Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Ronald Mariano, House Chair
The Honorable James Timilty, Senate Chair
The Honorable Garrett Bradley, House Vice Chair
The Honorable Anthony Petruccelli, Senate Vice Chair
The Honorable George Peterson, Ranking House Member
The Honorable Bruce Tarr, Ranking Senate Member
Committee of Conference on Gun Violence Prevention Legislation (H. 4285 & S. 2284)
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Mariano, Chairman Timilty, Representative Bradley, Senator Petruccelli, Representative Peterson, and Senator Tarr,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association is writing to offer input regarding the language of H. 4285 and S. 2284, the important gun violence prevention legislation advanced by the House and the Senate. We thank you for your dedication to safeguarding the residents of all communities. Our language recommendations, outlined below, would clarify and improve the roles and responsibilities of schools relative to gun violence prevention under this bill, and we respectfully request that the committee incorporate the language into the final legislation. Improving school safety is a critically important and sound public policy goal, and it must be done in a way that does not place complex unfunded mandates or liability on our public schools without the appropriate corresponding resources.
Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) Framework
H. 4285 contains sweeping language in Section 5 that establishes broad criteria to create “safe and supportive schools” that “foster a safe, positive, healthy, and inclusive whole-school learning environment.” This is generally referred to as the “S3” framework. The Senate bill does not include this language. The House criteria include professional development for teachers and staff, access to behavioral health services, and academic and non-academic supports for students, among other components. The S3 requirements for local school districts would take effect June 30, 2016.
It is our concern that this provision, while certainly well-intentioned, would likely grow into a major mandate on cities, towns and school districts, with very little specific guidance or limitation on what DESE could require or impose locally, with no allowance for the resources or funding necessary to implement or make this initiative successful.
As a means of recognizing the breadth of the S3 programmatic requirements, it is helpful to examine the additional features that would be established by Section 5:
1. DESE would be charged with developing an S3 framework that would promote collaboration between schools and behavioral health providers, provide professional development for school personnel, improve access to behavioral health services, provide academic and non-academic support services for students with behavioral health challenges, and increase collaboration with families.
2. Each school district would be required to develop and implement a local S3 framework, subject to local appropriation.
3. DESE would be required to develop an S3 self-assessment tool for local school districts.
4. Each school district would be required to develop and implement an action plan to create and sustain the S3 framework, subject to local appropriation.
5. DESE would be required, subject to state appropriation, to facilitate and oversee the statewide implementation of the S3 framework.
6. Each school district would be required to include, as part of the local “three-year District Improvement Plan,” steps taken to implement a local S3 action plan and to facilitate regional coordination with behavioral health providers and other community organizations.
7. Paragraph (h) would establish an 18-member S3 Commission, which would not include a representative of local government.
In addition to concerns regarding the scope of this program, a critical problem with Section 5 is that there is no language that would limit the liability of cities, towns and school districts related to the requirement of S3.
The criteria establish standards that are not clearly defined or understood, but will surely be very costly to develop and implement at an effective level. While the language of this section indicates that the requirement for the development and implementation of the safe and supportive schools framework is subject to (local) appropriation, we ask that the final bill omit the House language contained in Section 5 to avoid imposing a broad and complicated mandate on public schools that they would not have the resources to meet, and that may impose undue liability on them. Further, the content of Section 5 overlaps with subsequent sections included in both the House and Senate bills, including the mental health plan and suicide awareness training provisions, and is unnecessary for that additional reason. If, for any reason, this provision remains in the final bill in any form, language limiting the liability of cities, towns and school districts must be incorporated.
School Resource Officers
Section 6 of H. 4285 would require that each school district be assigned at least one school resource officer (SRO). The SRO would be appointed by the chief of police in consultation with the superintendent of schools. The assignment of a school resource officer would be subject to local appropriation. This section would take effect January 1, 2015, in the middle of the current fiscal year, far past the date that cities, towns and school districts set their final budgets.
Section 10 of S. 2284 would require the chief of police, in consultation with the superintendent of schools, to assign at least one SRO to serve the local school district. The assignment of a school resource officer would also be subject to local appropriation. This section would authorize the DESE to waive the SRO requirement. It would also allow the chief of police, in consultation with the superintendent of schools, to seek the assignment of a state police officer to serve as the local SRO, subject to state appropriation. The SRO requirements for local school districts would take effect July 1, 2015, on the first day of fiscal year 2016, giving communities time to determine whether their budgets could accommodate this new initiative.
Importantly, Section 10 of the Senate bill includes language limiting the liability of school districts under the SRO statute. There is no similar language in the House bill. It is essential that the final bill contains the Senate language to protect schools from undue liability, and we strongly urge its inclusion. The Senate language, in subsection F, states that:
“No public employer shall be liable for injury, loss of property, personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of a public employee while acting in the scope of the public employee’s employment and arising out of the implementation of this section. This section shall not be construed as creating or imposing a specific duty of care.”
Mental Health Plan Requirement
Section 6 of H. 4285 and Section 10 of S. 2284 would require that each school district develop and adhere to a plan to address the general mental health needs of its students, including their families, teachers and school administrators. Both sections would take effect January 1, 2015, in the middle of the current fiscal year, far past the date that cities, towns and school districts set their final budgets.
