Yesterday, I sent a letter to Governor Patrick and legislative leaders urging passage of a bill I filed to require a dangerousness hearing prior to granting bail to defendants charged with a sexual offense.
You can read about the letter in this story in today's MetroWest Daily News, and you can see the letter itself here.
The bill, House Docket 4772, remains pending and awaits referral to a legislative committee for a hearing.
Please check out this Call to Action on my Web site for more information about the bill and to see what you can do to help make sure it passes.
Showing posts with label sex offenders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex offenders. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/18/09
On Wednesday, I filed legislation to require that criminals accused of sex offenses involving a child be subject to a dangerousness hearing before being released on bail.
I’d like to update you on the efforts to advance this legislation, and let you know more about what you can do to help if you support this idea.
But first, I think it’s worth noting that there’s a follow-up story in the Boston Herald today about John H. Gardner, the alleged child rapist from Kingston whose cases prompted me to file this bill. It now appears that Gardner was set free on $10,000 cash bail even though he had a had a two-page record dating back to 2000 (when he was only 17 years old) at the time of his arraignment. The record allegedly included nine cases, with three defaults for failure to appear in court.
This information makes it even more disturbing that Gardner was released on bail without consideration of his dangerousness, and it shows why passing the bill I filed is even more important.
Since I submitted the bill to the House Clerk, I’ve been working hard to spread the word and to encourage people to support it. So far, nine of my House and Senate colleagues have signed on to cosponsor the bill and others have expressed interest. I’ve also received many messages of support from everyday citizens who are alarmed by the case in Kingston and who join me in wanting to see our laws strengthened to deal with sex offenders.
Before the bill can be voted on by the House and Senate, the Rules Committee needs to refer it to another legislative committee for a public hearing and report. The more support the bill receives, the greater the chances are that it will advance through the process.
If you support the bill, I encourage you to call House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office and ask that the bill be referred to a committee for a hearing. His number is (617) 722-2500.
I’d also like to hear from you if you support this bill. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.
I’d like to update you on the efforts to advance this legislation, and let you know more about what you can do to help if you support this idea.
But first, I think it’s worth noting that there’s a follow-up story in the Boston Herald today about John H. Gardner, the alleged child rapist from Kingston whose cases prompted me to file this bill. It now appears that Gardner was set free on $10,000 cash bail even though he had a had a two-page record dating back to 2000 (when he was only 17 years old) at the time of his arraignment. The record allegedly included nine cases, with three defaults for failure to appear in court.
This information makes it even more disturbing that Gardner was released on bail without consideration of his dangerousness, and it shows why passing the bill I filed is even more important.
Since I submitted the bill to the House Clerk, I’ve been working hard to spread the word and to encourage people to support it. So far, nine of my House and Senate colleagues have signed on to cosponsor the bill and others have expressed interest. I’ve also received many messages of support from everyday citizens who are alarmed by the case in Kingston and who join me in wanting to see our laws strengthened to deal with sex offenders.
Before the bill can be voted on by the House and Senate, the Rules Committee needs to refer it to another legislative committee for a public hearing and report. The more support the bill receives, the greater the chances are that it will advance through the process.
If you support the bill, I encourage you to call House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office and ask that the bill be referred to a committee for a hearing. His number is (617) 722-2500.
I’d also like to hear from you if you support this bill. Please post a comment below and let me know what you think.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A Call to Action
I am writing to ask for your assistance in pressing for passage of legislation to crack down on sex offenders here in Massachusetts.
This issue relates back to the recent tragic case involving Joseph H. Gardner of Kingston, which I was shocked and disgusted to learn about earlier this week.
Gardner is alleged to have raped a 3-year-old girl while her mother was asleep in the same house. The disgusting nature of this crime is made even more horrific by the fact that the rape allegedly occurred while Gardner was free on bail and awaiting trial for the alleged rape of a 5-year-old child this past summer. Gardner was set free in October after posting just $10,000 bail on the first case, and there was no dangerousness hearing held prior to his release.
Under current law, prosecutors have the ability to request a dangerousness hearing prior to bail being set in certain serious criminal cases. However, there is no guarantee that such a hearing will be requested or held.
