2024-11-26 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Transportation

SEN CRIGHTON - Brendan Crighton, I'm the State Senator from Lynn and the Senate Co-Chair of transportation committee. I'd like to call this hearing to order. Thank you for joining us on such a short week. We'll be here in14 person, also joining us, remotely online. I am joined here by my co-chair here, Representative Straus, who I will turn it over to momentarily. But first wanted to recognize, some of the Senate committee members that are here. We have vice chair Paul Mark joining us remotely, and we will keep an eye out for others as they arrive. Today, we have a short agenda to hear just two bills, both pertaining to commercial39 driver's licenses. We have a bill, House Bill 5117 from our vice chair, Murray.45 Also a bill from Governor Healey, House Bill 5109. They'll clarify the existing statute, so that CDL license holders will not be disqualified for life from operating a commercial vehicle based on convictions in a passenger vehicle occurring on or before September 30th, 2005. We thank the Governor for the letters she submitted70 on with the filing of this bill that we are considering72 today. We only have a few people that are signed up to testify, and we'll keep an eye out for anyone joining remotely that would like to testify. We also keep an open record for written testimony for 10 days following today's hearing. Thank you again for everyone here in attendance, and, with that, I'll turn it over to my co chair, Representative Straus.97

97 REP97 STRAUS97 -97 Thank97 you, Senator. As99 as indicated, and I apologize for arriving four103 minutes late, not so bad, but late nevertheless. I am the House Co-Chair of the committee, and, the Senator has identified the matters on which were scheduled for this public and hybrid hearing. I'd like to identify or introduce some of the House members that are here. In attendance to my left is, vice chairman Representative Murray, to my right is, Representative Norman Orrall133 from the town of Lakeville, and, participating remotely at the moment, we have committee members, Representatives Blais, Howitt, Kerans, Sabadosa. I did147 get a text a moment ago from Representative Fluker Oakley, she's coming from a meeting at city155 hall and probably should be joining us shortly. As161 indicated, it's my understanding with regard to to the Governor's bill, House 5109, the Governor's message itself and the language of the bill, I think, pretty clearly indicate, the Governor's and the Mass DOT's position and the registry's position on this as well. So, at this point, I know I'm not anticipating any administration witnesses should anybody inquire. I'll turn it back over at this point.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SEAN BISHOP - GROUND EFFECTS LANDSCAPING - HB 5109 - Thank you219 for letting me speak today. My name is Sean Bishop, I'm from Plymouth, Massachusetts. My business is Ground Effects Landscaping. We're located in Carver, Massachusetts. I'm here today to speak in support of this change to the law due to the direct fact that it has impacted one of my best employees, has238 been caught up in this mess since the registry sent these letters to these drivers notifying them that their licenses would be completely suspended within five days with no warning, no due process, no way to look into the issue. This has caused me to lay off one of my best employees and put him on state assistance because he can no longer drive a vehicle in Massachusetts. They didn't just take his CDL away, they revoked his class D license as well.266 This is a gentleman who268 made some mistakes when he was 19270 years old over 30 years ago, dealt with them through the274 court system, had them resolved legally, he got his CDL license in 2017, he had his record reviewed at that point and the registry cleared him to get his CDL license. He doesn't even have a parking ticket as a professional driver. He's got nothing but compliments from my customers. So, I295 wanted the shifts to share the committee how this299 impacts more than just these drivers. I've talked to several drivers that have been impacted by this. I know several of them are owner operators, so you basically put them out of business overnight.

