2025-04-09 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

2025-04-09 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security

REP12 CAHILL12 -12 Morning,12 everyone. All the new or the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, I am the House Chair Dan Cahill. This is Senate John Cronin. This is the first committee hearing, so you all have to bear with us on this one. Before we get into the agenda, couple of ground rules. One, we keep testimony to three minutes, and we would appreciate that greatly if everyone would adhere to that. Because if you are, Sophia, who is testifying virtually, she is the last person to testify. So every time you go over by a minute or two, poor Sofia is just sitting there online, likely in her pajamas on Zoom, waiting for this to act. So we just ask you to do that. Alright? Please turn off your cell phones, and silence them also. No signs. This is a safe place for people to be able to express their views, so we don't want any type of influence to follow-up one way or the other. That being said, Senator, is there anything you'd like to add?
SEN CRONIN - No. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'd ask that we begin with, the pledge of allegiance, and92 I'd ask for the chair's discretion if we could94 have Representative Xiarhos, a gold96 star father lead us.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SEN LOVELY - SB 1718 - Okay. Good morning. Good morning,179 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.181 Thank you for the opportunity to testify183 today, and thank you for taking me out of185 order. I am here to, testify on S.1718, an act requiring health care employers to develop and implement programs to prevent work workplace violence. Before I begin my remarks, could I just say thank you for the pledge of allegiance. I've been, in the Senate for going my thirteenth year and have chaired and have been on many committees, and that's never happened. So thank you.
CAHILL - Thank you.
LOVELY - Thank you, chairs. So there are several key pieces I'd like to emphasize about this legislation. First is the significance of incidents of workplace violence and violent assaults in health care and health and on health care workers. It's well documented. It's well recognized, and we need to take action to address it. And I'm happy we are here today with this early session hearing. I just wanna239 add that I think probably every241 one of us in this room in this committee knows someone who's been assaulted. Maybe a nurse, maybe a health care worker, usually in an emergency department, but we see it every day. I have family members, a sister who has been assaulted many times, and that meets the moment. It requires all Massachusetts hospitals to develop a facility-specific risk assessment and then use that assessment to implement a comprehensive program to reduce the risk of workplace violence.
It engages the workforce in developing the assessment that includes workforce training. It establishes strong enforcement through DPH licensing, regular reporting, and job protections for impacted workers that include additional paid leave for salted workers to address legal proceedings if necessary. And I'd like to note that this bill before you, as you know, is a compromised piece of legislation that the nurses association, the MNA, is here today, the hospital association, and SEIU 1199 have worked together to reach agreement. They all support this compromise, bill and are advocating for its passage. I would ask for the committee's consideration to, pass this legislation, through the committee with a positive recommendation. And there will be some a couple of panels speaking today on this, and,330 I'm grateful for their all of their time and work, to get us here334 today. Happy to answer any questions.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

STEVE WALSH - MASS HEALTH AND HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION - SB 1718 - Thank you, Mr Chairman. Chairs Cahill, Cronin. Chair Cahill, thank you for brightening the room this morning, and to the entire members of the committee. It's really a privilege401 to be here this morning to talk about this important issue that's impacting every hospital and every healthcare407 worker that we all represent. My name is Steve Walsh. I'm the president of the Massachusetts412 Health and Hospital Association for those that I have not had the pleasure of working416 with, and we represent every hospital in the Commonwealth.418 And we have been working420 closely with our partners in organized labor to come424 up with I would say not a compromise bill, a better bill. Working with all of you, working with the teams in our hospitals, to make sure that we can protect the people that protect us. I'll start with a simple question. What happens every 36 minutes in a Massachusetts hospital? And it isn't442 a life saving procedure. It isn't the beginning of a new career.
It isn't,448 a life saving technology450 or therapy. It's the assault of one of our workers every 36 minutes. So it's the time since we got to the status this morning, three of our frontline workers that take care of our loved ones have been assaulted in one of our hospitals. It is simply unacceptable and it must end. As my colleagues will explain, this crisis has been growing at an alarming rate in recent years, and violent instances are driving too many people out of the vocation and the profession of caring for people that need them more than ever. These are people that have devoted their lives to caring for our loved ones, and this cannot simply be part of the job. And we have solutions that are in front of you here today. About a year ago, there was an incident499 at Logan International Airport where a passenger took out a pair of scissors and ran up the aisle towards a flight attendant. Nobody was harmed, thankfully. That ran on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, CNN,515 wherever you get your news on that night.517 And that happens every half hour in Massachusetts, and we collectively haven't done anything to stop it. Now we may serve different organizations and have different constituencies, but we have the same goal, to care for the people that care for us.
This is an incredibly strong piece of legislation. It meets the moment of today's crisis. It's built around prevention, transparency, and accountability. And we believe this is an opportunity to pass a reform that was crafted in partnership with us, with you, that will make a real difference in the lives of our health care professionals. Because our health care workers need to be focused on saving lives, not defending their own. They show up for us every day. They care for our loved ones. They show up again and again and again. Isn't it time for us to show up for them? I wanna pass it over now to Julie Pinkham, my colleague and executive579 director of the Massachusetts Nurses Association. Julie's a dear friend, a colleague, and someone who's585 devoted her career every day to getting out of bed and thinking about how can I help my workers, how can I help caregivers, how can I593 create careers, And how can I take care of their safety? And her career is coming to an end. And what better capstone than passing this piece of legislation as she moves on to the next chapter of her life.
JULIE PINKHAM - MNA - SB 1718 - Thanks, Steve. Well, thank you all for the opportunity to testify today regarding this important piece of legislation, an act requiring health care employees to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence. This panel is not one you will see often, but this issue demands it.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