The legislation I filed changes this situation by requiring the court to hold a dangerousness hearing in any case where there is an allegation of a sex offense involving a child, including child rape.
I believe we need to add an extra layer of protection and accountability in cases where there is an alleged sex crime against a child. This is a responsible measure to make sure that dangerous sex offenders don’t fall through the cracks and get set free while they await trial, as apparently happened in the Kingston case. At the same time, the bill respects judicial discretion in such cases.
The text of the legislation follows below. The bill is awaiting the assignment of a docket number by the House Clerk. I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about the bill and why it's necessary. You can also read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
Unfortunately, many bills like this end up getting referred to the House Rules Committee and they sit there without further action being taken. I believe we need there to be action taken on this bill soon. If you support passage of this bill, I urge you to contact House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office at (617) 722-2500 to ask him to have the bill released from the Rules Committee and scheduled for a public hearing as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karyn
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-
When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
This issue relates back to the recent tragic case involving Joseph H. Gardner of Kingston, which I was shocked and disgusted to learn about earlier this week.
Gardner is alleged to have raped a 3-year-old girl while her mother was asleep in the same house. The disgusting nature of this crime is made even more horrific by the fact that the rape allegedly occurred while Gardner was free on bail and awaiting trial for the alleged rape of a 5-year-old child this past summer. Gardner was set free in October after posting just $10,000 bail on the first case, and there was no dangerousness hearing held prior to his release.
Under current law, prosecutors have the ability to request a dangerousness hearing prior to bail being set in certain serious criminal cases. However, there is no guarantee that such a hearing will be requested or held.
The legislation I filed changes this situation by requiring the court to hold a dangerousness hearing in any case where there is an allegation of a sex offense involving a child, including child rape.
I believe we need to add an extra layer of protection and accountability in cases where there is an alleged sex crime against a child. This is a responsible measure to make sure that dangerous sex offenders don’t fall through the cracks and get set free while they await trial, as apparently happened in the Kingston case. At the same time, the bill respects judicial discretion in such cases.
The text of the legislation follows below. The bill is awaiting the assignment of a docket number by the House Clerk. I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about the bill and why it's necessary. You can also read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
Unfortunately, many bills like this end up getting referred to the House Rules Committee and they sit there without further action being taken. I believe we need there to be action taken on this bill soon. If you support passage of this bill, I urge you to contact House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office at (617) 722-2500 to ask him to have the bill released from the Rules Committee and scheduled for a public hearing as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karyn
--------------------
Text of the Bill
--------------------
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-
When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
Thought of the Day - 12/16/2009
I was on WTKK 96.9FM this morning with Jim Braude and Wendy Murphy to talk about a bill I'm filing to require a dangerousness hearing before courts grant bail for those accused of a sex offense involving a child.
You can read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
I will be filing this bill later today. Here is the text:
You can read more about my plan and the reason behind it in a story and editorial in today's Boston Herald.
I will be filing this bill later today. Here is the text:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
The first paragraph of subsection (4) of section 58A of chapter 276 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out the first sentence thereof and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-
When a person is held under arrest for an offense listed in subsection (1) and upon a motion by the commonwealth, or whenever a person is held under arrest for a sex offense involving a child as defined in section 178C of chapter 6, the judge shall hold a hearing to determine whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Thought of the Day - 12/15/2009
Do you think that someone who is accused of breaking into a home through a bathroom window in the middle of the night and raping a 6-year-old child should be set free on just $10,000 cash bail?
I think that’s plainly wrong, and as a story in today’s Boston Globe points out, there’s a very good reason why.
The facts above were precisely the allegations leveled against a criminal defendant in Kingston earlier this summer. The defendant eventually was released from custody on $10,000 bail, free to roam the streets unmonitored pending trial. What makes this case even more tragic is that the same defendant started dating another woman in the interim period and, this past Friday, allegedly raped her 3-year-old daughter while the woman was sleeping.
I find these allegations disgusting, and I think we have a responsibility to make sure cases like this one don’t happen again in the future.
