THE MASSACHUSETTS Legislature tends to practice crisis management: waiting for deadlines or threats to spur last-minute action. This year is no different. With the $28.2 billion state budget at last behind them, legislators have just 19 working days left to dispatch thousands of bills. We have a few of our own policy priorities that we hope will become law before the month ends:
Locking crime's revolving door
Ex-offenders looking to lead productive lives often run headfirst into unforgiving criminal background checks by employers using the state's Criminal Offender Record Information system, or CORI. Governor Patrick's CORI reform bill would seal such records sooner - 10 years instead of 15 for felonies and five years instead of 10 for misdemeanors. Sensibly, the reduced waiting period would not apply to sex offenders.
Criminals don't have much clout in the Legislature or enjoy public sympathy. But with few exceptions, they will be getting out of prison and returning to their neighborhoods. Lawmakers should step up and support a bill that maximizes the chances of successful reentry. Lawmakers could further strengthen public safety by combining CORI reform with another Patrick bill calling for mandatory post-release supervision for all inmates.
Facts need to be free
A shield law for journalists doesn't just protect nosy reporters; it is also a shield for whistle-blowers who will only provide crucial information with the assurance of anonymity. Any number of groundbreaking stories - from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to conditions at the Walter Reed Army hospital - relied on confidential sources.
Thirty-three states have shield laws to protect journalists from being compelled to name confidential sources or turn over notes or other privileged material. Massachusetts is not yet one of them. The Free Flow of Information Act, currently in the Judiciary Committee, is not a blank check but strikes a reasonable balance between freedom and security. Although the bill could be tightened to make clear whether protections should extend to bloggers and other modern-day pamphleteers, it is a moderate proposal that protects the public's right to know.
Expelling junk food from class
Childhood obesity is a statewide problem. Many communities have imposed bans on junk food in school vending machines, and this ought to be the norm. A bill in the House would establish the policy throughout Massachusetts, and encourage educators to teach young people how to eat right.
The bill, championed by Representative Peter Koutoujian of Watertown, would rely on the state Department of Public Health to set standards for foods not part of the federal school lunch program. This sensible proposal is stuck in the Ways and Means Committee. By itself, eliminating junk foods at school won't solve the obesity problem. That requires a lifestyle change combining exercise and healthier eating. But a ban would encourage schools to nudge youngsters toward healthier lives.
Happier mothers, healthier babies
One no-cost way to improve nutrition and health in the state is to encourage more mothers to breast-feed their babies for longer periods. Bills sponsored by Senator Susan Fargo of Lincoln and Representative David Linsky of Natick would establish the right of women to nurse in public without being charged with lewdness. Massachusetts is one of few states without such protection for nursing mothers. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, embarrassment at the disapproval breast-feeding often elicits is a major reason that women choose not to nurse.
Breast-fed children have fewer ear infections, less obesity, and less diabetes. The country could save $3.6 billion a year in healthcare costs if all babies had only breast milk in the first six months and at least some in the next six, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. "I would be happy with either bill going forward," said Linsky, and so would nursing mothers who have been harassed at malls and restaurants.
Hang up and drive
Cellphones are a convenience that becomes a distraction when used while driving. The House had the good sense to approve a plan that would drastically curtail their use, and the Senate should follow suit.
The bill would prohibit junior operators (those 16 or 17 years old) from using any kind of cellphone, and limit older motorists to hands-free devices. Opponents argue that public education is better than a ban, and raise the specter of the "nanny state."
But driving is a privilege that, because of its potential for death or injury, needs to be tightly regulated. Massachusetts prohibits motorists from wearing headphones, and a phone stuck to a driver's ear is just as distracting. The bill would mandate fines for all violators and license suspensions for young drivers. The best education for motorists would be the prospect of these penalties.