PINKHAM - This panel is not one that you will see often, but the issue demands it. Over 15 years ago, we filed workplace violence legislation. As is often the case, frontline staff will see, hear, feel issues before data can validate their concerns. 15 years later, the data is clear, the evidence is clear, the workforce is facing increasingly dangerous violent situations within their workplace. This is not a transient issue. Every day, the workforce continues to suffer harm. Over the last year, our organizations, which at times are at odds with solutions, have worked together to resolve concerns and support those legislation as filed. In doing so, it's our sincere belief that the efforts from this legislation will make the workplace safer for those working with great effort to deliver care to patients often in the most vulnerable and difficult of circumstances. The legislation assures a collaborative effort recognizing variations and types of facilities, and therefore, avenues for prevention.
The annual assessment recognizes that change is constant, and the evolution, therefore, of the workplace protection must also evolve. The bill recognizes in the unfortunate circumstances where injury has occurred, that the victim of violence must be supported, and conversely, that circumstances surrounding the harm should allow appropriate variation in approach by law enforcement. These are increasingly difficult and stressful times. That escalating tension does not appear likely to diminish. Stress and754 anxiety further amplify the tinderbox environment of758 health care. The health760 care work force does not have time on their side for help waiting for their circumstance to be safer. I thank the Chairman lawn and Senator Lovely for getting the bill where we are today, and I would ask, hope even, that this bill be released favorably and moved to passage quickly. Thank you very much. Carrie, good luck with this. Thank you.
CARRIE MEDINA - 1199SEIU MASSACHUSETTS - SB 1718 - Good morning, chairs and committee. My name's Carrie Medina. I am the vice president of the community care team at with 1199 SEIU. Community care team is made up of, thousands of workers across the state. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony on behalf of our more than 80,000 Massachusetts health worker members. It is a privilege to be joined in our advocacy by our allies at the MHA and our hospital employers represented today by the MHA. MHA. Prior to joining, union staff in 02/2012, I was working at Boston Medical Center as an administrative assistant for 15 years. Even though I was not directly working with patients, I managed to830 see my coworkers who were subjected to being assaulted and other workplace violence. Far too often, we are all forced to work in unsafe840 conditions. Workplace mental health counselors, dietary, and housekeeping. Ultimately, workplace violence impacts every hospital, worker member who interacts with hospital patients, their visitors, or the general public. That's why 1199 SEIU is pleased to offer our support for an act requiring health care employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence.
As you've heard from those before me, this bill would enact a number of comprehensive policy reforms to reduce violence at hospital facilities. I want to particularly highlight the important importance of the bill's provisions around engaging the895 workforce and workplace violence prevention. This bill appropriately mandates that facility employers include worker input in developing a facility specific risk assessment. Workers and their union representatives are then also to be fully engaged in using that assessment to develop and implement a comprehensive facility-specific violence prevention program. In turn, that program must include a plan to provide employee training and any appropriate changes in job design necessary to implement it. Frontline workers working jointly with employers to develop and implement solutions as outlined in this bill is exactly what's needed to guarantee that these violence prevention plans are successful. This is a941 strong bill, the result of good work done together by all three organizations,945 and will make 1199 members' jobs safer and strengthen our health care system as a whole. 1199 SEIU is fully committed to working together with this committee, the legislature and all stakeholders, to advance this bill in a timely way. Thank you for your time today.
CRONIN - Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna thank you all for your testimony here this morning, and I appreciate the hard work that you've all engaged in with each other to find some consensus around, this983 issue. And I am grateful that you've all gotten985 the wrong way to know some of your differences. I know in previous989 session with previous versions of this legislation, there have been some concerns about unintended consequences.995 And I think all of us, on this committee and all of us in the Commonwealth agree that we want the strongest possible protections for our health care workers. A potential negative unintended consequence of previous versions of of this legislation, is that there was a risk or risk potentially identified to further criminalize mental illness, and to criminalize, people in our hospitals who are in a mental health crisis, which unfortunately is also happening every hour of every day, in our commonwealth. I'm wondering if you could speak to some of the discussions that you've had together with policymakers, or speak to how this version of the bill you believe strikes the right balance to kind of balance those competing priorities? To make sure we're not moving backwards to criminalize mental illness and to make sure we're moving forward to ensure safety protections for our health care workforce?
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

