2021-11-08 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure

2021-11-08 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[SECRETARY KENNEALY (HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT):][HB3775] Chair Chan, Moran and members of the committee, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on H 3775, an act relative to licensing and accountability in the commonwealth. I'm joined by DPL Commissioner Leila D'Emilia who will take us to the bill before your committee in a moment. Before delving into the details of the pending legislation, I do want to take a moment to provide some background on the work that led into the development of the bill. I also want to acknowledge the partnership with this committee and in particular, Chairman Chan, Chairwoman Moran as well as Senator Feeney on this topic of licensing accountability.

As you all know, there have been many changes made at DPL since the January 2020 oversight hearing. At that hearing, I told you all the DPL would be steadfast in its commitment to protecting the public, not only by ensuring that license holders are qualified to practise their profession in the commonwealth, but also by checking the background of each individual seeking licensure to ensure that the public is protected. This continues to be a top394 priority for me as secretary. In February 2020, shortly after that hearing, Governor Baker announced a number of leadership changes at the division, including most notably the naming of commissioner D'Emilia.

With a new court team in place, DPL has spent the better part of last year evaluating and414 reviewing its operations. Even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, this has resulted in strategic adjustments and improvements and I got to go through some of the changes who made. First, filling 25 staff vacancies since March 2020, helping to strengthen DPLs day to day operations and improve its management structure. Second, complete an initial review of the agency's existing databases and information technology needs. Third, creating an inter-agency licensing user group to exchange best practices and ideas for improving agency operations.

Fourth, hiring a manager of training and development and the implementation of new training and professional development initiatives. Fifth, finalize nine new sets of standard operating procedures or SOPs with more than 20 others in various stages of development. Six, creating an internal controls team to facilitate SOP development and review. Seven, and finally, DPL is currently in the process of standing up a new welcome centre which will serve as a primary point of contact for all inquiries from consumers, licenses and members484 of the public.

The motivation for this change is to provide a better customer service experience, licenses and consumers. These efforts also brought to light some statutory changes that are warranted to further strengthen and improve the division. H 3775 includes a number of502 changes that will better enable DPL to meet its primary objective which is to protect public health and public safety throughout the state by licensing qualified individuals and businesses, to provide services to consumers with fair and consistent enforcement of the licensing laws and regulations.

This bill will strengthen DPLs oversight of its licensing boards, provide more robust enforcement authority and otherwise update and modernize the enabling statutes for several of the boards under DPL supervision. I'll now turn it over to Commissioner D'Emilia to go to the bill in537 more detail. Please know that we stand ready and committed to continuing our partnership with this committee to ensure the DPL continues to fulfil its mission. This bill is a key piece of that effort. For that reason, I respectfully request favourable consideration of H 3775.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[COMMISSIONER D'EMILIA (DIVISION OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE):][HB3775] Thank you, everybody, for the patients and good afternoon. My name is Leyla D'Emilia and I am the commissioner of the division of professional licensure. I'm here today to testify in support of House Bill 3775, an822 act relative to licensing accountability in the Commonwealth. The Governor filed this legislation earlier this spring to provide more robust enforcement authority to DPL and its boards and otherwise update and modernize the enabling statute for several of the boards of registration under DPL supervision. The licensing structures at the DPL are outlined in statute and carried out by the DPL licensing board.

These licensing structures aim to protect the public by enforcing standards that restrict practice to individuals who have857 met specific professional qualifications as well as general suitability requirements. While the overwhelming majority of individuals, businesses and schools licensed by DPL boards comply with licensing requirements and practice standards,872 unfortunately, some do not. In cases where an individual business or school engages in the practice of a profession or activity without a licence or fails to observe practice standards, DPL boards can and do take steps to enforce its rules.

While this process generally works well, DPL has learned some important lessons and identified a number of changes that will improve the effectiveness of enforcement efforts. The legislature last updated enforcement powers available to DPL boards in 2005. This bill seeks to build off those updates and enact necessary changes with targeted amendments to the relevant agency and board statutes. For example, the bill will increase civil penalties that may be assessed by a board for conduct that places into question a licensee's suitability or competence to practice their profession.