In my opinion, dangerous sex offenders should not be permitted to roam around and prey on innocent victims. I’ve fought tirelessly throughout my time in the House of Representatives to push for tougher sentencing of sexual predators, and for stronger monitoring of convicted sex offenders who are released on probation and parole.
My view doesn’t change based on where a criminal defendant is at in the court system. I understand the constitutional rights of the accused. But if there are credible allegations that someone has committed a rape and that they present a danger to society, I believe that person has no business being set free on bail to prowl the streets pending trial.
That’s why I am filing legislation to require that judges hold a dangerousness hearing prior to setting bail for any defendant charged with a serious sexual offense. That hearing will require the judge to evaluate whether there is enough credible evidence to conclude that the defendant poses a risk to society and a likelihood of reoffense, not just whether the defendant poses a risk of flight pending trial.
By their very nature, sex offenders pose a serious danger to public safety whenever they’re free to roam the streets. The only responsible place for them is behind bars. And it’s time for our state to get more serious about putting them there.
Do you agree? Please let me know by posting a comment below.
I think that’s plainly wrong, and as a story in today’s Boston Globe points out, there’s a very good reason why.
The facts above were precisely the allegations leveled against a criminal defendant in Kingston earlier this summer. The defendant eventually was released from custody on $10,000 bail, free to roam the streets unmonitored pending trial. What makes this case even more tragic is that the same defendant started dating another woman in the interim period and, this past Friday, allegedly raped her 3-year-old daughter while the woman was sleeping.
I find these allegations disgusting, and I think we have a responsibility to make sure cases like this one don’t happen again in the future.
In my opinion, dangerous sex offenders should not be permitted to roam around and prey on innocent victims. I’ve fought tirelessly throughout my time in the House of Representatives to push for tougher sentencing of sexual predators, and for stronger monitoring of convicted sex offenders who are released on probation and parole.
My view doesn’t change based on where a criminal defendant is at in the court system. I understand the constitutional rights of the accused. But if there are credible allegations that someone has committed a rape and that they present a danger to society, I believe that person has no business being set free on bail to prowl the streets pending trial.
That’s why I am filing legislation to require that judges hold a dangerousness hearing prior to setting bail for any defendant charged with a serious sexual offense. That hearing will require the judge to evaluate whether there is enough credible evidence to conclude that the defendant poses a risk to society and a likelihood of reoffense, not just whether the defendant poses a risk of flight pending trial.
By their very nature, sex offenders pose a serious danger to public safety whenever they’re free to roam the streets. The only responsible place for them is behind bars. And it’s time for our state to get more serious about putting them there.
Do you agree? Please let me know by posting a comment below.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Thought of the Day - 11/18/2009
I’ve worked hard over the past few years to push for tighter sentencing and monitoring of sex offenders in this state. Our laws definitely need reform.
But sometimes, it’s necessary to balance the need for tougher restrictions against the potential for unintended consequences of new legislation.
That’s my thinking with a new bill that’s being proposed in the Senate regarding sex offenders.
The bill would prohibit Level 3 sex offenders (those who pose the most risk of harm) from staying in homeless shelters in the Bay State. Its purpose it to reduce the likelihood that those offenders could pose a security risk to other people staying at the shelter – a growing problem these days as shelter populations increase in this poor economy.
I think the bill makes an interesting statement, but I have questions about its effects. If passed, where would these sex offenders go? If they have no place to live, would they end up living on the streets? Would that pose an even greater risk to the general public?
As one person mentioned in this Boston Globe story, if our state were to limit where sex offenders can live, that would likely increase the need for social services, which we’re not prepared to deliver at this time, in part due to fiscal difficulties.
I think there are better ways of dealing with this problem. One way is to pass a bill I have proposed that would prohibit sex offenders from listing a homeless shelter as their primary address. Under my bill, they would have to list a more reliable primary address so they can be tracked more accurately. That, along with better GPS monitoring of sex offenders, would give us a better idea of where these dangerous predators are lurking and it would allow us to track their whereabouts.