WALSH - Yeah. It's a great question, Mr. Chairman. And thank you. And, applaud to the committee and your colleagues outside of this committee for all the work you've done on mental health and behavioral health, and increasing, both1067 education and opportunity within the community care for patients that need it. And1071 we agree with you. We're very clear that a person that is in the middle of a behavioral diagnosis cannot formulate the intent necessary to commit a crime. It doesn't change the fact that the worker though has been harmed. So we tried to bifurcate the two, protect the patient or the visitor that might be undergoing an episode that cannot formulate intent to be punished under the law, but also give the worker that still has been harmed the opportunity to get care for that harm, time off if necessary. Because, for SEIU and M and A's members, it doesn't change the1102 outcome that their worker has been harmed. So1104 it's balancing the need to protect the worker, but make sure that people that are there to get care are getting the care they need, regardless of whatever that diagnosis is, and they will not be charged with a crime under those situations. And so I've talked with one of your Senate colleagues and others and look forward to any other ideas you may have to make sure there's nothing we have missed, but it's been at the forefront of all of our discussions. So thank you.
PINKHAM - I would say was the last piece. It was the we had gone through in the I think it was last year when we really sort of came together and hashed through all the different language differences. And then we had it back because there was that remaining piece of still a concern of the unintended consequence when, you know, as we all know, there's a variety of reasons why somebody may lash out. And from our perspective is, you know, we're caregivers. We understand there's a lot of reasons why violence occurs. And that's why in my testimony, I had mentioned that it's important not only to assure that the victim has, you know, the treatment, but also understand the circumstances surrounding what occurred, why the violence occurred, and to give the discretion to law enforcement on how to treat that. And I would ask you to consider too, and sometimes, I mean, the reality is it's that very venue that might actually, ironically, help the patient because it then mandates treatment. It isn't always about criminalizing. It's also about making sure that people get the treatment that they need. And the unfortunate reality is sometimes it comes to that level before mandated treatment actually occurs, which is in the best instance, rather than just literally kicking the can until maybe somebody else gets kicked. So I think this is a good strike compromise. It really is intentional harm and understands on the other side of it if something should occur that the circumstances surrounding it are equally important to look at.
CRONIN - Thank you very much. I appreciate you clarifying that for the committee, and I, you know, I'm looking at section 3 of the bill right now, and I think that the language to knowingly and intentionally commit assault or an assault and battery is really clear, and it does strike that appropriate balance. So I appreciate it.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
REP XIARHOS - Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Great question, Senator. Great answers. I'm a 40-year police officer, father of a police officer, and father-in-law of a police officer. So we understand this. My fiance is a nurse. So health care, law enforcement, it's kind of our world. This bill, especially with how you just answered that, is very helpful. The only thing I wanna mention that we've talked about before is sometimes it's hard on the law enforcement. If there's an assault and battery, by a, let's say, anyone, but especially a person that committed a crime, assault and battery on a health care worker, it's not arrestable. And we've had a lot of health care workers say, what happened? Like, you know, someone comes into Cape Cod Hospital, they purposely, let's say, punch a nurse in the face.
The police are1290 called and, they take a report and the guy walks out. And a lot of times, health care workers are wondering why. And I just wanna make it clear, currently, assault and battery is a misdemeanor. And if it's not witnessed by the police, there's no power of arrest. So I have a bill that would fix that, that makes it arrestable with discretion because not everybody should be arrested. But when you get a clear-cut case of assault and battery, sometimes that person should be arrested, and it sends a message to them, it's not allowed, and to your people that we're there to protect you. So I love what you're doing. I would just wanna make it clear. We have to somehow address at some point giving law enforcement the power to make an arrest when appropriate. Thank you, Chair.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP ELLIOTT - SB 1718 - Good morning, and thank you for your testimony. This is a good bill. This is a bill that's long overdue. As the father of two daughters, both nurses, both working in hospital settings, both experiencing instances of violence, for some time now. So I support this. I'm gonna vote to support this. I think it's a good bill. I've voted for the bill, you know, section 3. I'm hopeful that hospital settings where incidences of violence are already taking place are doing a risk assessment. And this is not going to be something new, but there's something1401 in the works. So, you know, I support this. And I guess my one question is, are hospitals or are the facilities that, you know, I'd say most of them never experienced in this, Are measures being taken to, at some level, protect, and put a policy in place and doing the risk assessment?
PINKHAM - I mean, from our perspective, yes. Like always, there are going to be players that, gravitate towards solutions more quickly than others. They vary. We have collective bargaining agreements that have language1435 in it. We have, you know, labor management discussions that are on an ongoing basis. But like most things, we realize that this is across the board affecting1443 people and really needs to be sort of a value statement to it doesn't really matter. You1448 know? I mean, yes, I would love you all to be member m and a members, but at the end of the day, when you're taking care of people, you deserve to have a safe environment. And I think the one aspect annual assessment in an evolving situation.
Because I would say that if you looked at the health care environment 10 and 15 years ago, I think we'd be hard pressed to really believe what we're seeing today. Now the pandemic, obviously, you know, volatile environment that's out there. Health care seems to be right on the crux of it because people are already in a very precarious situation. So I think it really raises the value system to say, look, it you have to So I think it really raises the value system to say, look it. You have people doing different things, but it's important for everybody to collaborate together. And it's not gonna as this bill realizes, it is gonna be very different from one urban center hospital to a more rural or community hospital. What are the things that they need? Not less important, but maybe different.
ELLIOTT - Okay. Thank you. Now and at a time where we see less and less health care professionals either entering workforce or leaving the workforce as a result of this, this whole disruption is a. I'm seeing the training and reporting now is in uniform.
WALSH - This would make it more uniform. But to represent its point, the law enforcement doesn't have the tools. So they can't arrest the situation under this bill. When you make it is a felony, it's arrestable effects. So when you come in, it's demoralizing both health care worker were allowed to work through COVID. They're allowed to work when there were shutdowns. But they're not treated the same way as our traditional law enforcement are. Our TSA agent is. We have to get to the place where everybody knows. You don't touch a nurse. Yes. You don't touch a health care worker. You don't touch a private worker. They're there to help you. You're not to lay a hand regardless of circumstances. And we know that alarm was the weather consequences. Now in health care, there are not consequences.
ELLIOTT - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP WORRELL - SB 1718 - Just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for your advocacy. It's not really a question. I talked to a professional last night. It's my wife's a, I'm the only one allowed to vote now. She's part of the MMA at Newman Wilson Hospital. And I remember we've been married for 12 years. And I remember in the early years of her being a nurse, she came home. She got hit by a patient. And I said, what what are we gonna do? I'm like, I'm ready to, fly off the rockets. But, you know, she took it in stride and went to work the next day and continued to care for the patient that assaulted her. She continued to work. And, you know, I just wanna say thank you for the bill. I like my colleague down there said, I need full support. It's not a conflict of interest. I'm not gonna have a support of supporting this bill. And thank you guys for your advocacy. Thanks for your phone call too.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

CAHILL - Awesome. Thank you too. Steve, you might have been I have conflict with my sister-in-law to talk to us. Sorry about this, Bill. That's true. I just want to, I wanna thank you. I don't wanna see this band break up. I think I speak for everyone. I love this parent. My only suggestion is, reach out to the district attorneys. They are on the front lines of working with prosecutors and dealing with this issue and a lot of burden programs. And as you said, it's an opportunity to really we need to get some people some
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

MELISSA LEIBACH - MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM - SB 1718 - We can. We can. Thank you so much. I'll be going first, and I'm Dr. Melissa Leibach, chief of emergency medicine for Mass General Brigham's 7 community hospitals. Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide testimony at your committee during this 194th General Court which is the 16th anniversary of the start of the 186th General Court in 2009 when Senator James Timilty introduced Senate 988, an act requiring healthcare employers to develop and implement programs to develop, to prevent workplace violence. Since 2009, several versions of this bill have been introduced during every1756 general court including the 190th after Nurse Elise Wilson was stabbed in the Summer of 2017. And while today is my, is only my second time providing oral testimony to your committee, it is at least the fifth time in the last 10 years that the Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians is providing oral or written testimony on healthcare worker violence bill.
We fully support this bill. It requires Massachusetts hospitals to enact provisions to implement programs, support, reporting and information sharing to protect our healthcare teams. Equally important is section 3 that would strengthen the penalties for solving battery committed against healthcare workers from a misdemeanor to a felony. Why? As you're already aware, the Massachusetts Master Crime List is 494 pages covering over 4,000 crimes. It was greater than 1,600 felonies which include assault and battery on a pregnant person, assault and battery order to collect a loan, and a felony to engage in cruelty to animals. But at the end of page 255 is assault and battery on an ambulance healthcare provider which is a misdemeanor. There are too many incidents to share but I will provide another example of this kind of misdemeanor. Happening just last October, a person brought to one of my emergency departments intentionally insulted my overnight emergency physician, knocking him completely unconscious, causing a cascade of events requiring the entirety of my team to pivot and simultaneously care for the doctor as well as his assailant.
Our law enforcement colleagues very sympathetic, but as Representative Exaros noted, again and again they must explain that a misdemeanor means no warrantless arrest, no departure in police custody especially when warranted. That means that even after we call the police the best case scenario is for a medically stable assailant to be discharged. Although often not before they additionally continue to traumatize staff through bullying threats of further violence, knowing that they are not under arrest. We are very grateful for this committee's support and I ask for your continued support and advocacy to bring this bill across the finish line during this the 194th General Court and 16th anniversary of the first introduction of a healthcare workers violence bill back in 2009. As much as I am privileged to1900 be able to speak to you on this subject similar to what I often tell patients when I get to discharge them from the emergency department is that it was a pleasure to meet you. I'm sorry it was under these circumstances, but my sincere hope is that we will not have the opportunity to speak again.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