Currently, DPL boards are limited in their finding authority with first-time violations capped at a $100 fine, second violations at $500, third violations at $1500 and fourth944 violations at $2500. Those low amounts are simply not enough to deter bad behaviour and are often viewed as the cost of doing business. To remedy this dynamic. the proposal before you today will make modest increases to these amounts. DPL boards would now be able to fine up to $500 for a first-time violation, up to $1500 for a second-time violation, 2500 for a third and 5000 for a fourth.

These increases will provide more teeth to board enforcement powers and send a stronger message to first-time offenders. The goal is to deter licensees from violating board statutes or regulations in the future. I would also note that these higher amounts are in line with finding structures utilized by other states, including some surrounding new England states. The desired impact is an enforcement apparatus that will deter bad actors with higher fines while giving the boards the discretion to issue smaller fines for minor violations.

In addition to strengthening the fining structure available1008 to DPL boards, the bill will also provide boards with critical new tools more effectively to investigate and resolve complaints. First,1018 the bill will expand the authority of DPL boards to issue subpoenas to compel the production of documents and witnesses. Currently, subpoena power for all boards only commences at the adjudicatory stage, which occurs after a case has been fully investigated. The lack of subpoena power during the investigative stage limits the amount of information available to the board during the decision making process.

This means that complaints may have to be dismissed for lack1046 of evidence, even when a violation of a licensing statute or regulation may have occurred. By providing all boards subpoena power earlier in the process, the integrity and quality of investigations will be significantly enhanced and will allow boards to make a better-informed decision regarding complaints before them. Second and complementary to the expanded subpoena power component is the added requirement to compel all licences to cooperate with board investigations.

Presently, some licensees can simply not respond to an investigation and suffer few if any consequences by1081 doing so since DPL boards cannot prosecute licensing violations without sufficient evidence. The bill will require all licences to cooperate1090 with the board when information is requested during an investigation or enforcement action. To add teeth to this requirement, the failure to cooperate will be just considered a violation, thus allowing a board to impose additional disciplines such as fines or other sanctions as appropriate.

As1107 with the addition of the enhanced subpoena power, I previously referenced this change will also improve the integrity and quality1113 of investigations of complaints filed with DPL boards. We believe it will facilitate1118 a quicker resolution as well. Beyond enhancement to DPLs enforcement powers, this bill will implement important new consumer protections safeguarding the licensing process by prohibiting the licensure of any individual classified as a level three sex offender. By definition, level three offenders are individuals who are deemed to have a high risk of re-offending and who pose such a degree of dangerousness to the public that a substantial public safety interest is served by active community notification of the individual status as a sex offender.

As the Governor noted in its filing letter, the licensing process should provide1154 the public with a high degree of confidence that the person providing services does not pose a public safety risk. To that end, this change will simply ensure that consumers are not unknowingly seeking services1165 from a sex offender deemed to have a high risk of committing another offence. As discussed with this committee in the past, currently, statutes governing the boards do not have a strict prohibition on the licensing of level three sex offenders, instead, boards must look to their own statutes, which are not uniform and vary in terms of what convictions or behaviour allow1186 for the denial or revocation of the licence.

Prohibiting level three sex offenders from licensure across all boards ensures uniformity and fulfils the consumer protection mandate. Another important change in this bill will allow DPL to see criminal1201 prosecution for the unlicensed practice of massage therapy by individuals who have never been issued a license. Currently, DPL may only seek prosecution of an individual who provides massage therapy services after the individual's license is suspended or revoked. Closing this loophole will better empower DPL to hold accountable unlicensed operators and intervene in situations that pose a grave threat to public safety, such as human trafficking.

Finally, the bill will make key updates to several specific DPL programs, for example, it repeals language providing for direct compensation of a small number of public safety boards. The majority of DPL boards are composed of volunteer members who do not receive direct compensation but are instead compensated for expenses incurred in carrying out their official responsibilities. Repealing this language will allow for uniformity among the boards while saving the commonwealth money.