I know one gentleman, he's the main breadwinner for his family, he owns a boat moving company, and you can't move boats because of this action by the state and the registry. I think as a taxpayer and a business owner in the state, it's completely unconscionable what you guys are doing or what the registry has done to these drivers. You know, not you guys, I know there's been a lot of support at the state house for this to be changed. I just want, as a business owner, I have no problem that a CDL, commercial driver licensed person should be held to a higher standard as a professional and operate as such, but let's have one standard. The federal mandate for CDL drivers is 10 year, a 10 year look back at your driving record for any reasons for disqualification. I think a lifetime look back in Massachusetts's case is excessive, it's never been enforced before. All these licenses went into effect years years ago, and Michael has had his relicensed renewed over seven378 times since the eighties, and it's never come up. So, I feel that the registrar of motor vehicles is completely inept in their management of how they administrate these rules, and that's the bigger issue here. Most of these drivers are in similar circumstances to Michael, they're not a danger to the public, they're not a danger to families driving their cars. You know, we need to give them a way to renew their careers and their livelihoods because it just can't stand, it has to be changed. Michael, you know, he was going to be here today, he was hospitalized from the stress of this, he just went home on Monday.

You know, this is literally a life and death situation for some of these431 families that don't have a way to433 make their living because of this rule. I also want to mention as a business owner, now the registry sent these letters to these men and women with five days notice of suspension, no real way to do recourse. You call a phone number that's unlisted or there's no number listed, it comes up no number on your phone. You can't call them back because there's no number, they are, like, don't miss your phone call for your appointment, you can't call them back because the numbers on the cell phones are unlisted. The bureaucracy and the ineptitude of the registry of how they've handled476 this is just wrong. I mean, we've had to hire an attorney to represent Michael, you know, it's cost my company a lot of money, we have one of our trucks is not working because Michael's not working. So, the effects of what the registry have done are is way bigger than just those 500 drivers. I implore the Senators of the state and the Governor to please change this rule so these drivers can get reinstated because they're not bad people, they're not doing harm to the public. You know,511 these are people that made mistakes in most cases 20, 30 years ago that were dealt with then, and now the state is double jeopardy imposing penalties on them that are taking their jobs away just out of the blue. That's what I wanted to say today. Thank you.532

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

LEANNE POMPEO - GROUND EFFECTS LANDSCAPING - HB 5109 - Good morning staff and committee members. My538 name is Leanne Bishop, I'm with my husband. I'm an owner of Ground Effects Landscaping and Ground Effects Transportation Services in Carver, Mass. My employee, Michael McDonald, is one of 500 drivers whose lives have been upended since these draconian CDL regulations were instituted in the554 Commonwealth. To quote Aristotle, the law is reason and free from passion. Massachusetts regulations to the CDL look back are a true case of a law written as passion and free from reason. Our elected legislature, you are elected by the people of the Commonwealth for their benefit, the current law doesn't either. It is a piece of legislation designed, if we are being frank, to cover the negligence of registered motor vehicles cashing through for reason. I do not want to waste the committee's time of doing a lot as it is currently written. Instead, I would like to focus on why the current regulations fail with citizens of the Commonwealth. Driver's licenses, as you are all aware, are issued in the state of residence, they have no impact on state of employment. So, for a citizen of Rhode Island or New Hampshire, the issuance of a driver's license is dependent upon that citizen, meaning the criteria set forth by the regulations of the state in which the citizen lives, not works.

So, for example, a citizen who lives in New Hampshire is employed in Massachusetts. Every day, that citizen crosses state citizens. Let's say, for example, that citizen had two DUIs631 in the 19 wheeler for a company whose physical address is in Massachusetts. This citizen drives on our roads and among our citizens. Let's say, for example, that citizen had two DUIs in 1980s and refused a breathalyzer in 1991, the citizen of New Hampshire can legally drive for, be insured by, and be paid by a Massachusetts company because he lays his head and pays taxes to the state of New Hampshire because the state of New Hampshire follows the federal mandate for a 10 year look after CDLs. If that same citizen laid his head at night and paid taxes in the Commonwealth, he would not have a CDL or a job. He would also have his passenger driver's license stripped from him by the registry of motor vehicles without due process or hearing for infraction, which this citizen can pay the price for based on legal status of time and day infraction. The registry is now committing double jeopardy by repunishing that citizen. States are not countries, we do not have checkpoints at our state borders, we do not control who drives in and out of our state to make sure they are following the regulations set forth by the Commonwealth prior to their arrival. The current law does not keep the citizens of the Commonwealth safer, it just punishes them and favors those who work in, but do not live in or pay taxes to the Commonwealth.