JOSEPH KOPP - MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM - SB 1718 - Hey. Yeah. Thank you, Chair Cronin and Chair Cahill, and the members of the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security for taking the time to hear this testimony today. My name is Dr. Joseph Kopp. I'm a ER doc in Boston. I also chair the government advocacy committee for the Massachusetts chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians here with Dr. Ledbetter. My ask is gonna be a little bit different today. This is also the second time I've given testimony for a workplace violence bill. I was in the state house two years ago, and I spoke about my own experiences. Getting punched in the chest, having a metal chair thrown to my head. I talked about a PA friend who was punched in the face because the patient didn't like the wait time. But what stood out to me two years ago was a testimony from a nurse who had said she had been speaking to advance protections for healthcare workers for more than 10 years. And that broke my heart. There was great support from the committee, and there always is support for protecting those who try to better the health of our communities. And again, thank you for getting out of this committee before. We can't do this without people. But then the process goes behind closed doors, and we are not involved.
So my ask is different today. I am asking for you to speak for us if and when this gets out of committee. Because despite this overwhelming support, here we are again. Now more than 12 years after that nurse started her advocacy and she is still without those protections. And as we all know and2007 as we have heard today, violence is on the rise. So if we can2011 get this out of committee, I need your support. When the decisions are being made on whether to put workplace violence2017 protections up for a vote, I cannot be there. I can't tell my stories of being attacked. I can't tell my team members stories. My friends stories of assault and the fear we have just trying to serve our community. I'm asking for you to please be our advocate. So when those discussions are happening after committee and they can't look in that nurses eyes as they make the decision on whether or not this is the time to get this done, please I'm asking for you to be our champions. So again, please do vote this out of committee, but then remember our stories, remember our faces when we can't be there. As Doctor. Lybecker mentioned, the first time this was discussed in Massachusetts was 02/2009. So again, I hear the support, but after committee please speak for us. Be the ones who can actually get these protections passed to Massachusetts.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SHARON LOCH - TOWN OF WESTON - HB 2731 - Great. Thank you so much. Thanks for giving me this opportunity. I'm a parks and rec professional with over 30 years experience in aquatic safety. I am asking that the committee consider a pause on bill number 2731. I am not against the use of personal flotation devices. I do believe that they do add an extra layer of safety in and around the pool. But Christian's law was written for open water, which are natural bodies of water such as ponds, lakes, and oceans. Bill 2731 proposes a change to the wording of Christian's law from excluding swimming pools to including swimming pools. The problem I see is that pools are very different than open bodies of water. There's water clarity and cleanliness, visible depth markers and signage, roped off areas indicating water depth, and the State Board of Health governs lifeguard practices, pool clarity, pool safety signage, and guard to and guard to swimmer ratios. Pools are very different than open bodies of water. There is an ongoing debate about life jackets.
Proponents argue that life jackets pelt vent drownings, where opponents contend that over reliance may undermine water safety. But it is worth noting that currently there is no hard and fast rule that oversee whether or not life jackets should be used at swimming pools. Not even the American Red Cross has any position on this. My second and greater concern with changing the wording of2237 Christians law is the unintended consequences of reducing or eliminating pool use for municipal and recreation day camp settings. This is already2245 happening at ponds and oceans across2247 the state due to restrictions implemented2249 by Christians law. Many camps have stopped going to ponds, lakes, and beaches because no town wants to take on the liability of providing fitting life jackets, or in many cases, simply just can't afford them. If this law is passed, many in the underserved communities will not be able to be able to afford to buy life jackets for their campers. And many children in these communities will no longer be able to go to a swimming pool, which they actually can right now when they're no longer going to open bodies of water. And when children go to swimming pools, they learn how to swim.
They are given swim lessons in most cases. And it is a proven fact that swim lessons can help reduce drownings. And drowning deaths are a leading cause of death in children ages five through 14. By changing the wording Christian's law, we will take away this opportunity to children when camps no longer go to visit swimming pools. I feel strongly that the role of personal flotation devices in swimming pools should be studied further before the existing law is changed. If legislators feel that there needs to be a change to this, I would ask that you would consider making a law specifically for swimming pools and that you would also consider the restrictions that this could put on our municipal day camps. Please consider advocating for a delay on this bill until further study can be done with a consultation of aquatic and water safety professionals around the state that have a diverse viewpoint on this subject. I firmly believe that legislation ca be written specifically for swimming pools that will make Massachusetts a leader in equitable water safety. That will benefit all the children of the Commonwealth.
SPEAKER1 - You've got it just Saturday at the time. I was gonna cut you off like the Oscars, but thank you very much for that testimony. You got it in. Any questions for the committee? Seeing none. 1 for representative Vaughn.
SPEAKER21 - Thank you, mister chair. Is this on?
SPEAKER1 - Yeah. There's no way.
REP VAUGHN - Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sharon, thank you very much for your testimony. Can you just, give this committee, some insight into where, MRPA stands on this bill and potential pausing of the new policy?
LOCH - So the Massachusetts Park and Recreation Association, they have not yet taken a position on this. When the original Christians law was passed, we did take a position against it. And again, not that we are against water safety by any means. We are some of the leading experts in the state on that. But we just saw that the bill was inequitable for many underserved communities because they cannot afford the life jackets.2414 And to be honest, most camps throughout the2418 state no longer go take their campers to any open bodies of water. In Weston, where I work, we can well afford, life jackets for our campers, but we don't wanna take on that liability of having to fit them for the life jackets and, make sure the kids are wearing their life jackets. So even in Weston, we have cut out all trips to open bodies of water for our day camps. And, you know, we're just afraid that if this law extends into swimming pools, that kids will no longer be going swimming pools either, where they are given the opportunity to take swim lessons.
VAUGHN - Great. Thank you.
LOCH - Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP SWEEZEY - Alright. Real quick. Just, didn't know if you had a number on hand. You talked about liability a little bit and cost. Do you have a number about roughly what it would cost or day camp or anything like that, as far as getting the life jackets or potential, you know, insurance for that liability to keep programs running?
LOCH - I apologize. I do not have those numbers right now.
SWEEZEY - Okay. No problem. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - HB 2633 - So I guess this doesn't work. So, good morning. I would like to thank the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, as well as the chairs for taking the time to hear and collect written testimony for H 2633 an act relative to more accessible 911 disability indicator forms. What brings me before you today besides my formal2550 education and lived experience in2552 the field, is my lived experience2554 as the oldest sister to siblings who struggle with substance use, court involvement, incarceration, and mental health struggles, including psychosis and death due to overdose. My experience as a parent of children impacted by autism, ADHD, mental health, and complex medical issues, and I myself am a veteran with 100% disability rating for PTSD. The goal of this bill is to increase the safety and improve outcomes for persons with disabilities to include mental health, which is, believe it or not, not on the form right now, as well as for the first responders who arrive on scene on what can be someone's worst day.
We heard a lot of that in the other bill. So many responders are also veterans, and this bill would help to decrease their cumulative, vicarious trauma over time, which I think we can all agree is something that we should all work to do. It was March of 2021 after I first approached Representative Natalie Higgins with the idea for this legislation, and I'm thankful that Senator Michael Moore has now also signed on. This will be my third time testifying, and I'm and I'm hopeful that third time is a charm. I implore you to pass this bill unanimously, first getting it out of committee. There is no one way to increase equitable access to physical and mental safety, but this bill addresses the intersectionality of needs for individuals with mental health, intellectual and developmental disabilities, complex medical needs, neurological impairments, as well addressing language access needs. It would ensure the form was written at a fifth-grade level for accessibility. Families don't always know what to do, but they typically know what not to do.
And this knowledge has the ability to save lives and improve outcomes. Each day this bill is not enacted, it's an opportunity lost to help make those who need this form safer, as well as to increase safety for first responders who are already understaffed and inundated with needs since COVID. And with this increased defunding, stress, and pressures occurring at the federal level of government, especially with regards to public safety, if it's possible, like I said, that I think we need to make these changes where we can. I'm assuming from what was said earlier, it's not possible. But if it is, I would request that myself or other organizations be allowed to have input prior to its release if it this bill is passed. And the passing this bill could change and save lives. I wanna talk about the fact that we alright. I was just gonna say the infrastructure is already there. The form already exists. You can already access it online. We're just trying to make sure that the form actually reflects what its creators intended. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