It also removes statutory language requiring DPL engineering inspectors to administer and Procter hoisting licensing exams, which will allow the inspectors to focus on their core public safety role of compliance checks and performing inspections. Removing this language will allow for DPL to contract out its examination process to a third party vendor, saving the commonwealth money, but also providing exam takers with a more accessible professional and uniform examination experience. Finally, this legislation reflects changes outlined in House Bill 3774, which was the act reorganizing certain licensing agencies of the executive department which I testified in support of last week.

In closing, I thank you for the time to hear my testimony1305 in support of this bill in conjunction with House Bill 3774, the Governor's proposal to transfer DPLs' health-related boards to the Department of Public Health. I believe the changes outlined in this legislation will further strengthen DPL and enhance its ability to continue achieving its consumer protection mission. I respectfully request your support for this bill. Thank you.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[SEN1352 MORAN:] Thank you. Commissioner, I know we reviewed some budgetary questions in the prior hearing but with respect to the changes that you've outlined today, how do you see the costs of standing up these changes compared with your current budgetary availability and funds at this point?

[D'EMILIA:] I don't see a huge cost impact on any of these changes for the bill that you're hearing today.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[DOUG WILLARDSON(CONCERNED CITIZEN):][HB3822] The town of Webster is requesting basically four additional liquor licenses; two full licences1468 and two beer and wine. We've made great strides over the last few years in picking up and improving our downtown business area and our commercial corridor. We had a couple of restaurants open1481 this past summer even1482 despite Covid and we feel as if we're able to continue this trend and really make Webster a dining destination and we'll do amazing things to help our community to improve and to make it a better place to kind of be a regional1498 hub for restaurants and different things like that.

So we're very excited about the potential possibility for these four new liquor licenses and again, I think it will make a great difference to our community. I'm happy to1513 answer any specific questions, we do have kinds of restaurants lined up for most of these, so within a year, I would think we probably have all four filled.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[SEN BRADY:] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we close up, I just have a question and I don't know if you can answer this. So we held House Bill 337, if you may, is there a reason for that?

[REP CHAN:] It shares the same conversation about House Bill 337 after it is put on the notice. You may be seeing an email poll once Senate Chair and1935 I have a further conversation.

[BRADY:] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My other question on that particular bill is this going to affect the places that do have simulcasting because I know that their timeline is getting closer. Is this going to affect them to have any dates where they may not be able to do1953 any simulcasting? Do you know if you can't ask that if you can get back to me later, that would be fine, Mr. Chairman?

[CHAN:] Simulcasting will end on July 1st if we do not provide an extension before the 30th.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[SEN CHANDLER:][SB170] I am here today to testify on behalf of Senate Bill 170, an act regulating secondary metals dealings. This legislation would add a new chapter two of the general laws, chapter 140 D and a half relative to secondary metals. The intent is to provide scrap metal dealers with the authority to identify customers, maintain a database of transactions and encourage closer working relationships between local scrap metal dealers and law enforcement officials. In order to effectively regulate scrap metal2060 sales and prevent theft, this bill creates a registration process in which a secondary scrap metal dealer will register with the local municipal police department providing basic information about their business in tandem with paying a yearly registration fee.

It would require all scrap metal dealers to keep a daily transaction log and list the materials the scrap metal dealers cannot accept and cannot purchase. In addition, if a scrap metal facility is in possession of suspected stolen material, that facility will be required to tag and hold the material in question for up2100 to 48 hours. The bill also creates a two-year pilot program, which is a very interesting and necessary thing called Massachusetts abandoned property register map. That requires all property owners, including lenders, trustees and service companies to register and maintain vacant or foreclosing properties2120 located in the commonwealth.

Law enforcement entities will have access to a map and may impose a civil assessment on those who fail to register property. If this bill is passed into law, it would promote good management practices for scrap metal dealers and would provide improved methods of evidence procurement for law enforcement to enforce these practices. For all of these reasons, I encourage the committee to give a favourable report to Senate Bill 170, an act regulating secretary secondary metal ceilings.