Neither the House nor the Senate sections include language indicating that this requirement is subject to local appropriation. Because this is a complex and costly unfunded mandate, we respectfully and strongly request this provision be held in conference and excluded from the final bill, or that “subject to appropriation” be included in the final legislation.
The Senate bill contains language in the proposed Section 37Q, Subsection D of Chapter 71 of the General Laws, not included in the House bill, limiting liability for school districts around mental health plans. The Senate language states that:
“No public employer shall be liable for injury, loss of property, personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of a public employee while acting in the scope of the public employee’s employment and arising out of the implementation of this section. This section shall not be construed as creating or imposing a specific duty of care.”
As with the previous section pertaining to the requirement that a school district have an SRO, we respectfully and urgently ask that the Senate language limiting school district liability be included in the final legislation.
Further, we respectfully and urgently request that the scope of the language be narrowed to include only students, as including teachers and administrators would certainly impact collective bargaining and personnel policies, and it is far beyond the range of a school’s practical capacity to create a mental health plan for a student’s family. The intent of the House and Senate language is laudable, yet it is clear that this undertaking exceeds the capacity or mission of school districts (in terms of developing and implementing mental health plans for students’ families) and would interfere with and impose complex problems with collective bargaining contracts under Chapter 150E of the General Laws (in terms of developing and implementing mental health plans for teachers and school administrators).
Two-Way Communications Device Requirement
Section 6 of H. 4285 and Section 10 of S. 2284 would require that each school possess and have access to a two-way radio communication device to be used solely for communicating with police and fire departments of the city or town where the school lies during an emergency situation. This requirement would be subject to local appropriation, and the sections would take effect on January 1, 2015. Again, this is in the middle of the current fiscal year, far past the date that cities, towns and school districts set their final budgets.
Under both the House and Senate language, this proposed new Section 37R of Chapter 71 of the General Laws would appear to preclude the use of the radio device for communication with the State Police and other law enforcement and first responder agencies. We respectfully request that the committee consider expanding the usage requirement to include additional law enforcement agencies that could be involved in an emergency response.
Section 10 of the Senate bill includes language, not included in the House bill, limiting the liability of school districts related to two-way communication devices. We respectfully and urgently request that the Senate language be included in the final legislation as it relates to the two-way communications device requirement. The language, as written in the Senate version, states:
“No public employer shall be liable for injury, loss of property, personal injury or death caused by an act or omission of a public employee while acting in the scope of the public employee’s employment and arising out of the implementation of this section. This section shall not be construed as creating or imposing a specific duty of care.”
Suicide Awareness Training
Section 7 of H. 4285 would require that DESE adopt rules that would require all school districts to provide at least two hours of training every three years on suicide awareness and prevention to all school personnel. The “all school personnel” language includes janitors, cafeteria workers and other non-professional staff.
Section 76 of the House bill would require DESE to adopt rules for the implementation by December 3, 2014, and for school personnel hired after the effective date of the law but before December 3, 2014, to be trained by March 4, 2015. New personnel would be required to receive the training within 90 days of hire.
Section 11 of S. 2284 would require that DESE, subject to state appropriation, adopt rules that would require all school districts to provide at least two hours of training every three years on suicide awareness and prevention training to all licensed school personnel. The all school personnel language does NOT include janitors, cafeteria workers and other non-licensed staff.
Section 104 of the Senate bill would require DESE to adopt rules, subject to appropriation, for the implementation by December 3, 2014, and for school personnel hired after the effective date of the law to be trained within one year.
Both the House and Senate sections include important language limiting the liability of school districts, but neither version includes language indicating that the requirement is subject to local appropriation. We urge the committee to include language in the final version that indicates the training requirement is subject to appropriation in order to avoid imposing a mandate that school districts may not be able to meet. This is particularly important because this legislation, unusually, would impose a mandate in the middle of the fiscal year, and there was no indication or information that the state would be establishing these requirements back when cities, towns and school districts were setting their budgets for the current fiscal year.
Additionally, we respectfully ask you to include the Senate language in the final bill allowing the training for new personnel to occur within one year of their hire, as the House requirement that this new training occur within 90 days could create unworkable time constraints. We also request that the training requirement language relative to school personnel in the Senate bill be included in the final legislation, as this language more appropriately targets the school staff (teachers) most directly in a position to identify at-risk students.
Summary
Thank you again for your important work to improve the Commonwealth’s laws to prevent gun violence and strengthen safety in each of our cities and towns, and for your consideration of our comments to ensure that schools are effectively able to play a key role in this process.
We ask you to please incorporate the above recommendations in order to ensure that the final legislation does NOT impose new legal liabilities on cities, towns, school districts – without these protections, local taxpayers could face extensive and costly legal challenges.
We ask you to please incorporate the above recommendations in order to ensure that the final legislation does NOT impose new unfunded mandates – imposing new unfunded mandates would force school districts to cut or reduce other valuable education programs in order to comply with extensive financial obligations imposed in this bill.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact me, John Robertson or Catherine Rollins of the MMA staff at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA
cc: The Honorable Therese Murray, Senate President
The Honorable Robert DeLeo, Speaker of the House