Rep. Hynes State
House Report January, 2006 The Massachusetts House has been engaged in several high profile, controversial issues during the past few weeks. Four items, carried over from the first year of the session, are in various Conference Committees where disagreements between the House and Senate are hammered out by six legislators. These reconciled reports are then returned to the full branches for an up or down vote before final enactment. Among the measures before such Conference Committees are an economic development-stimulus bill, a supplemental budget, and a major health care reform matter. In the meantime the House has debated the following: Anti Gang Bill: Boston and other large urban areas have seen troubling increases in violent crime in the last several years. Boston's homicide rate of 75 in 2005 was a 10 year high. An alarming corollary of this is the equally troubling decline in arrests and convictions. Criminal Justice personnel testified that part of the problem is increased gang activities, targeting witnesses of violent crimes, intimidating and threatening them and their property, and effectively preventing them from coming forward and identifying the perpetrators. The House, seeking to encourage witnesses to testify against gang members and other violent perpetrators, passed this Anti Gang legislation which, among other things establishes a statewide Witness Protection Program allowing a prosecutor to apply to secure protection services for witnesses under threat. In addition, the existing witness intimidation laws are strengthened by prohibiting the intimidation and injury, including the mere threat to inflict emotional, economic, and physical injury and property damage. The bill also disallows grand jury transcripts and statements of witnesses being provided to the defense under the rules of discovery. The House appropriated $750,000 for the measure to assist the prosecutor in securing witness protection services. Church Finances: In the aftermath of the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and the closing and sale of several parishes in the Boston Archdiocese, legislation was filed to require annual reporting of income and expenditure by all churches. Presently, although classified as non profit charitable organizations, churches are exempt from the filing of such reports and their attendant review and audit by a certified public accountant. The proposed legislation sought to remove such exemptions. Initially the bill received favorable approval from the state Senate and several of us, moved by the argument that churches be more visible in their public activities and more direct in the accounting of donated monies, were inclined to support it. But as discussion and information about the issue proceeded support evaporated. Firstly, compelling argument was offered that, if the bill was not technically violative of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it seemed to be an intrusive involvement by government into the workings of churches and church organizations. Secondly, many churches, outside the Catholic Church, energized their constituents who made persuasive arguments that the legislation was unnecessary for their congregations, since transparent accountability already existed. Furthermore, for smaller congregations, with annual budgets around $150,000, the costs involved with the reporting requirements would prove quite burdensome. Thus, after debate, the House defeated the measure 147 - 3. Although the defeat was resounding it did express concern that all churches have legal obligation to account for monies they raise. Repeated publicized failure to comply may in the future outweigh the trepidation and confliction the House displayed in this debate. Additionally, failure to satisfy the legitimate requests of congregants for their churches to be more transparent in their financial activities, may result in serious declines in contributions to these institutions. Seat Belts: The House voted 76 to 74 to require primary use of seat belts when driving an automobile. This measure, debated frequently in the past 20 years, first passed in the mid 80's but was defeated by voters in a state wide referendum in 1986. Most thoughtful people recognize that wearing a seatbelt is a prudent and reasonable thing to do. It does save lives. Many, however, likewise believe, that government acts too intrusively and paternalistically when it requires seat belt use. Count me among them. Failure to wear a seat belt doesn't generally hurt others. Increased compliance ought to be sought through better education and persuasion rather than through an omniscient government diminishing freedom of individual choice. Illegal Immigrants: The House defeated the controversial measure permitting illegal immigrants who graduate from Massachusetts high schools, the ability to attend Massachusetts' colleges at the same costs as Massachusetts' residents. Proponents argue that these young people come from very modest, even poor backgrounds; are required by the federal government to be allowed to be educated in the public schools through Grade 12; and are essentially victimized by the illegal behavior of their parents who settle here without proper immigrant documentation. Affordable college tuition, the argument continues, will enable these young people to become viable, economic contributing residents who will be better able to contribute to their communities and naturalize their immigration status. However, this argument overlooks the reality that such unlawful immigrants can not legally work and in order to pursue proper documentation must return to their country of origin and make appropriate application. This controversy stems from very dysfunctional federal immigration policies, which tolerate continuation of the use of illegal immigration in the American economy and do not see any priority in pursuing deportation of those who remain in the country without proper approval. To have voted with proponents would, in my mind, not only give approval to individual illegal activity but also reinforce the irrational federal immigration policy. I voted against the bill Reflection: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Plato |