I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you2156 have, but I think many of you have been on this committee before and certainly, Representative Chan, Mr. Chairman, you have probably heard this bill before, it's still a necessary bill and it's still one that we would like to see if it could be successfully passed in this term. Thank you so much.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[JEFF KRISTAL(SELECT BOARD, TISBURY):][HB3831] Thank you for hearing me. My name is Jeff Kristal and I am a select board member in the town of Tisbury. Tisbury is a year-round community on Martha's vineyard, although we have the highest tax rate out of the six island towns on the vineyard here, we're also always looking for ways to keep our taxes low, to keep our seniors in place and to provide quality of life that we're accustomed to down here in the vineyard. Tisbury has taken advantage of the local option statutes over the last few years, the legislative2289 changes and we've seen our CPC, we allocate the max; 3%, marijuana, we're doing 3%, the meals tax of the local option we're doing at .75% and the rooms tax of 6%.

What we're working on is being a progressive community more so in the last two years than in the last 50 years. We passed the first hurdle yesterday at our town meeting by approving a much needed new school building, the Tisbury school2317 building. Now that goes to the ballot in about a week and a half. In regard to bill H 3831, the short history is, we were dried, we went damp with just beer and wine with the food requirement. Then a couple of years later, we went wet with the addition of spirits with the food requirement. We crawled before we could walk and now we are ready to walk and chew gum at the same time.

We've been thoughtful in our measured approach to bringing alcohol into the community without a meal. What Bill H 3831 does is it helps us revitalize our downtown area and make it not only a tourist-friendly destination but a year-round resident-friendly community to live in. It's about attracting new restaurants into town and allowing the old ones, the ability to survive. It's about increasing our revenue in both meals and rooms tax by adding a service the town has voted favourably in the past.

It moves us into the 21st century. With favourable support from2378 this committee, I feel Tisbury can get one more arrow in the quiver that makes us competitive with the other island towns. It will make us a desirable location for people to shop, dine and drink if they wish instead of using us as a pass-through town to go to one of the other island towns. I thank you for your time today.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[ARLENE BROWN(MASSACHUSETTS THOROUGHBRED BREEDERS ASSOCIATION):][SB205][HB329] Good afternoon Senators and representatives. The current legislation under which we operate is harmful to our breeding industry. One point is an October 15th deadline to have thoroughbred Mayors in the state in order for their pools to be a mass spread. Many breeders by their mayors already involved nice stallions at the thoroughbred sales, but these sales occur2509 from November through January, making it impossible to get the2513 Mayor in the state before that deadline.

The only other way is to bring the Mayor into the state after the deadline and then they must be bred back to a Massachusetts registered stallion in order for that full to be a mass spread. Currently, we do not have the quality nor the numbers of stallions in this state that breeders2533 have access to in Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania or any of the other states. This affects our ability to attract good Mayors and in turn, better stallion One point, the standard road mayors do not have to be in the state until December 1st. So this is a move to put our deadline kind of in line2555 with, there's.

Of course, also the closing of Suffolk town has obviously had a detrimental effect on our breeding program. Now that there's a possibility of a new race2566 track in Massachusetts, we need the passage of this bill to keep the breeding industry and all the ancillary businesses and practices going until that happens. The certified program that's being introduced in this bill has been very successful in states that lost a track,2584 it helped maintain the horse population so that2586 when a new track opened there, there were horses ready to race. It also provides farms with an additional income in the former board for six months a year, which is very important to breeding farms.

The population of Mass bred falls should see an increase this year, I can only speak for myself but I2607 did have a large increase. I've talked with other people who hold our horses in Massachusetts this year. So I expect when the data comes down from the Department of Agriculture, we will see that increase. The2617 passage of this bill means a lot to breed2619 us and should keep that population trend going. Thank you for hearing my testimony.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[RICHARD FIELDS(MASSACHUSETTS THOROUGHBRED BREEDERS ASSOCIATION):][SB205][HB329] Thank you, Chairwoman Moran, Chairman Chan and committee members. My name is Richard Fields, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to speak on behalf of the Massachusetts thoroughbred breeders association and all of the women and men that worked tirelessly in the breeding and raising and training and hopefully in2761 the not too distant future, they will be able to be racing at our new thoroughbred racetrack in Stourbridge.

Chairman Chan, I would like to thank you for the introduction and for your bill and House 329 and Senator Feeney and For Senate 205, I think this is a very important time in the history of thoroughbred breeding and racing in the state and its all really about sustainability. I come to this thoroughbred industry in a non-traditional way. I was born and raised in the Bronx in an environment that not only didn't have any open spaces, let alone farms and horses, but somehow I grew up at a very early age with a tremendous passion for horses and everything agricultural.

