News from Representative Denise Provost

These anxious times of ours are marked with eruptions of fear around every perceived threat, no matter how remote or tenuous. Not long ago, the fear of Ebola infection was so great that many Americans opposed entry to the US by anyone coming from the continent of Africa. Now shocking numbers of people - including Governor Baker and a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives - seem convinced that refugees from Syria pose a serious terrorist threat.

Congressman Seth Moulton pushed back early to Gov. Baker's statement that he was "not interested" in having Syrian refugees settle in Massachusetts. Although he's received less publicity for it, Congressman Mike Capuano has put forward a trenchant set of arguments why the refusal to admit Syrian refugees is foolish and irrational. There have also been refreshingly human views of the issue, for instance Kevin Cullen (12/1/15), recently in the Boston Globe.

Although the state legislature plays no part in setting U.S. refugee resettlement policy, many of you have contacted me on this subject. Some have written just to complain about Gov. Baker's position. Be assured that I continue to speak out against xenophobia.

Fear of Immigrants

I recently had an opportunity to fight the ugly (dare I say trumped up?) bias against the foreign -born (and those assumed to be.) I testified against a bill that aims to disqualify from receiving state aid any community with a "sanctuary city" resolution - such as Somerville, which adopted one about 30 years ago. The bill, H.1856, is so poorly conceived and drafted that it equates such resolutions with failure to enforce federal immigration law.

Resolutions - at least at the local and state level - are statements of positions or sentiment, without legal effect. In the Massachusetts legislature, they are frequently invoked to congratulate; on the local level, resolutions often communicate more serious subject matter, such as support for a state action or policy outside of local jurisdiction. Somerville's "Sanctuary City" resolution, adopted during El Salvador's civil war, is a message of welcome, expressing an intent not to discriminate against immigrants and refugees in city services.

Neither state nor local action can prevent federal agencies from exercising their lawful authority. The federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE; formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS) can and does conduct investigations and raids in Somerville, as they do everywhere else. The US constitution puts immigration and naturalization squarely under federal jurisdiction - which is why this nation waits for Congress to pass much-needed reforms in our immigration laws.

Fear of Transgender People

The general atmosphere of fearfulness has not been helpful to securing the full civil rights of transgender people. Like many others, I had hoped that the House would bring H.1577, which I filed in the House last January with Rep. Byron Rushing, forward for a vote this year. I'll continue to work hard for the bill's passage, but it's worth stating what the impediments are.

Gov. Baker's position presents difficulties. Since becoming governor, he has said he does not support the bill, and has suggested that he would veto it if it passed. The challenge of a potential veto means that it's important to have two thirds of House members - a veto-proof majority - vote "yes" when the bill is put before us. This overwhelming degree of support has proved hard to secure.

A majority of representatives do support this bill (H.1577), and many have been public and forthright in stating their belief that our laws should guarantee equality. Others keep raising hypothetical fears; and when their objections are satisfied, develop new concerns. I can point out that 18 other states - and 13 Massachusetts cities and towns - have adopted transgender anti-discrimination laws, and encountered no problems. I can point to the endorsement of this bill by Attorney general Maura Healey; by the statewide District Attorneys' Association, by the Police Chief's Association, but even the support of these public safety officials seems not to reassure those who believe that this civil rights law will somehow enable and protect sexual predators.

Fear of Spending Money on Public Transit?

Let me be plain - I believe that the taxpayers of Massachusetts should never be fleeced by contractors. Much of my early career in municipal law was devoted to overseeing public contracts, fighting frivolous lawsuits, and generally protecting the public purse from those who would see it as an easy mark. I can get as incensed about the Big Dig as anyone.

But one of the things that still frustrates me the most about the Big Dig is the foot-dragging that has accompanied its biggest -and federally required - transit commitment, the Green Line Extension (GLX). Alarmingly, Gov. Baker's appointees on the MassDOT Board of Directors and the MBTA's fiscal control board have recently escalated talk of pulling the plug on our much-needed GLX. You've probably followed the story; if not I recommend visiting the website of the Somerville Transportation Equity Partnership (STEP).

Of course we should not be overspending on the GLX - but neither should we be turning back $1 billion in federal assistance to build our long overdue transit link to Boston. Nor should this discussion be taking place in the top-down manner we're currently witnessing. Kudos to STEP and its partner organizations for its recent letter to MassDOT/MBTA asking for a reopening of the public process surrounding the GLX.

The Baker administration engaged a consultant to answer the question of how cost projections have risen so high. A bit part of the answer seems to have been insufficient management capacity at MBTA, which had only four full-time equivalent (FTE) employees of its own assigned to GLX. Most of the contract management for GLX was being done by a private firm, under contract to MBTA.

It can't be helpful to the operations of the state and its agencies when experienced employees are cut from the workforce. Yet, one of the first actions of the Baker administration was to offer "voluntary early retirement" buyouts to large numbers of its most senior employees. Its recent decision to hire back 250 of these retirees is proving controversial, due to the associated costs - but it's reassuring that the administration realizes that its original cuts to staffing levels were counterproductive.

There seems to be no fear of raising transit fares to the maximum level allowed by law, something we can look forward to in the New Year. But what of other revenue sources to fund public transportation? For an artful, seasonal discourse on the current state of transit in Massachusetts, I tip my hat to former Transportation Secretary Jim Aloisi for this gem.