from our sales tax. Alcohol simply does not qualify as a necessity and should not be exempt. Moreover, the money raised by this tax funds essential alcohol treatment and control programs that would be dangerously under-funded if Question 1 passes. Vote NO.
Question 2 proposes to eliminate the state’s affordable housing law. While the law is not without its shortcomings, its repeal would be far worse, leaving us with no program to promote affordable housing in Massachusetts. Vote NO.
Question 3 would reduce the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%. It would mean a revenue loss of $2½ billion and have catastrophic consequences for every single public service - schools, public safety, environmental protection, elder services, local aid, etc. Tax watchdog groups of all political stripes agree that it is more than a bad idea; it is dangerous. Vote NO.
Governor: Deval Patrick is an inspirational leader with the courage, ability and will to think outside the box and beyond the next election or news cycle. His leadership has yielded pension, ethics and transportation reform that eluded his predecessors. His economic policies moderated the impact of the Great Recession and have sped recovery. And he has much important work to do and I’m eager for his partnership with mine.
Treasurer: Steve Grossman is a hard-working champion of social and economic justice and a model public servant. He speaks passionately about critical social concerns and his kind heart is paired with the sharp mind and experience we need in a Treasurer. He knows how to manage the books and ensure our investments are sound and money spent wisely.
Auditor: Suzanne Bump has a well-deserved reputation for diligence and creativity on issues of government accountability. Given the responsibilities of the Auditor’s office, you can’t ask for a better person. She will bring new energy and direction to the office and we have already begun working together on tax fairness and pension reform proposals.
Governor’s Council: Terrence Kennedy is the man to fill the open seat in the 6th District. He’s a hard working lawyer with the judgment required to oversee judicial appointments and review state expenditures.
REVENUE OVERVIEW PRESENTATIONAs the House Chair of the Legislature's Joint Committee on Revenue, I have conducted a series of discussions, both inside and outside
of the State House, on tax policy. In order to foster an informed conversation, the above presentation provides a snapshot of our current revenue situation
as well as a set of metrics to evaluate where we are and where we should go. I welcome your thoughts on the issue of taxes.
In my experience on Beacon Hill, few bills have been more controversial, complicated and consequential than the bill just passed to address the state’s under-performing students and school districts. The complexity and sheer number of issues addressed by this legislation have had me studying, thinking and rethinking for months. My process was all the more complicated for the four radically different versions of the bill that have been before the legislature over the past two months and the wide range of divergent interpretations and opinions expressed along the way.
In the end, I voted for the final version of the bill, although not without some misgivings. I firmly believe that to not have done so would have had serious adverse consequences.
There were two compelling reasons to vote “yes.” The persistent achievement gap – the disturbing and stubbornly large number of poorly educated students in school systems across the Commonwealth - poses a serious threat to both economic vitality and socio-economic justice in our state. That failing schools and failing students are concentrated in areas with the poorest and most disadvantaged among us means that our debate was at the intersection of education policy and social policy. It also meant that old policies and approaches had failed and business as usual was simply not good enough. The new law targets only the worst performing schools, and the lives of students in those schools demanded positive action. It remains for us to deliver on the promise of the new law to better serve those students but a “no” vote would have had us turn our backs on them yet again, and I was not prepared to do that.
There was a second, political, reason for voting “yes.” A proposed initiative petition eliminating the cap on the number of charter schools in the Commonwealth was destined to pass in November. While there are compelling arguments for charter schools, many serving the very districts targeted by the new law, the initiative petition threatened to completely undermine public school finances and public school systems in every district. The expansion of charter school options in the targeted districts that is part of the new law means that the initiative petition will not be on the ballot, and for that we should all be very grateful.
My major misgivings were also two in number. First, I believe that the bill could have done a much better job of balancing the need for major reforms with protection of educators’ rights. Both major teachers unions opposed the final version of the bill, and I agree that we could and should have done better. But politics is the art of the possible and I joined a majority of House and Senate members in swallowing hard as we knowingly compromised those rights in the name of student achievement. I take some comfort in the fact that these compromises were limited to a very small number of chronically failing districts, but compromises they were. Earlier in our deliberations, I had voted for amendments, included in the House version of the bill, which better addressed teachers’ rights. I would certainly have preferred if these provisions had been included in the bill that emerged from the Conference Committee that had to reconcile differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill. Sadly, they were not. Under our rules, Conference Committee actions are not subject to amendment and I was left to weigh the pros and cons of what was before us. Our students needed us to address the shortcomings of some of our school systems, and I cast my vote with them in mind, my disappointment with the bill notwithstanding.