I have a lifelong, deep commitment to the agricultural world. I've owned a dairy farm and cattle operation and for many years, we had a very substantial breeding operation in the Quora world out in Texas. In fact, for several years, our stallion was rated number two in the world. My family supports [inaudible 0:47:24] and what they call agony in the classroom, around the country and I really believe very strongly in this bill that you have2854 proposed in this2855 legislation. I believe that if this legislation is passed, it will be essential to the revitalization of2863 the thoroughbred breeding and racing industry in the commonwealth and we'll also have a tremendous impact on the entire ecosystem in the state.

I've been to Arlene's farm, I've been to farms all through the state in the last few years as we prepared to develop our racetrack in Stourbridge and one of the things that have actually amazed me was that of all of the farms that I have visited, almost none of them have, hey, that is locally grown and that may not seem like much of a statement, but the fact is that almost 95% of the hay in this state that is being fed to the horses are really coming from Canada and from Connecticut.

If this legislation is passed, not only will it help the breeders like Arlene to be able to attract world-class stallions and Mayors, but it will also create new jobs in the industry, it will protect the open spaces, but really what you're also going to do is have a major impact in the ecosystem in the commonwealth of Massachusetts. I predict that in the next few years as the thoroughbred breeding industry thrives in the state and our track is open and operating that you'll see almost all of the hay locally grown.

Where this is important to me personally, is that we support these programs and the family to get kids back on the farms and so now in this, you know, in your commonwealth, there are many farms that are sitting at one point produced hay, and I'd like to see at some point to be able to figure out a program that takes some of the kids that are coming out of your high schools and at schools and be able to get them on the farms growing hay and other products for local farmers markets and be able to subsidize it in programs that we are working on now.

So I would like to say thank you for this opportunity. I think the legislation that you have proposed Chairman Chan and Senator Feeney is really important for the breeders, it's important for all of the horse folks in3021 the state and I think it's important for the overall ecosystem and health of the commonwealth. I really appreciate the time. Thank you sir.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[PAUL UMBELLO(NEW ENGLAND HORSEMAN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION):] Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I also want to personally thank, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Chan for the submission of their bills. My name is Paul Umbello, I am the executive director of the New England Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association. We represent the New England Horsemen, we are also part of our national HBP organization with over 30,000 members nationwide. I also serve on the board of the Mass Thoroughbred Breeders board.

I'm not going3128 to reiterate what Mr. Fields and Arlene Brown have testified, but I'm going to be brief and simply say that I can't emphasize enough how important this bill is to our industry and more important the farms and jobs associated with it as we know. The passing of this bill will bring immediate help to our breeding program and the farms that serve but will3146 also bring new business and jobs to the commonwealth today. Today, we continue to lose breeding farms as we know to land that is more valuable for development.

We've even had breeders buying as Mr. Field said one of the biggest things out of state. The simple minor changes in this bill which again to reiterate is a language that has already been adopted by other states and has been very successful. It will give breeders and investors the opportunity to improve our breeding programme, save our farms and attract others to buy and acquire land to breed. As I said, I'll be brief. I want to thank you for your time and for allowing me to testify today and I thank the committee for support of these bills.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[SEN FEENEY:] I want to thank you and Chairwoman Moran, members of the committee, the previous testifies articulated the need for this bill a lot better than I could. I just want to offer a little bit of support for my constituent, Arlene Brown, who has been in this business for a long time, I would turn her late husband the work that they do with their farming Rehobeth as Representative Howitt mentioned is valuable to our community, you know, being able to revitalize this industry and first of all in recognizing that contrary to what some people may think the industry is not that, in fact, they've been doing everything that they can within their own power to make ends meet and to make sure that they are employing people, keeping these farms open.

It's valuable not only to my district and to my communities but to the communities represented by a lot of the legislators on this call. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman for your commitment, we've been working on these issues for a long time together and for recognizing the importance not only the job creation, keeping these farms open, small businesses, keeping them alive, but really the agricultural component is Mr. fields talked about. We have agricultural schools throughout our commonwealth where there are waiting lists that just go on and on and on.