But on a more general level, I think we need to take a comprehensive look at the issue of sentencing and post-release monitoring of sex offenders to come up with a better plan for dealing with them. Right now, too many offenders are being released back into the community after serving prison sentences that are too short. They’re reentering the community without any place to live, without a job, and without anyone tracking what they’re up to. That’s not just a poor way to rehabilitate people; when you’re talking about letting our most dangerous sex offenders loose on the streets, it’s a recipe for disaster. We need better sentencing laws that keep dangerous criminals in jail for longer periods of time. And we need a post-release supervision program that prepares these felons to re-enter society on a productive and less dangerous level and screens them accurately for dangerousness so they don’t just end up back on the streets to reoffend.
What do you think? Do you think prohibiting sex offenders from living in homeless shelters is a good idea? Do you favor other approaches like better sentencing, monitoring and post-release supervision? Or do you think we need to do something else? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please post a comment below to join the discussion on this issue.
But sometimes, it’s necessary to balance the need for tougher restrictions against the potential for unintended consequences of new legislation.
That’s my thinking with a new bill that’s being proposed in the Senate regarding sex offenders.
The bill would prohibit Level 3 sex offenders (those who pose the most risk of harm) from staying in homeless shelters in the Bay State. Its purpose it to reduce the likelihood that those offenders could pose a security risk to other people staying at the shelter – a growing problem these days as shelter populations increase in this poor economy.
I think the bill makes an interesting statement, but I have questions about its effects. If passed, where would these sex offenders go? If they have no place to live, would they end up living on the streets? Would that pose an even greater risk to the general public?
As one person mentioned in this Boston Globe story, if our state were to limit where sex offenders can live, that would likely increase the need for social services, which we’re not prepared to deliver at this time, in part due to fiscal difficulties.
I think there are better ways of dealing with this problem. One way is to pass a bill I have proposed that would prohibit sex offenders from listing a homeless shelter as their primary address. Under my bill, they would have to list a more reliable primary address so they can be tracked more accurately. That, along with better GPS monitoring of sex offenders, would give us a better idea of where these dangerous predators are lurking and it would allow us to track their whereabouts.
But on a more general level, I think we need to take a comprehensive look at the issue of sentencing and post-release monitoring of sex offenders to come up with a better plan for dealing with them. Right now, too many offenders are being released back into the community after serving prison sentences that are too short. They’re reentering the community without any place to live, without a job, and without anyone tracking what they’re up to. That’s not just a poor way to rehabilitate people; when you’re talking about letting our most dangerous sex offenders loose on the streets, it’s a recipe for disaster. We need better sentencing laws that keep dangerous criminals in jail for longer periods of time. And we need a post-release supervision program that prepares these felons to re-enter society on a productive and less dangerous level and screens them accurately for dangerousness so they don’t just end up back on the streets to reoffend.
What do you think? Do you think prohibiting sex offenders from living in homeless shelters is a good idea? Do you favor other approaches like better sentencing, monitoring and post-release supervision? Or do you think we need to do something else? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please post a comment below to join the discussion on this issue.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thought of the Day - 10/27/2009
According to today's Boston Globe, Middlesex County District Attorney Gerald Leone is going to encourage the Legislature to make it easier for sexually dangerous predators to be committed to prison.
Right now, offenders have the ability to unilaterally waive their right to a trial by jury when the court decides whether or not to commit them to custody on the basis of their dangerousness and likelihood to reoffend. Under Leone's proposal, prosecutors would have to agree to a jury-waived trial before sending the case to the judge. His rationale is that Middlesex County juries have been almost twice as likely as judges to find reason to commit sex offenders to custody over the past decade, so giving prosecutors the power to keep cases in the hands of the jury increases the odds that dangerous offenders will be committed.
I'm encouraged that there is renewed attention being paid to this issue, because I think we need better protections in place to deal with sexual predators. To start, I think we need better monitoring of convicted sex offenders, and we should require judges to make written findings relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements. That would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. I also support Melissa's Bill, which is the subject of a compelling letter to the editor in today's Boston Herald. Additionally, we should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
I find DA Leone's statistics alarming, especially in light of the recent case involving David Flavell and his alleged sexual assault at Mass. General Hospital. It's clear that we need better ways of dealing with sexually dangerous offenders. I look forward to hearing his arguments in favor of this bill and I hope it will be debated by the Legislature soon as part of a broader initiative.