It is punishment for citizenship here. The legislation put forth by the Governor makes these critical changes to provide equity to our citizens. Aligning a 10 new look back for CDLs with federal guidelines is vital to both citizens and businesses. To be less eloquent, some things are just wrong. The Governor's proposal rights this wrong and aligns the Commonwealth with its neighbors. We want people to live, work, and contribute in the Commonwealth. I am proud to live here, and I am proud to raise my children here. I am also proud to fight for what is right. What has happened to my employee is awful, he is actually the example citizen I spoke of, he just lives in the Commonwealth. He's a proud truck driver who made mistakes in 1984 when he was 19 years old. He admitted to and paid the Commonwealth price imposed at the time of his offense. He refused to breathalyzer when it was776 not punishable to do so, and when legal advice was to refuse breathalyzers because they were inaccurate and they had just been out. So, Michael got his CDL in786 2017, he went in front of788 the Board of Appeals to get his license. They read his record791 and rightfully felt that 40 year old infractions were irrelevant. Let me repeat; my driver has already had a Board of Appeals hearing regarding his driving history. Yet the registry in803 one fell scoop took both his passenger and CDL licenses away, and at the same time, his livelihood.

The Commonwealth is now paying for him. The unemployment and Mass health, it's not enough for him to live on. He's choosing between food and rent, he can't get to the doctor. There's no accessible public transportation where he lives. He spent last week in BI, hospitalized in stress and in the intensive care unit. That is real. He wanted to speak today, but it was too much for him. The Board of Appeals has to date not issued a hearing date for his passenger driver's license,841 which they say in the computer is currently845 expired. But for the paperwork they847 sent my employee was reinstated on March 5th, 1985. They say they can't give him a hearing date because his suspension date is not coming up because it's already passed. There's no one to call, there's no one to talk to. Please support the Governor's legislation. The registry and attorneys would want you too. It would expose the abject disarraying competence of the entire872 division. It's bad, guys, it's bad. Citizens pay for this, they pay for every employee division of the government. Please do right by them.

CRIGHTON - Than you Sean and Leanne, we appreciate you sharing the thoughts and story of your employee. I would just quickly correct for the record. We just clarify that this is not from new legislation, this isn't anything that the legislature has passed, recently nor is it a new rule, this is rather the result of an audit and diving the RV diving into their previous records. Again, not right or wrong, just wanted to clarify, this is in recent change. I turn it over to chair Straus.

STRAUS - Yes, I also want to thank you for taking915 time out today to to be here and put a human face, even if921 indirectly, on923 what is involved in this situation. Obviously, I don't know the individual circumstances, but, I just want to add in terms of a context, so that, I apologize if I get too much into the weeds, we've got two issues. So, I'm really speaking more broadly than your circumstance. But we have two issues, broadly speaking, that are955 going on here, purely with regard to CDL licenses, and that's why I say I don't know his circumstances with regard to his, I'll call it, regular operator's permit. But with regard to CDL permits or licenses, because of the action of so many members of the public, and as a result of colleagues in the legislature, to my knowledge, no CDL suspensions actually occurred. Not that the registry wasn't intending that, but none occurred and there was an appeal process set up. So, those 480 or so I'll give you a chance, don't worry, those individuals who could exercise a right to appeal for a later board of appeals hearing, no loss of license occurred. Upon the filing by the Governor's bill, they even extended the hold up on this.