We need to do everything we can to make sure that they have the resources as well in the jobs to go to when they do graduate from those schools. As far as open space preservation, we've seen time and time again that these farms in our communities when are utilized as farms putting people to work. You know that they are valuable to our communities as opposed to seeing developers come in and turn these open spaces and previously working farms into just large scale developments. So, I do want to3318 just take a moment and offer my support.

We are submitting written testimony as well, but, Chairman Chan, I know you know this business3326 and this legislation better than anybody in the legislature. I know we're going to continue to work together on this, but I think it's time, I would say to members of the committee that aren't familiar with this legislation or this space, the horse breeding horse farms, horse racing to continue to work with us on this because the time is now for us to be able to make sure that we're making a commitment to keep these farms open and alive and a thoroughbred. A vibrant thoroughbred breeding industry here in the commonwealth. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Madam.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[BILL KELLY(BEER DISTRIBUTORS MASSACHUSETTS):][HB338] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Moran and through you to all the members of this committee. My name is Bill kelly. I am the president of beer distributors in Massachusetts, that's the Trade Association for beer distribution companies across Massachusetts. Today, I ask for your support of House Bill 338, an act further regulating the storage of alcoholic beverages. House 338 would modernize the Massachusetts system of regulation3486 of the locations where alcoholic beverages may be stored by licensed distributors and thereby remove a longstanding barrier that blocks the orderly and efficient conduct of that beer distribution business.

House 338 contains just a single section that repeals the words and generalized Chapter 138 Section 20 that create the statutory restriction, limiting the number of warehouses within one municipality in which a beer distributor can store its inventory. This barrier blocks the orderly and efficient conduct of beer distribution business, as well as the marketing of beverage alcohol to licensed retailers in Massachusetts. The past year,3526 as you will recall, has seen an explosion in the number of new, exciting, innovative, talented breweries, both in Massachusetts and across the United States.

Massachusetts has grown to host over 200 breweries operating within the Commonwealth, according to the license data from the alcoholic beverages control commission. Some of the growth has occurred across the country, with the increase in the number of operating breweries, more brands, more styles of beer, more container sizes and more package sizes have poured into the Massachusetts market these brand's styles and package sizes typically land inside the warehouse of a Massachusetts beer distributor.

The success you see on the shelves that deliver a wide variety of choice for consumers across Massachusetts creates broad demands on a beer distributor who must take possession in store all these volumes of brands and containers inside the warehouse or the law has adapted to the innovation and growth in the brewery segment of the industry. The current alcohol storage law blocks beer distributor from conducting its business in the most orderly and efficient manner. House 338 simply proposes to remove this barrier.

The bill removes the barrier while maintaining the obligation to obtain and pay for an alcohol storage permit. The ABCC directly issues these permits and will continue to do so with minimal use of agency resources required. Passing this legislation recognizes the large volume of space necessary to storm all beverages such as beer that is a perishable product with a limited shelf life. Indeed, the experience of the3631 past 18 months clearly3633 shows how perishable beer is with its limited shelf life. So the3638 beer distributors in Massachusetts support House 338 and ask for this committee's consideration to recommend this bill at the committee's earliest opportunity.

The beer distributors likewise support House 344 that proposes the same update of the law that regulates storage of alcohol in Massachusetts. I would be happy to answer any questions any member of the committee has and thank you for your attention and your courtesy this afternoon.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[ROB MELLION(MASSACHUSETTS PACKAGE STORES ASSOCIATION):] Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the massachusetts package stores association. As many of you know, we represent the mom and pop retailers of beer, wine and spirits across the state. I say that because we don't represent the large corporate interests and the out of state interests that cell into massachusetts. You read a lot of stuff in3752 the newspaper, a lot of things have been said, a lot of that's not true.

We are the small businesses, we represent the collective small businesses that are 19,0003762 jobs in the state and are the second and third generation small businesses that sell beer wine spirits in Massachusetts. This is important because this is what our opposition to bills like these pertain3777 to. This is really becoming a Goliath versus David, not David versus Goliath situation because it's Goliath who is bringing the fight and it is about reorganizing the retail tier of alcohol beverages to the benefit of large corporate interests.