We need to start taking decisive action against sex offenders to prevent them from reoffending. When people like David Flavell, Michael Gentile and Corey Saunders demonstrate an inability to function in society because of their strong likelihood to commit another violent sexual offense, I think we have a moral imperative to take them off the streets and put them behind bars so as to protect the public.
That's my opinion. What do you think? Feel free to post a comment below or to e-mail me at karyn@karynpolito.com.
Right now, offenders have the ability to unilaterally waive their right to a trial by jury when the court decides whether or not to commit them to custody on the basis of their dangerousness and likelihood to reoffend. Under Leone's proposal, prosecutors would have to agree to a jury-waived trial before sending the case to the judge. His rationale is that Middlesex County juries have been almost twice as likely as judges to find reason to commit sex offenders to custody over the past decade, so giving prosecutors the power to keep cases in the hands of the jury increases the odds that dangerous offenders will be committed.
I'm encouraged that there is renewed attention being paid to this issue, because I think we need better protections in place to deal with sexual predators. To start, I think we need better monitoring of convicted sex offenders, and we should require judges to make written findings relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements. That would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. I also support Melissa's Bill, which is the subject of a compelling letter to the editor in today's Boston Herald. Additionally, we should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
I find DA Leone's statistics alarming, especially in light of the recent case involving David Flavell and his alleged sexual assault at Mass. General Hospital. It's clear that we need better ways of dealing with sexually dangerous offenders. I look forward to hearing his arguments in favor of this bill and I hope it will be debated by the Legislature soon as part of a broader initiative.
We need to start taking decisive action against sex offenders to prevent them from reoffending. When people like David Flavell, Michael Gentile and Corey Saunders demonstrate an inability to function in society because of their strong likelihood to commit another violent sexual offense, I think we have a moral imperative to take them off the streets and put them behind bars so as to protect the public.
That's my opinion. What do you think? Feel free to post a comment below or to e-mail me at karyn@karynpolito.com.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Statement of Rep. Polito Regarding Sex Offenders and a Recent Attack at Mass. General Hospital
It’s a story line that keeps repeating itself: a high-level sex offender is caught committing a sexual assault, and a look back at his past shows that he has a lengthy record of sexual violence.
In the most recent incident, the alleged attacker has been in and out of courtrooms since 1996, and was twice deemed by judges to not be a threat to the public.
We need to stop playing “catch-and-release” with sex offenders here in Massachusetts. That responsibility lies with our judicial system to exercise better discretion, and also with the Legislature to enact tougher laws to deal with these violent criminals.
Requiring a hearing and written findings of fact for judges relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. We also should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
In the most recent incident, the alleged attacker has been in and out of courtrooms since 1996, and was twice deemed by judges to not be a threat to the public.
We need to stop playing “catch-and-release” with sex offenders here in Massachusetts. That responsibility lies with our judicial system to exercise better discretion, and also with the Legislature to enact tougher laws to deal with these violent criminals.
Requiring a hearing and written findings of fact for judges relative to all sex crimes and GPS monitoring requirements would make the process more accountable and transparent to the general public. We also should have prison sentences for first offenses of rape of a child or sexual assault, which is something I have advocated for the past several years.
Thought of the Day - 10/23/2009
There were three stories in the papers today that caught my eye. Even though they appear totally unrelated on the surface, there is actually an important - and unfortunate - link between them.
The first is a story in today's Boston Herald that a woman was seriously injured during a sexual assault that occurred inside a bathroom at Massachusetts General Hospital. The alleged perpetrator is a notorious Level 3 sex offender who has more than a dozen sex crime charges on his record, but who nevertheless was roaming the hallways of the hospital, apparently unmonitored.
The second is a story in today's Boston Herald that the State Police Association of Massachusetts recommended a plan to Governor Patrick to save $13 million a year by trimming the number of management positions within the state police. According to the story, the Patrick administration has not acted on the plan - despite its current calls for state employee unions to make sacrifices and implement furloughs to bridge
budget gaps.