Second, the new law empowers local and state education officials to step in to improve student performance in failing schools. We now need to hold those officials to the task. I am not celebrating passage of the new law. I’ll celebrate when the success of governance changes we have made can be measured in terms of student outcomes. If we can finally address some of the nutritional, linguistic, economic and social challenges that are associated with high student failure rates in some of our communities, then we can declare victory. The new law envisions that victory and leaves us newly empowered to achieve it. We now need the persistence, the skill and the will to get there.
To end on a positive note, the new law includes two provisions of enormous importance. One of the most serious problems with charter schools in Massachusetts is how they are funded. Sadly, opening a charter school has entailed further straining and draining the budget of local school districts. While the new law does not solve this problem, it increases state funding to offset the budgetary losses associated with students enrolling in a charter school. More significantly, a provision that I sponsored to address underlying school finance issues was incorporated into the final bill. We have long needed a serious analysis of the true cost of public education in the Commonwealth. There is a court challenge to the way we fund schools and both the law and common sense point to the importance of identifying the financial resources and the real cost of providing good public education in communities across the state. I have been trying for at least six years to start down this road, and am happy to report that, with the passage of the new law, we have taken the first major step.
The new law and the process that produced it are far more complicated and nuanced than this brief write-up can cover, and I’d welcome your thoughts both on the issues I’ve addressed and on any other aspects of the many versions of the bill or of the new law. And I’d welcome your vigilance as we monitor the results of this newly-launched effort.
Rep. Kaufman would like to inform his constituents in Lexington that the League of Women Voters
will be providing rides to the polls all day on January 19, the date of the special election for United
States Senator. For more information, please call 781-862-6498.
The Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield) and Representative Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) is about to begin a five-stop listening tour to encourage public conversation about possible revenue reform measures. You will find a schedule below of our sessions across the state. We do not have any specific proposals in mind, but are hoping you’ll join us in listening to each others' thoughts. We will be in listening mode, tapping the deep reservoir of expertise and opinion in the public. As you’ll see from the schedule, while we will invite comments on any aspect of our revenue policy, each event will also have a specific focus in the hope of inviting commentary that is both broad and deep.
We will be opening each session with a brief snapshot of our current revenue structure. We will not, either in the presentation or in the call for comments, encourage a lot of talk about either raising or lowering taxes, but rather try to focus citizens’ remarks on the mix of taxes and/or new ideas about how we ought to be raising revenue if not the present mix.
We hope you’ll be able to join us for one or more of these events across the state.
Worcester- Tax Policy and the Challenges of Local Government
October 7th
4:00pm to 6:00pm
The Academy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Framingham- Tax Policy and Vulnerable Populations
October 13th
10:00am to 12:00pm
Framingham Senior Center
Pittsfield- Tax Policy as a Tool for Economic Development
October 21st
10:00am to 12:00pm
Berkshire Community College
Fall River- Tax Policy and the Taxation of Property
October 28th
6:00pm to 8:00pm
Advanced technical and manufacturing Center at UMASS Dartmouth at Fall River >
Cambridge- Tax Policy and Working Families
November 5th
6:00pm to 8:00pm
Cambridge City Hall -- (PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN LOCATION)
Statement on the Passing of Senator Kennedy
(8/26/09):
This is a profoundly sad day for those of us who care deeply about social and
economic justice and believe in the power of government to do something about it.
We have lost a passionate statesman whose voice and spirit we must honor by continuing his work.
I will miss him as a partner and a mentor. His deep caring for both noble causes and ordinary people,
his work ethic, his ability to pay attention to the details while simultaneously
keeping his eyes on the prize, his mastery of the art of legislating,
and his skill in crafting and delivering a powerful and inspiring message
have shaped his historic career and made me proud to be a colleague, constituent, and ally.
My heart goes out to his family and to all of us
who are part of his public family.
Naturopathy Op-Ed
8/09
By Dr. Maxine Hayes, MD, MPH
and Representative Jay Kaufman
Once again, Massachusetts has the opportunity to transform its health care system—this time in the field of
alternative and complementary health care. The Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Bill has been reintroduced
to the legislature in 2009 and his its first hearing on July 28th in front of the Joint Committee on
Public Health. Having passed the Senate and the House in successive legislative sessions, this bill
has an excellent chance of reaching the Governor’s desk. Gov. Patrick should add his signature to
enact this law to improve the health and safety of Massachusetts residents, and keep the Commonwealth
in the forefront of progressive health care policies.
This bill establishes a licensing system for Naturopathic Doctors—ensuring that those using the
title are trained experts who have met the highest standards of the profession. Massachusetts need
only look to the state of Washington to see how valuable it is to regulate the practice of
naturopathic medicine. Washington state (where Dr Hayes is the State Health Officer) has
licensed Naturopathic Doctors since 1987. Naturopathic Doctors (ND's) are an important
component of the health care system in Washington. ND's are experts in natural medicine
and preventative care. They seek to treat the underlying causes of a patient’s symptoms,
using natural and alternative therapies to help the body restore itself to wellness.