CHRISTINA HAYMAN - AAA NORTHEAST - HB 2688 - Good morning. I'm Christina Hayman with AAA, Northeast, and I'm, happy to be here to speak about, primary seat belts as well as the rear facing car seat belt. Is it okay if we talk about both of those at the same time? Excellent. We'll be efficient, and my, friends from, Travelers Marketing and Brain Injury Association will also, join in that testimony. I'm here today to support two vital life saving, traffic safety measure measures that can also be considered public health, safety measures. The rear-facing car seat law as well as primary enforcement for not wearing a seatbelt. Belt. If both of these bills pass, the impact would be widespread, saving lives from our youngest to oldest passengers traveling on our roads. An act to enhance child passenger safety, safety sponsored by Chairman Cronin and Representative Daum requires that all infants and toddlers, under the age of two be restrained in a rear facing car seat until the child outgrows the seat based on the manufacturer's guidelines.
More than 20 states, including all of New England, have a rear facing car seat law in place to protect our youngest passengers. The CDC found that children are more likely to be properly restrained in a state if they if that state follows the best practice recommendations. That is the goal of this bill is to educate parents about the best practices to keep all of our children safe. The American Academy of Pediatrics and NHTSA, as well as others, all suggest that children remain rear facing for as long as possible. Rear facing car seats are safer because they are designed to distribute the forces of a crash across the entire head and body of an infant or young child, supporting the head, neck, and back in a frontal crash. A young child's head is larger and heavier in proportion to its body than that of an older child. In a crash while facing forward, the head moves abruptly, placing increased forces on the neck and can cause serious injuries, such as internal decapitation.
By contrast, when a child is properly restrained in a rear-facing seat, the head moves with the seat, reducing the risk of neck and spine injury. I also now would like to speak to the primary seat belt bill. According to NHTSA, seat belt use rate in Massachusetts is 80 percent, while the national average is 91 percent. I was at a conference yesterday with experts in the field, and they suggested that we really should be at 100% usage rate. It is a very simple tool that will reduce the risk of dying in a crash by half. My colleagues will speak to all of the research about this. However, in 2002, Massachusetts had the third-worst seat belt use rate in the country with only Nebraska and New Hampshire below us. Both of these bills will save lives. Simple acts, such as keeping our youngest passengers rear facing and making the seat belt law a priority and a primary will save lives. And for that reason, I2980 ask you to support both of these folks, and2982 I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
KELLY BUTTIGLIERI - BIA-MA - HB 2688 - So good morning, Chair Cronin and Chair Cahill and members of the committee. Again, my name is Kelly Buttiglieri, and I'm the public affairs manager for the Brain Injury Association of Massachusetts. 33 years ago, my brain injury happened in a car accident. I was hit head on by a motorist on drugs on the wrong side of the road in the middle of the day. The police found several empty bottles of prescription drugs on the bottom of her car the in her car. When my accident happened, I was in my third year of law school at Suffolk University. I was married for eight months and three months away from graduating. After the crash, I was in a coma for four days, and I had a cranial bolt in my skull to measure the rise of pressure due to the brain swelling. So this horrific accident affected my life causing almost insurmountable obstacles because I was not wearing a seat belt. I spent the next two months at Spalding Rehabilitation Hospital. There, I began extensive speech, occupational, and physical therapy. I had problems with short term memory, word retrieval, remembering names, and abstract thinking. I've acquired, most of the help with speech therapy.
In the beginning, I couldn't count from 20 to one backwards and, could barely, understand and read what I was looking at. One of my first memories after the accident was at Spaulding when therapist showed me flashcards with different pictures on it. I simply had to name what was on the card. The pictures were very basic and then became more complex, and the one card I always got stuck on was a frog. I couldn't name a frog. So for the next two and a half years, I did speech therapy at Emerson Hospital in Concord. I did go back to school, and with the help of my speech therapist, I was able to take my five classes, but only one at a time. So it took me two and a half years more to graduate. I often brought my law school books to therapy and read the cases that I needed to understand and she helped me to do that. So after that, I was able to grad, to3122 graduate cum laude and then took the bar exam and passed it on my first try. I used to joke with that speech therapist that she should go to law3130 school. I have epilepsy because of my brain injury. For many years, medication did not control the seizures and then I would have about a dozen a month.
I then had a status epileptic seizure and then went through six months of temp of testing and had a temporal lobe resection of my brain to control the seizures. My operation is considered a success, and I might have maybe one seizure every couple of months now, but will have to take anti-seizure medication for the rest of my life. So I became connected with the Brain Injury Association, and I've been there now for 20 years and I'm the public affairs manager for the organization. The enactment of this law is vital to prevent serious injuries and specifically brain injuries in motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle accidents are the second leading cause of TBIs. Just really quickly, if this bill is passed, the fees that are collected will go to the head injury treatment services trust fund under the state, statewide head injury program under Mass Ability, and that helps to provide services to people in the state that have suffered a brain injury. So I urge the committee to pass this law.
JEFF LARSON - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 2688 - Good morning. So my name3208 is Jeff Larson. This is not the first time I've testified for a primary seat belt bill. I testified early in the February when I was a private citizen and a traffic reporter3218 for radio and television in Boston. I testified when I was the president of Safe Roads Alliance, which was is a nonprofit, safety organization working around the country for road safety. And I testified for EOPS when I was the director of highway safety, in the office of Granson Research. I had some written testimony, but I think I'll go away from it and try3239 to give you some context about why this is important, if I can do that. You all watch television. You all see on almost every single news report that you watch of a crash. Many of those are fatalities. Half of occupant fatalities in this country are unbelted. Half of them. Christina earlier mentioned that almost everybody in this country wears their seat belt about 91 percent, 92 percent according to the NHTSA.
That means that 8 to 9 percent of people account for half of all occupant fatalities in this country. It's testimony, I guess literally, that seat belts save lives. And so it's just it's it is critically important that this law passes. When you look at the secondary states around the country, there are 13 of them, the3294 seat belt use rate in those states3296 is on average 10%3298 less than primary seat belt states. You look at a chart that shows the ratio of the seat belt use, all of those states are in the bottom half of seat belt usage in this country. Massachusetts, traditionally, has been near the bottom in our seat belt use rate in this country. We've been 48, 49, and 50 in past years in our seat3322 belt use rate. That would3324 change with the primary seat belt use rate. It gives police the ability to enforce a law requiring people to wear their seat belts, and that changes people's behavior. It's critically important. So I would encourage you to pass the primary seat belt law bill into law and help save lives on Massachusetts roads.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP LINSKY - Thank you very much. I just it's more of a comment. I've had the privilege of voting for this bill probably 5 or 6 times now on the floor of the house in my career here. Several years or several sessions in a row, it actually reached, a tie vote on the floor of the house, if you remember. I want you to know that this bill has an enormous amount of support, and maybe this is the session that will finally get this week done.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

