Opinion on a compromise police reform bill was split last week to the point that it was sent to Gov. Charlie Baker without a veto-proof majority in the House.
That lack of enthusiasm may come back to haunt the House as Baker sent the bill back to state lawmakers on Thursday with a 17-page letter outlining his dissatisfaction with various parts of it, and saying he would not sign it if the legislature didn’t adopt the changes he wanted made.
The overall legislative split was reflected in the attitudes of local lawmakers. For example, State Sen. Brendan Crighton of Lynn voted in favor of it, but both representatives from the city — Peter Capano and Daniel Cahill — voted against it.
The bill would create an independent, civilian-led commission to standardize the certification, training and decertification of police officers, a first for Massachusetts. Baker said the state is one of only four which does not have a certification, or Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) commission.
Where Baker differs with the bill is in the bill’s proposal to place all the training work handled by the existing Municipal Police Training Committee under the oversight of the proposed POST commission. Baker wants the existing training system to continue.
“I do not accept the premise that civilians know better how to train police,” Baker said in the letter.
He also objected to the fact that the proposed POST commission lacks labor representation — something alluded to by both Capano and Cahill in their objections.
The legislation also calls for a ban on chokeholds, would limit the use of deadly force and require police officers to intervene when witnessing another officer using force beyond what is necessary or reasonable under the circumstances.
It would also prohibit the use of facial recognition technology for all but the Registry of Motor Vehicle police — another part of the bill that Baker strenuously opposes.
The House voted 92-67 to approve the final bill — far short of the veto-proof majority of 106. The Senate approved it with a 28-12 vote.
On the North Shore, the bill was backed by Crighton, Sen. Joan Lovely, Massachusetts House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, and state Reps. Lori Ehrlich, Theodore Speliotis, and Paul Tucker, but was opposed by Cahill, Capano, Bradley Jones, Thomas Walsh and Donald Wong.
“I have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for the officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe,” said Crighton. “Many of these departments are already taking a number of steps to limit the use of force, encourage de-escalation tactics, (and implement) a number of other reforms, but when you’re looking at state policy it needs to be statewide policy.”
Crighton said the bill would apply best practices universally across the state and at the same time, it would create a universal commission that would be tasked with certifying and decertifying officers.
The new bill is the result of months of closed-door sessions aimed at coming to a compromise bill out of the two police reform bills approved by the House and Senate earlier this year.
One of the changes centers around the issue of qualified immunity, which was one of the more controversial aspects of the proposal this past summer. Under the new language, a police officer would have to be decertified by the civilian-led commission to lose qualified immunity, Crighton said.
However, losing qualified immunity does not mean that a police officer would lose indemnification from a city or town, Crighton said, explaining that municipalities would continue to pay for lawsuits brought against those officers.
“I’m a strong supporter of our police,” said Crighton. “I have a tremendous appreciation for the risk that they have to take with putting their lives on the line. I do believe that I can support police reform while continuing to support our officers as well.”
However, two other Lynn-based representatives, Cahill and Capano, voted against the bill, citing opposition from their constituents and police unions.
“I really wanted to vote for it,” said Capano. “There were really a lot of good things in the bill. I didn’t vote for it because I got a lot of calls and just reading it, it takes away some of the collective bargaining rights that some of the union members have. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for it because of that.”
Cahill agreed.
“There are many well-received reforms contained within this legislation that are universally supported by all sides, including standardized police training and use of force measures,” said Cahill. “However, there were specific provisions that elicited opposition from many constituents and unions, which led to my inability to support the bill.”
Ehrlich, who represents Marblehead, Swampscott and parts of Lynn, said she was “proud to join the majority of my colleagues to vote in favor of this reform following the senseless killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and so many others.
“We were presented with a choice,” said Ehrlich. “We would either back away from change because it was too complicated and controversial or we would rise to the occasion and take a big step in the right direction.
“I believe that everyone wants a system that is built on fairness for both police and the people they serve. And I think we’ve succeeded in laying the foundation anyway for just that kind of criminal justice system.”
Tucker, who represents Salem and worked as a police officer in the city before retiring as its police chief, voted for the bill, saying that “overall, I think it would professionalize policing.
“There’s a lot of good in this bill, though I’m also aware of the criticisms,” said Tucker. “It addresses the very, very small number of officers who have tarnished the badge. This is such an important job that police officers do. We need to make sure that we support the vast majority of good officers.”