That was not a permanent solution, but it did stop the immediate loss of those who were purely affected by virtue of their CDL. So, two things are going on here. One, the law, Chapter 90 I'm going to say 9F, but in Chapter 90, has authorized for many years, the registry of motor vehicles to issue regulations that would have, and many states do this, it goes back to the 1990s. So, for 30 years, there's been a statute on the books that has authorized the registry to provide that 10 year period, had the registry somewhere over the course of 30 years. So, it's kind of been a bipartisan failure, if you will, adopted that kind of regulation, your employee wouldn't have faced this situation. So, the statute's been fine, the registry never issued regulations. I will say that at the same time the Governor filed this bill, they did announce a schedule, I think that by February, they intend to adopt that kind of regulation. So, forward looking, that 10 year date for those who've been suspended to be able to apply to regain their license will be in effect. Separately, however, the Governor's legislation, as I read it and understand it, would put us as a state in line with federal law so that anything even before, I think it's 2005, will not count or will not affect a CDL license.

Just so everyone gets a sense of the numbers, if something like 480 CDL license holders had received these notices, the change proposed by Governor Healey, would resolve the situation affecting about 450 of these people. So, it's a significant correction, if you will. So, both have to, I hope, take place a statutory change to bring us in line with federal law and this regulation. I should indicate, and I think as a policy matter, I happen to agree with the Governor's decision in proposing this. Nevertheless, if someone has, at some point in their history, three or more OUI's operating under the influence of substances in their record, this is not the field of work for them. So, youthful mistakes, something like that. I happen to agree with the Governor that not everyone and you would know this best, not everyone is cut out for doing commercial driving with the size of the vehicles and everything that's at stake and being on the road. So, the Governor has set up a standard proposed in the bill that we're having the hearing on, three or more OUI's, and maybe that's too much to be considered as a candidate to have a CDL.

POMPEO - I think if you read the Governor's bill, it will be more clearer, it says three or more convictions. So, it's very, very distinct. For my employee, this would not fall, that would not resolve, very important wording.

STRAUS - I would say this candidly, even if your employee had three or more convictions and they don't, I would say, you know, we can't help in all situations, there has to be some base qualification for, I would say, entrusting an individual with the responsibility of driving the kinds of vehicles that require CDLs. So, I know I was long winded, and I didn't mean to cut you off.

BISHOP - I would like to respond, Mr. Chairman. Two things. One, in Michael's situation, and that's all I can speak of with direct knowledge, is the problem we're having here with his situation is the registry itself. I mean, it started out with a notification of suspension, then we got a phone call in the middle of the night about 8:30 at night saying that that decision had been delayed because the registry had decided to postpone it because they were going to have hearings. Well, then, as a company, we went and checked his record through the insurance company and they said Michael's now suspended including his class D. He should have been remanded to a class D while this all got sorted out, but the registry suspended it. We've gotten at least and I'd be happy to forward them to your committee, all these letters in the registry, one hand doesn't know what the other hand's doing.

STRAUS - Something experience tells me that, your descriptions may have an impact, may not, we are not set up for the individual case appeal.

BISHOP - No, I understand. My thing is I want to make you aware of what's going on with your registry of motor vehicles because they're representing the state enforcing these rules that the Senators and you guys vote on. It's completely, I don't know the word I'm looking for, but I would say dysfunctional would be the best word in here. I mean, the letters don't even make sense that they're sending out to drivers. One day they said you're suspended, and the next day they call you and say, we're going to delay that, now they're saying the hearings are suspended, but our attorney who we've hired to represent, Michael, asked us not to file for the first round of hearings for his case because what he has heard because he's representing, I think he's representing 200 of these drivers directly. The first round of hearings were automatic forfeitures of license, they're just denying people.

STRAUS - Again, it's not our role to second guess or even comment on advice of counsel, but I think what the Governor has done is positive, forward thinking.