XIARHOS - Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very well said, sir. You must be frustrated because I am. Right? And I know my colleague Richard Wells probably feels the same way. Right? When you're a police officer and you are not allowed to, you know, stop a vehicle where you see someone not wearing a seat belt, it's kinda common sense. And, if we were able to do that, you would save lives. And it just doesn't stop. There was just that crash the other day where people were thrown out of the vehicle and killed because the vehicle landed on top of them. Just the other day in Massachusetts, those families are destroyed, and, they weren't wearing their seat belts. So you have my support from today to the hopefully, to the floor. And you, Ma'am, god bless you. What a recovery, and what a story. So I think probably everybody on this panel would support you. We gotta get it to the next step, but we'll see. But thank you for coming. Don't give up. Tell the real stories. They matter. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP WELLS - Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues and their comments. It's very well known that, I spent the past four decades in policing, and I'm very cognizant of the effects of of motor vehicle accidents and the lack of seat belts and what the tragedies are associated with. My comments are directly to you. As a young policeman at 30 years of age, I suffered a traumatic brain injury much like yourself. I spent over a year, I thought I'd never return to work on seizure medication for 20 years. People don't often understand what it is when a brain is injured. It's easy to see a broken leg, a broken arm, a cast, a splint, crutches. They don't often understand the implications that are associated with traumatic brain injuries. So I like my brother, Xiarhos. I applaud you. Most people would never know this about me, and I very rarely ever ever speak to it. But, I understand and sympathize and applaud your courage for coming here and everything you've done for this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SEN O'CONNOR - SB 1748 - Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm here on behalf of senate bill 1748, which is to require seat belts in schools excuse me. Seat belt in school buses. This bill is very simple. It's less than, two sentences in length, and this is the third session we've been trying to get this done. It's been reported out favorably both previous sessions, I believe, once in public safety and once in transportation. The bill is basically very simply what the title is. This would require Massachusetts to join, 8 other states in requiring seat belts and school buses. Right now, the, NTSB, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that we have seat belts and school buses that are under 10,000, pounds, and this would extend the limit. So the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration allows for, states to make their own determination on school bus seat belts, and nine states have decided to, require them, and 18 other states are considering, including Massachusetts, implementing similar legislation.
In a 10-year period of time, there were 13000 injuries, related to school bus accidents, and that includes a period of time that COVID happened where largely our school populations were not traveling in school buses. This is, one of those bills that3628 I think makes perfect common sense. Last year, we had support from the NTSB under the3632 Biden administration. This year, we have not been able to reach through to the Trump3636 administration to see if we will3638 continue to get that support from the federal government.3640 It's our hope and expectation that we will. We do have the support of the American Academy Academy excuse me, the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has, recommended that seat belts be installed in all newly manufactured seat belts in the entire United States. Again, I think this is one of those bills that, as we continue to mandate and prescribe things, specifically to school-aged children, this makes perfect sense in their safety to, be the next logical step that we take as a state to require seat belts in our school buses.
And, hopefully, that will, continue to make our school buses safer and save lives. And most importantly, I would note the amount of injuries that are sustained, the amount of fatalities. That number fluctuates. And, again, the datasets that we have are all during a period of time in which COVID existed because they're all in 10-year increments. Those fluctuate between a hundred and 200 annually. But when you're looking at 13000 injuries that are sustained, that's a significant amount, and I think that we could do a lot to cut back in that. And every year you see in the news, a school bus accident in Massachusetts, all you have to do is really Google it, and you can see the latest ones from WCBV that have happened just this school year. And I think it's, those could be prevented by technology, but, in the interim and meantime, I think we3717 need seat belts.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