Because of the growing interest in complementary and alternative medicine, Washingtonians
increasingly use the services of Naturopathic Doctors.
Washington has stringent licensing and continuing education standards, similar to those proposed
in the Massachusetts bill, to ensure that the state’s Naturopathic Doctors have the skills and
training to provide their patients with the best quality care. There is strong collaboration between
naturopathic and conventional practitioners—ND's refer patients for a wide variety of
surgical and other procedures outside their scope of practice, while conventional
physicians collaborate with or refer patients to Naturopathic Doctors for less invasive,
but effective, natural therapies.
Having access to highly-trained Naturopathic Doctors has been a boon to the health care system
in Washington, and has allowed us to meet a growing need for highly trained, competent alternative
health care practitioners. It has also led to the award of a number of important
federal research grants on complementary and alternative medicine. But regulating
naturopathic doctors does more than give patients access to the quality care they
seek—it also protects their health and safety.
Fifteen states already have naturopathic licensing laws. However, in states without licensing
laws, it is possible for anyone to set up shop as a Naturopathic Doctor, even those
with little or no training and who are not qualified to practice medicine. Many unaccredited
institutions offer Internet courses or distance education courses in “naturopathic”
medicine that are of little educational value, and will award “diplomas” to anyone
who will pay their fees. Because the profession is entirely unregulated in Massachusetts,
the state is vulnerable to the threat that individuals without the training to practice
medicine will call themselves “Naturopathic Doctors.”
Unregulated practitioners of medicine pose a great danger to the public due to their lack of
knowledge and promotion of dangerous and ineffective therapies. And patients are
left confused and vulnerable—unless they become experts in the naturopathic medical
educational system, consumers have little way to evaluate who is a reputable
Naturopathic Doctor and who isn’t. In some cases, treatments by unqualified practitioners who use the title Naturopathic Doctor have led to wrongful deaths.
The legislature should pass the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Bill it because it protects
consumer health and safety . and would help fill the growing gap for quality
health services, just as it has filled this need in Washington. Patients will
finally have peace of mind that, when they seek out naturopathic medicine,
they will receive the best care the profession has to offer.
Dr. Maxine Hayes, MD, MPH is the Washington State Health Officer. She’s a
member of the Board of Trustees for Bastyr University, a naturopathic
medical school. She’s a clinical professor of pediatrics at the
University of Washington School of Medicine and is on the faculty in
the University of Washington School of Public Health. Dr. Hayes
received her MPH from the Harvard School of Public Health.
Representative Jay Kaufman, lead sponsor of the licensure bill,
represents Lexington, Arlington and Woburn in the Massachusetts House of Representatives.
He chairs the Committee on Revenue.
Representative Kaufman finds this very concerning and will strongly voice his opposition to any reduction
in service of the 62 and 76 bus routes. If you are interested in adding your voice, please read the
Lexington Minuteman article about this topic and the actions you can take.
ARLINGTON, MASS. - MWRA announced that six Arlington students have won MWRA's annual poster contest.
· Tate Kokubo, second-grader, Peirce School, won first place
· Telden Lopes-Lotufo, second-grader, Peirce School, won second place
· Henry Walters, Ryan Hamilton and Abigail Mooney, all second-graders at Peirce School, and Emma Kuper, grade 7, Ottoson Middle School, won honorable mentions.
This year, students across Massachusetts were asked to create posters about greener alternatives to common household products. The contest winners were honored at an awards ceremony held at MWRA's Deer Island facility on May 22. State Representative Jay R. Kaufman awarded the Arlington students with special citations from the Commonwealth.
Steering Our Way to Safer Driving
July 23, 2009--
Of late, we have been treated to many graphic stories of carnage on the road caused by operators who drive
recklessly, negligently, impaired, distracted, or all of the above. In the past two years, we’ve taken
some major steps. We had compelling data on the connection between drinking and driving, and we raised
the stakes for those who drive drunk and now take the keys away from repeat offenders. We had equally
compelling data on the accident rate for inexperienced drivers, and we now require more supervised
driving time before granting a license. Now it’s time for the Legislature to follow these important
reforms and address problems associated with cell phones and with aging.
More and more of us send and receive calls and text messages while driving. Not surprisingly,
traffic accident statistics have tracked the increased use of cell phones.
Let’s start with the obvious. You cannot simultaneously watch the road and be looking
at your cell phone screen. You cannot compose or read text messages or look at your phone to
dial or see who’s calling and be a safe driver.
What about hands-free and voice-activated cell phones? Every available study shows that cell phone
activity while driving compromises driver safety. A 2006 University of Utah study indicates that
using a cell phone while driving slows reaction time to that of someone who is legally drunk.