BISHOP - We believe it is the right course of action because I think then it'll make it clear the registry, the rules that they have to enforce, how they have to enforce them, and there won't be so much ambiguity. All I'm asking for as a business owner is the CDL commercial driver's license, it's a federal license. So, let's have one standard that every state has to meet instead of all these states making up their own rules. Let's just have one standard because drivers right now in the industry, the industry shorthanded on qualified CDL people. In Michael's case, and I know you're looking at the bigger picture, but in Michael's case, since he got his professional driver's license in 2017, he doesn't even have a parking ticket on his record, okay? Yes, did he make a couple mistakes when he was an 18 year old kid back in the 80s? He did. But he takes his job extremely seriously. He takes a lot of pride in the work that he does, so do several of these other drivers that I've talked to. They're just asking for the laws to be applied fairly and clearly so that everybody's following the same rules.

That's where I think Governor Healey's actions here are the right way to go, and it will help put good people back to work. It'll also clarify the standards so that myself as a business owner, you know, other organizations that hire CDL drivers, we're all playing with the same set of rules. That's all we're asking for. I think this is an easily corrected situation, but we need our legal counsel and everybody in the industry we've talked to, we need you guys to help, we need you guys to clarify this so that everybody understands it and that everybody has one standard to meet and it'll help me run my business, it'll help people like Michael go back to work. There are people that shouldn't have their license and they get caught on this and like you said, three strikes you're up, I have no problem with that because I do I agree with you, a commercial driver driving £100,000 vehicle down the road, you know, if they're chronic alcohol abuser, they should not be on the roads in a commercial vehicle. 100% agree and would support that, but I just want one standard to make it

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

POMPEO - We're lucky to have a great employee and who's worth fighting for, and we do support the Governor's bill. We don't want, as business owners, the liability of employing someone who is a danger on the road. It's our liability, we own this, this is our family's livelihood too. It's very important safety standards, but fair and equitable safety standards for the citizens of the Commonwealth are extremely important.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

CRIGHTON - We may have some other questions from the members of the committee, if you don't mind, just, sticking around. First, I just want to thank you again for your testimony and, recognize that we share, this sense of urgency around these issues as our constituents, our people we represent as well. So, these bills were just referred to our committee less than a week ago, and, you know, through the co-chair and I wanted to have this hearing, you know, it is Thanksgiving week, we thought that the situation warranted that. So, we appreciate it.

BISHOP - I really appreciate it because it is very important. This is critical to these drivers that are affected by this, it is critical.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP MURRAY - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No real questions, but I'd like to echo what Chair Straus had indicated that you really helped put a human face on this very abstract paper problem, and it's, very similar to a number of emails that I received from folks similarly affected as your employee, in my district and beyond, really throughout throughout the Commonwealth. I was quite surprised when I looked into the statues, and again, as Chair Straus had indicated, the1687 statute which has been in place for years does provide the RMV discretion to issue guidelines for a 10 year disqualification. The RMV, at some point, issued regulations directly in contravention of that where they refused to exercise that discretion, which to me, made no sense and frankly, I found, unconscionable. So, I'm very pleased of the action that the Governor took to bring this issue. I'm very pleased with the chairs of this committee realizing how important this is, to bring these bills forward and hopefully get this resolved before the end of the year. But thank you for coming, and really, again, shedding a human face on this predicament.

BISHOP - I truly appreciate all your help and the Governor's help with this. I just hope this can get passed as soon as possible for these families that are affected by this.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP HOWITT - Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not so much as a question, but just a little background. Full disclosure, I'm probably one of the few Representatives that has a CDL license. I've had it for many years, and the requirements of a CDL license, especially now, are quite extensive aside from the health checkup. They require schools, as part of the CDL requirement, which when I got my CDL years ago, the school wasn't necessary. You could study on your own, but it just seems that there are a number of issues that the registry has put forth recently. My first question would be directed at the registry, although no one apparently is here from the registry, is whether they have hired outside businesses to go through their records to try and recoup some of this money. The reason I asked that, I had a constituent back in the 80s, who was a student at BC Law School, and he had gotten a notice just about six months ago, maybe a little bit longer, that his license to drive in Massachusetts, although, he no longer lives in Massachusetts, I say constituent, someone who contacted me, they're all constituents when they have a problem. He had to either pay the fine, which he felt was the easiest way to do it. It was a ticket when he was in law school at BC or appeal it. He figured it was just easy to take care of it, so he paid the ticket. He then received a notice that he had to go to a school, for, I think, four hours each night for two nights up in Boston, and presently, he lives in Rhode Island, and it was1885 a subcontracted school, it wasn't even part of the registry.