VAUGHN - Thank you, Senator, for your testimony. Just real quick. Fully in support of this bill, but are there any in unintended quads, consequences? I know my own child's bus looking at, you know, the seats and, you know, three kids to each seat. You know, I feel like if we implemented these, you know, the seat belts on these buses, would we be in a situation where we'd have to purchase more buses just to accommodate the kids and the seat belts in those seats?
O'CONNOR - Yeah. It's a good question. I mean, at the amount that every school district's paying for transportation right now, I'd put the onus on the school bus transportation providers to install the infrastructure necessary. And, you know, right now, just to give you the rundown, California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Iowa, and Nevada all require it. We've reached out to, some folks in those states, and there hasn't been much difficulty in the implementation. And a lot of it, you know, as I said, this bill is two sentences long, so I defer to the committee on making any adjustments that may be needed, to address the potential unintended consequences of something like that, but we're really looking for the end goal to be, to find a way to get it, to get it done. And if there are circumstances in different school districts or with different school, bus providers, we're more than open to compromise.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP SILVIA - Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your testimony. I think this is a great deal. Long overdue with talking about seat belts. Yeah. Just a few years ago, I sat with the governor of Maynard, and we had a fatality of a child, who hadn't been wearing a seat belt in the car, a toddler, wasn't secured properly. We, had a proclamation, went before the House and Senate to have a seat belt awareness month. April was seat belt awareness month. Well, of course, that was wonderful. It made a lot of national news, and nobody's ever talked about seat belt and wait a month again since then. It's disturbing because, as you mentioned, every year we see fatalities of school bus accidents. Most of those fatalities occur when a school bus flips to its side or flips over. We see them every year. And here we are talking about only 80 percent of the population in Massachusetts wearing a seat belt in a motor vehicle. Why wouldn't that be a necessity to have our children, our most prized possessions, to be seatbelt in the school bus? So, I'm all in favor, and I support this all the way. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

XIARHOS - Yes. Thank you, Chair. Another former police officer in the city of Fall River. He's seen a lot. So to be open, what's the pushback that you found? Like, why not do this? Have you heard things besides what Representative Vaughn might be thinking? What he's heard? Why can't we get this done?
O'CONNOR - I don't know. I wish I could answer that question. As I said, we, you know, we filed this. This is the third session. Last two sessions, the committee level has been great. They reported out favorably, and, we appreciate that. And then it's, really trying to continue to build a coalition of support to get it get it through legislative leadership into the floor of the house and the senate and hopefully to the governor's desk, you know, and join those other states because I do think that it's a common sense measure that will save lives and reduce harm to children.
XIARHOS - Yes. And one other thing, you mentioned something about technology during one of your answers. What was that?
O'CONNOR - Yeah. So, if you look at the school buses as a whole, with safety in school buses, technology has greatly improved, school bus safety, and numbers have declined. And that's been sort of some of the pushback we received is that numbers are getting better when it comes to fatalities and injuries on set of school buses, but that's largely thanks to the technology that's now equipped on these school buses. Whereas, you know, 13,000 injuries and a hundred some odd fatalities is still way too much in our opinion that technology can only go so far. But I think that, you know, some of our oldest forms and simplest forms of technology like a seat belt, work just as well, if not better.
XIARHOS - Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chairman.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SWEEZEY - Thank you, Senator, for your testimony. When you're talking with the representatives in other states and everything as you alluded to, was there anything as far as financial impact to the districts? I know you're talking about that being on the backs of the providers here of the buses. Is there any sort of projection as far as what they expect to see in rising costs, or anything like that?
O'CONNOR - No. There's been no real financial analysis on this. A lot of states, you know, have kind of grandfathered in some of the older buses, and as the new buses come in, they require the seat belts. So there's there's ways in which that this can be worked, and I'm open to every single one of them. Again, it's just sort of the end result being seat belts on school buses is what we're looking for.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

REP HAWKINS - HB 2630 - HB 2655 - Why didn't I come here? I hope you're all gonna wear your seat belts on the way home. I'm trying to testify, from my bill, H 2630, to require the primary enforcement of seat belts. This was originally filed by rep Whalen, who is a former state policeman. I trust him to4078 write it correctly as to how it's actually enacted. Primary, as I understand it, and I'm repeating what he said to me, means that you can be pulled over for this. And any barriers that to this should have been taken care of with the, hands free phone bill that those should have already been addressed. So this should be a simple one. And I would rather tell stories than data. So, I drove NASCAR for 12 years, and there is nobody that would nobody I guess you could consider that to be kind of a daredevil thing, but nobody will go out without 5-point belts fastened tight. Window neck window neck and arm restraint so your arms and legs can't go outside of the vehicle. And for me, personally, I've been rear ended on Route 95 in a, Mazda Miata by a concrete forms truck, and my injuries were my wrists and my feet because I flew around like this.
But if I had not been wearing my seat belts, I would have become a projectile in the middle of4134 traffic on I-95. I will I think we're all in4138 agreement on this. This I can't explain as4142 to procedure why this hasn't gone through first, maybe because it's a smaller bill, but I think it's important that we get this done. And I can tell from the previous discussion when I walked in, I think you're all in agreement with me on that. The other bill I'd like to speak in favor of is H 2655, requiring health care employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence. I hear about that from my local hospital in Attleboro. I was there for a family member who had something done, and I said on the way out, Jeez, you are awful kind. You did a nice job with this. And the nurse said, oh my God. Nobody ever says that. We're used to getting physically assaulted. We have to protect ourselves. And these are the people who are looking out for us. I find that just unforgivable that we even have to have this bill, but I wanna put my voice in support. I'm a cosponsor on that bill. Add my add my name and visual support to that. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

WORRELL - I love, the bill, primary enforcement of seat belt violations. Love the bill. But one thing, being on this committee with, you know, representative Vaughn, probably no one else ever experienced driving while black is a real thing. And not having your seat belt on to be another deterrent of just pulling over, a person of color and, you know, getting into the weeds of things. So we'd love to talk offline.
HAWKINS - Well, can talk about it now? First, it was the issue was big in the hands-free phone, but, some of you may know. I tell too much of my personal stories here. I'm sorry. What's up? But I was always a distance runner. I finished 15 marathons. I spent a lot of time on the road, and a lot of people see me and wave. I have no clue who they are because of the reflection in the glass. I have no clue who just waved to me. I always wave back from me, but I have no idea. And I'm not certain that a police officer is in a different situation, especially with darken windows and stuff. But even in any kind of daylight, it's hard to know who's in a car. And I won't say what it's like for a police officer because I've never been a police officer.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