You're going to see before you this legislative session about 100 bills pertaining to alcohol. Last legislative session, it was about 52 bills. We're tracking over 120 bills impacting the alcohol beverages industry this legislative session. Last legislative session was 81 bills and the session before that, four years ago, we were only looking at 26 bills and what's driving all of this? What's the dark matter behind it? It is marketplace control. It is a desire of corporate interests outside of Massachusetts seeking to leverage legislation like what is before you today aimed towards building infrastructure that will benefit them.

It benefits them through marketplace control. The problem that we have is that we don't have the means to contain and control what these bills do. Maybe that's what we're going to go towards. Maybe consumer interest is going to at some point supersede public safety and control because this is all pendulanging towards the interests of companies like third party delivery companies like to puff dot com, amazon dot com, total wine, the supermarket chains. This is all infrastructure for them and it allows them the infrastructure across the state to be able to home deliver and to be able to basically take the place of the family business.

The difference between what has happened in some other industries and what is happening in3901 our industry, the alcohol beverages industry is that we're not talking about bread here. I know that those who push for bills like this love to make the comparison that it's a commodity, just like bread, it's a regulated substance. Alcohol is a regulated substance that can be addictive, it's something that we try to keep out of the hands of minors and we're having a lot of problems already on our hands as a result of deregulation that happened during Covid 19.

That's part of the reason why we've been testifying against drinks to go, not cocktails to go, drinks to go because drinks to go is what we're actually dealing with right now, that you're going to be hearing as well and that's just simply because it isn't just limited to restaurants. Mass packs has no issue with restaurants being able to continue serving alcohol with cocktails, the problem is that we're dealing with large corporate interests who are pushing heavy volumes of alcohol to the3957 public at the3958 expense of the public and the expense of our own industry.

That's what's that place us here too. Again, this is all about building the infrastructure that is going to wipe out mom and Pops and there's a lot of litigation going on that is running in tandem with bills like what we have here today. There3976 was a litigation that took place two years ago at the SJC with total wine before the ABCC that was just about marketplace control and about curative quantity discounts because if you are able to have storage across the state, then you are able to buy more quantity of product at a lower invoice cost to wipe out your competitor.

Again, that's what this is all about. Furthermore, we can't contain it. An example of why we can't contain is that you need to look to see what's happening in Minnesota right now. In Minnesota, there is a case in play involving the wholesale tier and their ability to ship to whoever retailers it is that they desire. If you don't think that anything that you do here, which you are targeting for a handful of individuals is not going to be put into the hands of interstate companies, then you don't know about TWSRA, which was4035 a case before the US Supreme Court in 2019 that made applicable that any law that you have that is potentially protectionist regarding alcohol beverages must yield to the interstate interest.

They created a new test that is an intermediate scrutiny test where the state must affirmatively demonstrate that the question regulation can address public health and safety effects of alcohol use and serve other legitimate interests. The problem that we're going to have here is that again, you create something that you're carving out for a group that you think is going to benefit from this but you have to understand that fulfilment houses in California or Southern Glacier, for example, must get the same benefit. That's the reason why these bills change the landscape of alcohol, retail and wholesale in Massachusetts and we oppose them just on Principal. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE


[MORAN:] If you could just speak a little bit more, you know, he's talked about David, you talked about Goliath, I'd like to hear a little bit more on the effect with respect to the consumer, if you would?

[MELLION:] Having multiple storage places across the state and having this type of infrastructure, the consequences to this when corporate interests take over the market place, when supermarket chains control wine and beer sales across the state, the consumer for the first part is going to see a reduction in the numbers of types of products that are going to be presented to them because supermarket chains typically go for your top 20-30 skews. So you see the small businesses wiped out, who have the variety, you're going to lose variety there.

So the consumer loses variety, that's one. Two, you know, if the consumer thinks that they're going to get a lower price here as a result of all this, that just doesn't happen, the industry is just going to take4234 the profits so the consumer is not going to see a reduced price, but there will be greater profit for large corporate interests who will then take those profits out of Massachusetts.



SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

© InstaTrac 2025