A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study found that engaging in a telephone conversation reduced the amount
of brain activity used for driving by 37%. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that
the simple task of dialing a cell phone tripled the risk an accident. The National Highway
and Transportation Safety Authority’s data indicates that drivers using cell phones are four
times more likely to get into accidents and injure themselves.
Police reports link the distraction of cell phones to 25% of reported crashes. If honest, most of
us would admit to knowing this not because of some studies but because of our own experience.
Some might offer arguments about personal rights and government intrusion, but the facts are clear.
Cell phone use, like alcohol, diminishes your ability to operate a vehicle and react behind the wheel.
Currently, no state bans the use of cell phones while driving. Five states (California, Connecticut,
New Jersey, New York, and Washington) prohibit talking on hand-held phones and fourteen states
ban text messaging while driving.
What should we do?
• Ban composing or reading text messages and keeping a focus (even briefly) on a screen rather than the
road while driving.
• Violations should be treated seriously, the equivalent of driving to endanger.
• This should be considered a primary offense; police should have the right to stop you for
texting and watching the screen rather than the road, even if you’re not violating some other
traffic law (e.g. speeding) at the same time.
• Information from your cell provider should be considered admissible evidence in court.
• Make it illegal to use anything other than a hands-free and voice activated cell phone while driving.
• Anyone causing an accident while texting, looking at a screen or talking on a cell phone should be
subject to a separate charge and penalty for being so engaged.
• Immediately suspend the license of anyone driving a bus, train, cab, limo or other vehicle
that serves the public while using a cell phone.
• Initiate and support an aggressive public education campaign to encourage drivers to hang
up while under way.
More complicated and delicate is what to do about drivers as they age. The last time I got into a
car with my mother at the wheel, she drove us off the road because she couldn’t react quickly
enough to the curve of a highway exit ramp. My father-in-law was driving with a valid license
after his ophthalmologist had told him he was legally blind.
There can be no denying that the years take their toll on vision and reflexes. A number of bills
have been introduced to require road tests of drivers after age 80 or 85. I’m not smart enough
to know whether 80, 85, or even 75 is the right cutoff. I also know that increasing the
Registry of Motor Vehicles’ responsibility for administering road tests at precisely the same time as
we’re slashing the agency’s budget is setting us up for failure. But here are some ideas for possible
policy changes.
• Why not initiate a program of random road tests for drivers of all ages at the time of periodic
license renewals? You could increase the number and percentage of drivers so tested with age and as
RMV staffing allows.
• Maybe at some point as age or compromised health impacts our driving, we should be required to
renew our permits – with eye tests and random road tests - more frequently so as to allow us to catch
unsafe drivers before they cause an accident.
• Why not explore easy-to-administer tests of reaction time, much as we now require regular vision checks?
None of this will be easy. We need to change our expectations and our habits, and this is not just the
work of government. But we need to begin. If I don’t answer my cell phone next time you call while
I’m driving, you’ll know I’m trying to change my habits. What will you do?
"The Safer Alternatives bill was drafted by the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition of about 160 health, environmental, labor and religious groups. Its primary sponsors are Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) and Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Brighton).
The bill would expand on the Toxic Use Reduction Act, a 1989 law aimed at preventing pollution by industries that use large amounts of chemicals. Under that law, the Toxic Use Reduction Institute, based at UMass Lowell, works with manufacturers to reduce toxics use and the generation of toxic wastes—for instance, by altering plant processes. The new law would extend those efforts to toxics in consumer products, using the support structures already in place, including TURI."
"State Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, has filed the teachers' bill for a half-dozen years. He said the measure would allow teachers to participate in an existing privilege allowing legislators and state employees to not pay tuition for classes at any public college or university.
The existing program only allows them to attend classes tuition-free if there is room, and requires participants to still pay student fees, he said.
Teachers in Massachusetts must achieve different levels of licensing, plus they undergo recertification every five years or so, as well as complete professional development that could mean earning a graduate degree.
"It makes sense that public school teachers...are entitled to the same privilege," said Kaufman."
"The Volunteer Service award comes with a grant to Minuteman from the MetLife Foundation.
Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, presented a legislative citation to Judith and Clark Schuler for their 37 years of service to seniors as FISH and Meals On Wheels drivers.
The Schulers were honored as Minuteman nominees for the national 2008 Metlife/N4A Volunteer Award.
Irving Rothman was presented with a certificate of appreciation for 15 years of service and leadership to the Minuteman Senior Services Board of Directors.
The President’s Volunteer Service Award is a prestigious national honor offered in recognition of sustained volunteer service on an annual basis. Lexington residents earned 22 Bronze Presidential Awards."