The third piece is an editorial in today's Worcester Telegram that points out how a pilot program allowing AAA members to renew licenses and car registrations at certain club offices instead of at the Registry of Motor Vehicles is in jeopardy of going away. The Legislature is currently rejecting a plan to extend the program due to efforts headed by Senator Pacheco, who is famous for opposing efforts to outsource state jobs to private entities.
In my view, the common thread running between these stories is that they point to ways Massachusetts political leaders have been slow to react to serious problems facing state residents, and how they have been even slower to implement reforms that would help our state in its current fiscal problems.
For example, I have filed legislation that would require expanded monitoring of sex offenders using GPS bracelets. So far, despite my advocacy, the Legislature has failed to take any action on the bill. And yet we see cases like the one at Mass. General Hospital all too often in the headlines.
Likewise, I find it troubling that the Patrick administration has not considered the recommendations of the State Police Association as a way to save money. I'm not familiar with the report itself, but it seems to me that any credible proposal to save money through restructuring and cost savings should at least get ample consideration by the administration before we cut programs that help the vulnerable and funding for local aid.
The same is true for the plan to have AAA process license and registration renewals, which eases burdens on the RMV and would allow us to realize budget savings in that area through privatization.
It's unclear whether any law would have prevented the attack at Mass. General Hospital, just as I'm sure there are good and bad reasons for cutting management positions at the state police and privatizing license and registration renewals. But the right place to answer those questions is inside the Massachusetts Legislature, where politicians are supposed to consider ideas like the ones above, subject them to public input and expert scrutiny, debate them, and eventually vote on their merit. But in a Legislature that is mostly concerned about itself, that's simply not happening.
There seems to be no appetite for reform in the Massachusetts Legislature, whether it involves matters of public safety or budget cuts. And unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's the people of Massachusetts who ultimately lose out.
The first is a story in today's Boston Herald that a woman was seriously injured during a sexual assault that occurred inside a bathroom at Massachusetts General Hospital. The alleged perpetrator is a notorious Level 3 sex offender who has more than a dozen sex crime charges on his record, but who nevertheless was roaming the hallways of the hospital, apparently unmonitored.
The second is a story in today's Boston Herald that the State Police Association of Massachusetts recommended a plan to Governor Patrick to save $13 million a year by trimming the number of management positions within the state police. According to the story, the Patrick administration has not acted on the plan - despite its current calls for state employee unions to make sacrifices and implement furloughs to bridge
budget gaps.
The third piece is an editorial in today's Worcester Telegram that points out how a pilot program allowing AAA members to renew licenses and car registrations at certain club offices instead of at the Registry of Motor Vehicles is in jeopardy of going away. The Legislature is currently rejecting a plan to extend the program due to efforts headed by Senator Pacheco, who is famous for opposing efforts to outsource state jobs to private entities.
In my view, the common thread running between these stories is that they point to ways Massachusetts political leaders have been slow to react to serious problems facing state residents, and how they have been even slower to implement reforms that would help our state in its current fiscal problems.
For example, I have filed legislation that would require expanded monitoring of sex offenders using GPS bracelets. So far, despite my advocacy, the Legislature has failed to take any action on the bill. And yet we see cases like the one at Mass. General Hospital all too often in the headlines.
Likewise, I find it troubling that the Patrick administration has not considered the recommendations of the State Police Association as a way to save money. I'm not familiar with the report itself, but it seems to me that any credible proposal to save money through restructuring and cost savings should at least get ample consideration by the administration before we cut programs that help the vulnerable and funding for local aid.
The same is true for the plan to have AAA process license and registration renewals, which eases burdens on the RMV and would allow us to realize budget savings in that area through privatization.
It's unclear whether any law would have prevented the attack at Mass. General Hospital, just as I'm sure there are good and bad reasons for cutting management positions at the state police and privatizing license and registration renewals. But the right place to answer those questions is inside the Massachusetts Legislature, where politicians are supposed to consider ideas like the ones above, subject them to public input and expert scrutiny, debate them, and eventually vote on their merit. But in a Legislature that is mostly concerned about itself, that's simply not happening.
There seems to be no appetite for reform in the Massachusetts Legislature, whether it involves matters of public safety or budget cuts. And unfortunately, at the end of the day, it's the people of Massachusetts who ultimately lose out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)