So, that brings me to the question, did the registry hire someone to go through1893 their records to try and recoup money just as this situation1897 has unfolded as well. We had a situation most recently with the registry with K cars, which are small Japanese cars, which met federal regulations, which were 25 years old, and people brought them in. They paid good money for them. They were registered, and then all of a sudden, the registry one day decided, well, you can't register a K car, and tough luck if you bought one. And, fortunately, they rescinded their directive. So, there seems to be no issue as to how it affects people's lives, their income, their families, just as this gentleman has stated. So, I question what's going on within the registry, what has caused this all of a sudden, look back? I guess my final question is, as much as I'm in favor of this, I don't know how long it will take for it to go through the legislative process, whether the Governor could put an executive order to take care of this very quickly. That way, we don't lose any time, and these people are able to get back driving their vehicles for the benefit of, the Commonwealth and their families. Thank you.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP WHIPPS - Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. and Mrs. Bishop, I thank you very much for coming in and testifying. Your story about your employee, Mike, was very similar to many of the men and women in my district who this also affects. I'm also a business owner, I don't have a CDL, but I've noticed in the last five years, whether it's an LTL or dedicated truck, we have a severe lack of truck drivers nationwide, whether it's bringing raw material to our place or shipping finished goods and, certainly, the same as the trucks that bring food to our grocery stores and pharmacies. Our truck drivers do more, I think, for us as a citizenry than we even realize, and we have passed big bills this year regarding housing and infrastructure. All of those projects rely on people with CDLs. So, I'm grateful the Governor has brought this bill forward. I am begging the chairs to move this as quickly as humanly possible because we know if this doesn't pass by December 31st at midnight, by the time new new committees are created and chairs in the legislative process, we won't be hearing this again until maybe March. So, I think it's incumbent upon all of us legislators to get this through as quickly as possible. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you very much, and we know this is probably your last committee hearing. So, I thank you, Chairman Straus, and I really hope that this can be the final thing we push through as a committee because everybody in the Commonwealth relies on these men and women who transport our goods to and from market. So, thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Bishop.

BISHOP - Thank you.

STRAUS - Thank you. I'll just add thank you to my colleague, you pressed all the right buttons. But in all seriousness, as my co-chair indicated, this bill only was referred to the committee last Thursday, and even despite a week that people are inclined to think, people are a little more relaxed, we wanted to get this up and before the committee as soon as we could. Thank you.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

THOMAS MARI - TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 25 - HB 5109 - Good afternoon. Dear Chairs, Straus and Crighton, on behalf of our nearly 13,000 members of Teamsters local 25, working both in public and private sector occupations throughout Massachusetts, I urge you to pass H 5109, an act related to commercial driver's license sponsored by Governor Maura T. Healey. I cannot stress how important this legislation is for my members as well as every other person whose livelihood is in jeopardy without these changes. Nationally, there's an estimated shortage of 80,000 commercial truck drivers, which explains delivery delays, inventory shortages, and high prices. We are working every day to train more drivers and appreciate the Governor's and your willingness to work with us to urgently address this issue. There is no good time to lose your job, but less than a month before the holidays is especially difficult. While members of Teamsters Local 25 who work in the freight and package delivery occupations are on the front line, it is important to consider that virtually every sector of our economy is impacted.