CHRISTOPHER STARK - MASS INSURANCE FEDERATION - HB 2581 - SB 1748 - Thank you, Chair Cahill, Chair Cronin, and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Stark. I'm the executive director of the Mass Insurance Federation. We are the trade association for the property casualty insurers. So representing the home, auto, workers' comp, and commercial space, sometimes it's easier to save what we're not. We're not life and we're not health, generally speaking. Mr Chairman, I am here today in support of H 2668 and S 1699, with amendment that is the primary seat belt law. I would also like to record both the federation as well as the American Property Casualty Insurance Association support for that bill, as well as H 2581 and S 1748 requiring seat belts on school buses, and 2603 and S 1657, rear facing car seats. The reason that we're here today is that roadway safety is becoming a top priority, for the federation and our members. What we're seeing in terms of statistics coming out of the Commonwealth are concerning, especially in the era since the COVID-19 pandemic. The bad driving habits that were unleashed while our roadways were mostly clear, we have not been able to put that genie back in the bottle in the way that we had, hoped for.
In fact, statistics from the MassDOT crash portal illustrate that since 2019, we have not been below the 2019 numbers and fatalities. Our numbers in 2022 at 409 fatalities in that year, we hadn't seen those levels since 2005 in terms of fatalities. But we're also seeing it in the metrics that we collect as insurers. Massachusetts used to be middle of the road in terms of year-over-year growth in bodily injury claims, cost, and frequency. Now we are the fifth highest in the nation in terms of year-over-year growth and the4442 severity or cost of4444 bodily injury claims, and we're the third highest in the country in the frequency, year-over-year growth of these claims. And so it is a top priority not only for these bills, but many bills that come before the committee. It is a great way for us. It's a great day for us when we're able to be in support of, three bills before any legislative committee. So I thank you for that, and I'm willing to take any questions from the committee. Oh, one thing to put on the record, our amendment that we are asking for, for the primary seat belt law, would be to remove the language within that act, that makes seat belt violations ineligible for surcharges for motor vehicle, insurance premiums. This is both to be used as a deterrent as well as I think that it is just common sense for something so tangential to the claims experience to actually be something that we can calculate, and to the rate experience. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

JOE DORANT - MOSES - HB 2660 - SB 1717 - Good morning, Chair Cahill, Chair Cronin, and members of the committee. My name is Joe Dorant. I'm legislative chair of MOSES, the Mass Organization of State Engineers and Scientists. MOSES represents 4,000 scientists and engineers who work in 30 different agencies throughout the Commonwealth. They're highway engineers, environmental engineers, public health scientists, state building inspectors, and forensic scientists from the state police crime lab. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of house bill 2660 and senate bill 1717, an act relative to the size of the forensic science oversight board. This important legislation would return workforce representation onto an advisory board that provides critical scientific information to the Secretary of Public Safety.
Prior to the criminal justice reform bill that Governor Baker signed into law in 2018, there was the forensic science advisory board, which4606 Moses had a seat and played an important role on the board. This board was charged with advising the secretary on all aspects of the administration and delivery of criminal forensic scientists in the Commonwealth. One significant aspect of the delivery of criminal forensic science are those who actually perform the work, the forensic scientist. They collect the samples at crime scenes, perform scientific testing of blood and DNA at the lab, and they testify about the results in court. When the criminal justice reform bill became law almost seven years ago, the forensic science advisory board was replaced with the forensic science oversight board. However, the new law removed the employee aspect of the board by eliminating the MOSES.
Among the statutory discussions in the law, the volume of forensic services and associated costs, the length of time for submission of testing to the completion of results, the capacity of the Commonwealth's forensic services and funding requirements, and the accreditation of forensic science facilities and training of personnel. Advice to the secretary on these topics without the input of representatives of those who perform these functions will significantly limit the secretary's ability to make sound and informed decisions in this regard. House bill 2660 and senate bill 1717 would return this expertise to the board by appointing a MOSES representative and the Boston Police crime unit representative to the forensic science oversight board to help ensure that all stakeholders have input regarding forensic science sciences. I strongly urge you to report house bill 2660 and senate bill 1717 out of committee with a favorable report. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to take any questions the committee might have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SWEEZEY- Thank you for your testimony. As some people know, I was a forensic scientist to start out my career in the, crime lab, so I appreciate it. Was there a reason given at the time when the board was reorganized why, technical expertise was taken off?
DORANT - There really wasn't. At the time, we inquired about the bill, and, someone told us that both units, both boards were gonna stay. Okay? We've been we probably didn't do our homework enough to see that it was replacing oNE was replacing the other. But way back when I was president of, MOSES, we were invited to sit in to the, forensic science advisory board. And then, the chair asked us, well, why aren't you on this board? So we filed legislation, and we became a part of the board. I think, you know, I think they just left out an important component in the bill. I think that's the way I would answer it. Yeah.
SWEEZEY - Thank you. Thank4797 you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

SOFIA FIERZADA - NTSB - SB 1662 - SB 1748 - HB 2688 - HB 2630 - SB 1699 - HB 2603 - SB 1657 - Thank you so much for having me. Good morning, Chair Cronin, Chair Cahill, Vice Chair Driscoll, Vice Chair Worell, and members of the committee. My name is Sofia Fierzada, and I'm a transportation safety specialist with the National Transportation Safety Board. I'm here to test by on Senate Bill 1662 and 1748 and why mandating passenger lap shoulder belts on new large school buses in Massachusetts is the right thing to do. First, I wanna make it very clear that school buses are the safest way for children to get to and from school and school-related events. As I've explained in my written testimony, this is because of a number of safety requirements for school buses including compartmentalization, which is a passive occupant protection system. However, the NTSB has investigated numerous school bus crashes where compartmentalization was not enough to prevent injuries and deaths. These include side impact crashes with other large vehicles, rollovers, and when pre crushed back bus maneuvering throws children from the seat compartment.
In all of these instances, properly worn passenger lap shoulder belts would have lessened injuries and saved lives. We also know that children are at risk of ejection from the seating compartment and the bus itself in rollovers. Passenger lap shoulder belts provide the best protection, keeping students within the bus and reducing injurious impacts with other passengers and with large structures. The NTSB has also investigated large school bus crashes where passenger lap shoulder belts reduce the severity of injuries even in an area of intrusion. To best protect its students who ride school buses, we recommend that Massachusetts amended statute to require passenger lap shoulder belts for all passenger seating positions in new large school buses. The NTSB also has a recommendation recommendation asking Massachusetts to implement a primary force seat belt law for all passengers of vehicles. And I'd like to note our support of H 2688, H 2630, and S 1699. Additionally, H4946 2603 and S 16574948 act4948 to enhance child passenger safety, and will provide clear guidance on protecting children while they ride in all vehicles. We hope the committee will take action on all of these bills. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
© InstaTrac 2025