File photo / The Republican
Massachusetts House and Senate lawmakers cast ballots on measures ranging from approving new sexual harassment policies to ensuring puppies and kittens are bred and sold in a safe and healthy environment, as they met for various legislative sessions this week.
Here's how members from the Western part of the state voted on those proposals:
HOUSE:
Elise Amendola
New sexual harassment policies in the House
Lawmakers, on a 151 to 0 vote, unanimously approved a measure that requires the House to promote the safety and respectful treatment of all members, officers, interns and employees of the House, and all third parties, by establishing uniform procedures for making and receiving complaints of harassment and initiating, conducting and concluding investigations into complaints of harassment. The measure states the House is committed to providing fair and equal opportunity for employment and advancement to all employees and applicants.
It also spells out a specific procedure for handling sexual harassment cases and prohibits anyone from retaliating against a person who has complained about harassment or participated in an investigation into an allegation. Other provisions include employing a full-time Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and a full-time Director of Human Resources.
Despite the unanimous vote, there was heated debate on the House floor. Rep. Diana DiZoglio, D-Methuen, told her personal story about how she was sexually harassed in 2011 by many people at the Statehouse following an incident. She was working as a House aide when rumors began to spread about alleged inappropriate behavior with former Rep. Mark Cusack in the House chamber late one night during a party at the Statehouse. An investigation by Speaker Bob DeLeo’s office in 2011 found that nothing inappropriate had occurred, but DiZoglio's boss decided that the rumors had become too much and he asked her to find employment elsewhere.
"But on my way out the door I was hit with another surprise, the speaker's office would not release my six weeks’ severance pay unless I signed a non-disclosure agreement including a non-disparagement agreement that legally bound me from discussing what had happened and from criticizing any past, present or future elected members of this House," DiZoglio said. "I hesitated for days because I did not want to sign this document. With my money running out quickly, however, I didn't feel I had another option, so I signed under duress."
“No member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives should be subjected to the sort of treatment described by Rep. DiZoglio,” said DeLeo in a written statement emailed to reporters while the debate was taking place. “To be clear, yesterday was the first time that I or any member of my staff, House Counsel’s Office or House Human Resources heard of the harassment Rep. DiZoglio experienced after the incident that occurred in the House Chamber in April of 2011.”
DeLeo said DiZoglio was fired by her boss despite being instructed to the contrary and that she was represented by an attorney when a severance agreement was drafted.
"To hear now that she did not want to agree to the terms of the termination and severance agreement is troubling," DeLeo’s statement said. "Her attorney competently negotiated the agreement on her behalf and we presumed that his client was in agreement with the terms."
Things got more heated when Rep. Angelo Scaccia, D-Boston, the longest serving House member, taunted DeLeo: “Mr. Speaker, Come out. Come out of your office and chair.”
"Mr. Speaker, you've been getting away for too long in this House with the sound of silence," Scaccia said, using references to the hit Simon and Garfunkel song. "This House should call up the attorney general of this commonwealth and let her find out what happened in the past to bring about the present."
Scaccia called Thursday's session "an absolute charade,” and said he had heard of harassment on Beacon Hill many years ago.
"Madame Speaker,” Scaccia said to Patricia Haddad, D-Somerset, who was presiding over the session. “You're not going to tell me that the speaker of this House found out about this issue a couple of days ago.”
The speaker's office confirmed that 33 fired House employees were offered a small severance payment in exchange for executing a written agreement. The speaker's office said the House "has not paid any money to settle a complaint of sexual harassment/misconduct brought against or by any member, officer, employee or third party" since DeLeo was elected speaker in 2009.
Voting "yes,” or for the new regulations and rules were: Reps. Brian Ashe, Donald Berthiaume, Nicholas Boldyga, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Michael Finn, Solomon Goldstein-Rose, Carlos Gonzalez, Stephen Kulik, Paul Mark, Thomas Petrolati, William Pignatelli, Angelo Puppolo, John Scibak, Todd Smola, Jose Tosado, Aaron Vega, John Velis, Joseph Wagner, Susannah Whipps and Bud Williams.
Rep. John Barrett didn't vote.
Virginia Mayo
Nondisclosure agreements
The House, on a 21 to 131 vote, rejected an amendment that would have prohibited the use of NDAs in any situation.
Amendment supporters said any use of NDAs is an abuse of power that uses public money to pressure public employees to sign away their right to speak. They said making NDAs an option will be taken advantage of by the predators.
Amendment opponents said victims should still have the choice whether to sign an NDA or not and noted in some cases it could be part of the best solution for them.
"We cannot through a crystal ball, the best intentions, mental telepathy or any other way, presume to know what's in the best interest of aggrieved parties moving forward," said Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown.
Please read this vote carefully to see how your representative voted and what it means. The amendment would have prohibited the use of NDAs in any situation.
Voting “yes,” or for prohibiting the use of NDAs were: Reps. Donald Berthiaume, Nicholas Boldyga and Todd Smola.
Voting “no,” or for allowing the use of NDAs were: Reps. Brian Ashe, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Michael Finn, Solomon Goldstein-Rose, Carlos Gonzalez, Stephen Kulik, Paul Mark, Thomas Petrolati, William Pignatelli, Rep. Angelo Puppolo, John Scibak, Jose Tosado, Aaron Vega, John Velis, Joseph Wagner, Susannah Whipps and Bud Williams.