So, Teamsters and2205 others who drive commercial vehicles in the construction industry, fuel delivery, food supply, and every other aspect out there that we get deliveries in are about to lose their livelihood. House 5109 strikes an important balance. It protects jobs without compromising the safety of the public. It ensures that provisions of the Federal Safety Road Act of 2012, Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 are the safety standards for commercial drivers and also rightfully aligned the Commonwealth's emphasis on holding accountable drivers who have committed certain offenses. This is sound public policy. The message this legislation sends to every person who possesses a CDL or aspires to have a CDL is simple; you make a mistake, accept the punishment, and never make the same mistake again. Your career will not be abruptly terminated. It affirms the power of recovery and rewards those who have decades of sobriety and spotless professional driving records and our productive members of our community. Thank you very much for your time today, the opportunity to offer testimony, and I cannot stress to you how important it is to urgently move this bill through the legislative process. In the meantime, I wish you all and your families a happy Thanksgiving and2283 a happy holiday season. Thank you. I'll2285 answer any questions you may have.

CRIGHTON - Thank you, Mr. President. We extend our happy Thanksgiving to you as well, and thank you for, speaking here2291 today on behalf of the members of Local 25. Any questions for members of the committee?

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP FLUKER OAKLEY - I was sitting here reflecting. First off, thank you so much for your testimony. As, an only child who was very spoiled around this time of year, I'm so grateful for you and your crew for all they do to make this holiday season a blessed occasion for many families across the Commonwealth. So, I just want to thank you for your testimony and say I appreciate the urgency and the speed with which this committee moved upon receiving the filing of this bill. I'm no Rep Whipps, but you will be missed, Chair Straus, so thank you for all that you do.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

RHONDA ZERO - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 5109 - My name is Rhonda zero. First off, I would like to thank, Representative Kerans and, Senator Lovely for their response to me when I reached out to them, they were very genuine, they took ownership2367 of this, and that's why I'm here today. I'm a small business owner in Massachusetts, and I'd like to speak to you briefly on two ends. The end is a small business owner and also as someone who has an employee who has been impacted by this. To your point, my employee has not lost his license at this point, he did receive the letter, he received the letter rescinding the letter, etcetera, etcetera. My driver is in his mid forties, he is a single father of two teenage girls. He works 40 to 60 hours a week, accepts all work that is available to him. He could slack off and collect public funds for his children whose mother passed away, but he isn't, he's out there and he's working. This was devastating to him, this is what he does, this is all he's done, this is what he likes to do. Now, can he get another job? Yes, and, he delivers to a lot of construction sites, he's a hard worker, and many of those companies have already tried to poach him, and said, you know, if you'd like to come to work here. He wouldn't like2435 to, but if his license is taken away, that might be what he has to do, and it would definitely disrupt his family and schedules and so forth.

As I say, he's a single father, we have to accommodate him being home to get his kids from school, which we're happy to do, not all jobs can do that. So, I am speaking on behalf of Brendan. Now Brendan's transgressions occurred one in 1999 and one in 2006, which was a refusal to take a breathalyzer. That one is of concern to me because while I'm not terribly proficient in reading all the legalese that was in the bills, there is something in the Federal bill that was of concern to me because it's anything before 2005. So that begs the question, is Brendan going to lose his job because in 2006, he refused a breathalyzer test. Like those who spoke before me, I think what's more important here is how long has Brendan been driving with a clean record? That has been just shy of over 20 years. My other concerns with not addressing this, as we all know and has been testified to, we have a shortage of CDL drivers. Massachusetts went so far as to step out of the federal guideline, which is 21 for CDL drivers and Massachusetts now allows CDL drivers at 18. Now, all joking aside, we have all heard that the Supreme Court has determined that 18 year old brains aren't developed, that their decision making processes aren't always there, and if this doesn't get fixed, we're gonna take someone like Brendan who is experienced with a developed brain off the road and we're going to put an 18 year old with no experience on the road.

