My Thoughts on the Police Reform Bill

I have a deep and abiding respect for our police. These men and women are my neighbors and my friends. They are the sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives of our families and loved ones. Here in our community, we do not experience the type of police violence like that which we see on television or on social media because of our police’s commitment to duty and to do what is right on behalf of all citizens. Unfortunately, this is not the reality in every corner of the Commonwealth.

There has been a great deal of information being circulated about this police reform bill, some of it accurate but some of it misinformed and designed to spread fear among our citizens. The bill is written with four goals in mind: training, certification, accreditation, and accountability. All four pillars of this bill are supported by the vast majority of citizens and police I spoke with in Taunton and Easton. I met with the Chiefs, the unions, the officers, and their families. And just regular people.

The underpinnings of this legislation support the idea that a majority of our police officers are good people. It assumes a level of expectation in our community that our own police are well-trained, caring individuals who are professional and beyond reproach. Here in Taunton, I have no reason to believe otherwise. Our high school students relate well to the student resource officers assigned there. Our officers are always present at community events looking to strengthen their relationships with people from all walks of life.

I support common sense reforms such as reasonable limits on the use of force, duty to intervene, certification of police officers, and departmental accreditation. All of these reforms improve the quality of Massachusetts policing and improve public safety. The three biggest concerns I heard from law enforcement were:

1. Representation on the Police Standards and Training Commission. I voted in favor of two amendments focused on increasing the role of law enforcement on this newly-formed Commission. One amendment I supported would have stricken language proposed that prevents the appointment of members to the Commission who have law enforcement experience. The other would have changed the entities responsible for submitting nominations for appointment to entities that represent a broader spectrum of law enforcement.
2. Due Process and Collective Bargaining. As a longtime union member, I support due process and collective bargaining rights. I supported several amendments to the bill that protect the due process and collective bargaining rights of officers being investigated by the Police Standards and Training Commission. One of the amendments that was adopted clarified the language around decertification to ensure these rights are maintained.
3. Qualified Immunity. QI is the least understood and the most controversial proposal in the bill. This bill makes very limited changes to QI. It states that qualified immunity shall not apply to a law enforcement officer who violates a person’s rights if that conduct results in decertification. This means that only officers who engage in conduct so egregious as to result in decertification will not be eligible for qualified immunity. This language does not include other public employees such as firefighters, teachers, municipal employees, and so forth. A study commission was also created to consider the matter further.

I also supported amendments to do the following:

• Limit no-knock warrants when there is reason to believe that there are children or elderly people in the home, ensuring that they are not subjected to the danger and trauma of a confrontation with police occurring while they are in the home (adopted);
• Require approval of local City Councils and Select Boards before police departments acquire military-grade weapons (not adopted);
• Ban the use of tear gas, which is prohibited in international warfare by the Geneva Protocol but which we still use in this country on civilians (not adopted);
• Several amendments to address mental health supports for police officers, including the ability of a department to hire certified mental health staff.

This bill has presented a unique and challenging opportunity for the Commonwealth. It is certainly not perfect, but it is a necessary step to ensure that we are meeting the needs of our communities by creating 21st century police standards and training. This legislation will affect all communities differently; in the Third Bristol District, it will affect our community in a way that fits the way we think about and do policing. Our police departments in Taunton and Easton have adopted, and practice, many of the components of this bill. In Taunton specifically, I know Chief Walsh is updating our policies and procedures to make sure that those very things are explicitly outlined. I truly believe that our departments, in both Taunton and Easton, will serve as models for 21st century policing across the state.

That being said, the bill must still be reconciled with the Senate’s bill and signed by the Governor. I will follow the bill throughout this process, and will continue to have these conversations with law enforcement officers and members of our community.