Rep. John Barrett didn't vote.
SENATE:
Matt Rourke
Social media privacy protections
The Senate, on a 36 to 0 vote, approved and sent to the House a bill designed to protect students and employees from being forced or bullied into providing schools and companies with information about and access to their social media accounts.
Provisions prohibit any school from requiring a student or applicant and an employee or applicant to disclose photographs, videos, a user name, password or other means of access to a personal social media account; allows an aggrieved student or applicant to bring a civil suit against the school for violating these new laws; permits the attorney general to investigate any violations by employers; and permit schools to disclose lawfully obtained information from a student’s personal social media account to law enforcement to protect against immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to a student or other individuals.
Supporters said that a growing number of employers and schools are demanding access to the social media account of students and employees and prospective students and employees. They argued this is an invasion of privacy that should not be allowed in the Bay State. They said demanding access to a social media account is the same as demanding offline access to a person’s diary, regular mail, photo albums and conversations the person has with family and friends – offline things that which would never be demanded by a school or employer.
Voting "yes," or for the bill were: Sens. Anne Gobi, Adam Hinds, Donald Humason, Eric Lesser and James Welch.
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg did not vote.
David Molnar
Protecting puppies and kittens
The Senate, on a 36 to 0 vote, approved and sent to the House a bill ensuring that puppies and kittens are bred and sold in a safe and healthy environment and strengthening the current “Puppy Lemon Law” to give pet owners additional options if they unknowingly purchase a sick pet.
Provisions prohibit the sale of puppies and kittens younger than 8 weeks of age; allow for inspection by the Commissioner of Agricultural Resources of kennels and catteries and persons keeping at least 5 non-spayed female dogs or cats; create a process by which a puppy or kitten suffering from a significant adverse health condition may be declared “unfit for purchase” by a veterinarian; and provide remedies to a buyer of a puppy or kitten declared unfit for purchase including exchange of the puppy or kitten or a refund and reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees.
“As an animal lover, pet owner and occasional small-scale breeder, I am deeply aware of the emotional challenges for families when a pet falls ill, as well as the need to protect the health and safety of young animals,” said the sponsor of the bill Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland. “This bill is the result of extensive discussion with both breeders and animal rights activists to protect puppies, kittens and pet owners across the commonwealth.”
“Pet owners deserve protection when they unknowingly purchase a sick animal that requires expensive veterinary care,” said Senate President Harriette Chandler, D-Worcester. “Animals depend on their owners, and we must repay that trust by ensuring that animals are treated with respect and compassion.”
Voting "yes," or for the bill were: Sens. Anne Gobi, Adam Hinds, Donald Humason, Eric Lesser and James Welch.
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg didn't vote.
Treeger
Protecting animals
The Senate, on a 36 to 0 vote, approved a bill designed to protect the health and safety of animals.
Provisions include requiring that animal abuse be reported by the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Elder Affairs and the Disabled Persons Protection Commission; making animal control officers mandatory reporters of child abuse, elder abuse and abuse against disabled persons; increasing non-criminal penalties for abuse of an animal; repealing a current requirement that animals involved in illegal animal fighting automatically be killed and instead creating other options for these victims; prohibiting insurance companies from refusing insurance coverage and housing authorities from refusing to rent to a potential renter based on a specific breed; and requiring property owners and landlords to check property for abandoned animals within three days following a foreclosure or end of tenancy.
Supporters said the bill is long overdue and will protect many animals from injury, abuse and death. They pointed out a recent study which found that a person who has committed animal abuse is five times more likely to commit a violent crime against a person.
“Our commitment towards ending the cruel and inhumane treatment of innocent animals is steadfast, and today we have taken significant action to protect their safety and welfare,” said co-sponsor Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford. “There is zero tolerance for such despicable brutality and today’s action by the Senate sends a clear message.”
Voting "yes," or for the bill were: Sens. Anne Gobi, Adam Hinds, Donald Humason, Eric Lesser and James Welch.
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg did not vote.
Treeger
Treating juveniles as adults
The Senate, on a 19 to 17 vote, approved an amendment to strike a section of the bill that allows adult criminal sentences for animal cruelty to be applied to juveniles ages 14 to 17.
Supporters of allowing it said this gives prosecutors some flexibility in how to charge a youth. They cited a case in which a 14-year-old boy brutally tortured a friend's dog and could not be charged or sentenced as an adult because the judge said the law allowing that only applies to human beings and not animals.
Opponents said putting juveniles in prison with adults results in them coming out worse than when they went in.
“I strongly support treating animal cruelty as the serious crime that it is,” said the amendment’s sponsor Sen. Pat Jehlen, D-Somerville. “But, we must be conscious of how we treat juveniles in any criminal context. Putting juveniles into adult prisons almost guarantees that those juveniles will never have their underlying mental health or emotional conditions resolved and will be far more likely to be released in their early adult years with adult criminal skills and thinking. We should not be unintentionally taking steps that train future criminal actors.”
Please read this vote carefully to see how your senator voted and what it means. The amendment would strike the section of the bill allows adult criminal sentences for animal cruelty to be applied to juveniles.
Voting “yes,” or against allowing it were: Sens. Adam Hinds and Eric Lesser.
Voting “no,” or for allowing it were: Sens. Anne Gobi, Donald Humason and James Welch.
Sen. Stanley Rosenberg did not vote.
Ad Choices