Tucker was supportive of the creation of the certification, or POST system, but questioned the ban on chokeholds that is included in the bill.
“I’m concerned any time there’s an outright ban on something,” said Tucker. “We’re talking about an infinitely small number of cases, but I would not want to see an officer have to use his firearm if there was something less he could do with manual physical force. I want to make sure that officers don’t hesitate or get second-guessed for doing the best that they can.”
Speliotis, who represents Peabody, said he voted for the bill because now, more than ever, officers who have committed “egregious” acts need to be held accountable. He feels the bill does just that.
“It’s about as comprehensive as you can get, so I am very comfortable with the bill as it is quite reasonable,” said Speliotis. “There is nothing in the bill that says this is an all-out attack on police officers.”
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, who represents a district that includes Lynnfield, was supportive of certain components of the legislation, but felt that it went too far beyond the governor’s original proposal.
“We are never going to get to a perfect bill, but in this case, just having a good bill isn’t good enough,” said Jones. “Public safety is such a critical issue that we need to be careful not to pass legislation that might steer highly qualified candidates away from a career in law enforcement and drive other veteran police officers who have always upheld the badge with honor to leave the profession.
“There were certainly a number of good reforms contained in the final bill, but in the end, there were not enough for me to vote for its passage.”
Walsh, who represents Peabody and voted against the bill, said his main concerns revolved around de-escalation issues.
“There are times when an officer has to make split-second decisions and I wanted to fully understand the ramifications of this bill relative to that,” said Walsh. “I am in support of the additional training, licensing requirements and the special commissions that are created.”
House Speaker DeLeo called police reform legislation a promise delivered on by elected officials. But Revere Police Chief David Callahan took a different perspective on the sweeping law enforcement reform measures.
Commenting on the legislation through Police Capt. Amy O’Hara, Callahan said he will “have more to say if and when a bill is signed by the governor.
“The Revere Police Department is focused on serving the people of Revere. We have always been committed to an open dialogue with the community, ongoing training for our officers, and the adoption of best practices and latest innovations in modern policing,” added Callahan.
But DeLeo, who represents Winthrop and parts of Revere, credited his House colleagues, in statement, “for their persistent effort to improve our law enforcement system.”
He called police reform “crucial,” and said the tumultuous summer that saw protests in the wake of George Floyd’s May 25 death at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer saw legislators promise to craft reform legislation “to ensure fairness and equality.”
“We vowed to make change,” said DeLeo.
Like Callahan, many other police chiefs in the area, including Ronald Madigan in Swampscott, Michael Ricciardelli in Saugus, and Robert Dwyer in Nahant, declined to comment much on the legislation either because they did not have time to review or the bill or because they wanted to wait until a final decision was made by the governor.
In Marblehead, Chief Robert Picariello did not respond to a request for comment on the bill. Lynn Interim Police Chief Leonard Desmarais said the department would adhere to whatever was passed, but police chiefs in both Lynnfield and Peabody spoke against the legislation.
“(I’m) certainly not a fan of having (the bill) jammed down our throat,” said Lynnfield Police Chief David Breen. “In my 37 years on the job, I have never seen more of an overreaction as I have this year. This is going to cause a tremendous amount of work in municipalities and just was not well thought out.”
Peabody Police Chief Thomas Griffin also did not support the bill, saying qualified police candidates will be lost as a result of the changes.
“This has been painted with a broad brush for what is going on in the rest of the country,” said Griffin. “The ripple effect of the changes in qualified immunity is that we may lose quality people who decide not to go into law enforcement. Here in Peabody we are fortunate to have great men and women in our department and I fear that we may also lose some of them.”
However, in Lynn, Desmarais said there is a lot to take in from the bill, “but I think anything that helps all of us professionalize the way we do things, (and) have a standard across the state, I think that’s a good idea.
“My personal opinion really doesn’t matter into it,” said Desmarais. “The government we have, checks and balances, the (legislature) makes the laws and the police department, we carry them out. We’ll see what it is and we’ll move forward with our heads up under whatever the new requirements are.”
Item reporters Elyse Carmosino, Thor Jourgensen, Guthrie Scrimgeour, and Anne Marie Tobin contributed to this report. Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