It defies logic, it defeats the purpose of what we're trying to do here. So, I do have a concern about that. As a small business owner, this is egregiously impactful. I'm a little bit more challenged than those that spoke before me in that I'm in a hazardous materials industry. I'm the one that's delivering people's fuel oil today to heat their homes before the holiday, I'm filling up generators at nursing homes, I fill up generators at Logan Airport to make sure that that runs, and hazmat drivers are very difficult to come by. Not only do they have to have a CDL, they have to undergo all other kinds of testing. To take these hazmat drivers and just kick them to the side, replacing these guys is, I don't want to say next to impossible, it is a challenge. Then there's the training and the learning curve and the safety tests. When I bring a new driver on, even if he has delivered fuel for another company and has loaded his truck at the same terminal my people are going to, they have to go through with one of my employees five times. They have to load the truck five times with one of my employees even if they've been loading at that same terminal for the last seven years, replacing these people is very difficult.

Hazmat drivers are enrolled in drug and alcohol programs, all of my drivers are randomly screened. I just get an email that says, you got to send John for a drug test, you got to send Brendan for a drug and an alcohol test. No rhyme or reason and they are required to go. These are some of the safest drivers on the road. And because Brendan refused a breathalyzer in 1999, to take him off the road and put a less experienced person, particularly someone, maybe the person's been driving 10 years and never drove hazmat, it just defies logic. I would ask that this bill be put through and that perhaps would be tweaked to make sure that people with offenses in 2006 aren't also kicked to the curb. I think the issue is how long has it been since their prior offense, and what was that offense? I want to thank you for allowing me to speak, I genuinely and truly apologize for not coming in person, I normally would, I think it's important. But, again, I am in the heating business, there's a holiday coming up, the coldest weather we've had so far this year, and we just needed all boots on the ground. But, I did think it was important to take the time. So, again, I thank you very much and I hope that someone, somewhere will come to some common sense and just get this taken care of for these people and these small businesses.

STRAUS - Thank you. Absolutely no need to apologize for participating remotely, that is why we do this, and, I've seen myself in the few years since we've added these hybrid hearings, the increase in engagement by the public and the ability to see these hearings, see us at work, and also to participate themselves. As to your question, that is another reason why we do these hearings. We're not here to give legal advice in his circumstance, I do believe, but do not take this to the bank, that under the language of the Governor's bill, this individual has just one post 2005 offense, so would be okay.

ZERO - That's what I thought, I wasn't sure.

STRAUS - But the purpose of the hearing is, because other people are watching and taking notes, will get advised as the legislation hopefully, moves along to completion, just to be able to resolve that. So, people understand that that's why we do these public hearings because it helps shape the quality of the legislation. It's not just an an empty gesture to allow people to speak, it has an impact on the way we conduct our business. I know that's not often in certain newspapers, but, it is a fact. But, thank you very much.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP KERANS - Thank you. Thank you both, Chair Crighton, Chair Straus. I want to thank Rhonda for joining today and for taking the time over the past couple of months to bring our attention to this. Kudos to you for sticking with it, standing by your employee, it's very nice to see, and I'm grateful that we have this legislation, before us. I do want to add to my colleague, Representative Whipps, and Fluker Oakley just to say thank you to the House Chair of this committee. It's hard to contemplate hearings next session without the input of the House Chair who's been here about 30 years, and so that look back perspective is so valuable. So, Chair Straus, you're going to have an open invitation to join these hearings in your spare time, and just kind of be on speed dial for us, I hope that that's okay. So, thank you. I'm looking forward to a speedy resolution, and I have a feeling, Mr. Chairman, that you helped bring this about. So, I want to thank you again. Have a wonderful thanksgiving. Thank you.

CRIGHTON - Thank you, Representative. I do want the record to show that at that last hearing, which I thought was your last, I gave a very heartfelt warm speech, but I do thank you again. I don't want to come back here again, but thank you for your service. With that, I don't see any more questions from members of the committee here or online, and there's no one else signed up to testify. If anyone in the room would like to raise their hand and come up, testify, are you welcome to or online? Seeing none, I2941 welcome a motion to adjourn.

STRAUS - So moved.

FLUKER OAKLEY - Second.

CRIGHTON - This hearing is adjoined. Thank you very much.