Ranked Choice Voting

 Training for RCV signature gathering at Robbins Library in Arlington MA | Photo: mas

More and more we're seeing one or more ballot initiatives being used as a tool by citizens for action in the Massachusetts legislature, which in turn means turning out for training on messaging and signature gathering.

Last night I attended a training on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) at the Robbins Library in Arlington, presented by Voter Choice Massachusetts (VCMA). Their petition awaits approval from the Attorney General, along with about a dozen others. If approved, VCMA's current legislative proposal would need to be acted upon by legislators by next spring.

VCMA is advocating for the expanded use of RCV, which allows voters to rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference. The effort, if successful, would make Massachusetts elections more competitive and fair by encouraging the participation of more candidates and parties, and by ensuring outcomes that more accurately reflect the will of voters.

Those of us who have gathered signatures for ballot initiatives are familiar with the process. If approved, RCV signature sheets become available. The legal process requires submitting 80K certified signatures, which means submitting many more than that, and not more than 25% of signatures may come from any one county in the state. See this guidance document from the Massachusetts Secretary of State.

In a nutshell, this petition, if passed in 2020, would see RCV implemented for the 2022 ballot. RCV is a simple upgrade to the way we vote. Currently, in a field of multiple candidates, we get one chance with our vote; that choice may not gather 50% required for the win. With RCV you can set your preferences and order your choices; if your first choice doesn't get 50%, your subsequent  choices are activated until one candidate secures 50% of the electorate.

Cambridge adopted RCV in 1939. More on that HERE.

Signatures would need to be returned to City and Town Clerks by November 20, 2019 and the deadline to submit to the Secretary of State by December 4, 2019.

We will hear more about this initiative very soon. Stay tuned.

Financial Impact of Charter Schools | Part I

Back in January (2019), I asked the Chair to include a discussion item on our agenda: that the Board consider the financial impact/s of new and/or expanding charter school/s on a district/s.

In response to my request, the Chair asked the Department *to provide a framework for the discussion* (agenda is HERE; briefing is HERE, #5).

At our regular meeting next Tuesday, March 26, Deputy Commissioner Jeff Wulfson is expected to present "an overview of the structure and operation of Massachusetts law with respect to the  awarding of charters, funding of charter schools, and school finance generally".

He'll be joined by Senior Associate Commissioner Cliff Chuang, of the Office of Charter Schools and School Redesign, and General Counsel Rhoda Schneider.

At last month's BESE meeting, Vice Chair James Morton's comments resonated powerfully:

"Morton, the president and CEO of the YMCA of Greater Boston, said he was “deeply troubled by the dilemma that I think we get placed in every time there’s a charter proposal in front of us.”

“We find ourselves in a position of diverting resources from one opportunity to another without ever really addressing the underlying issue, which is finding some other source of funding for charter schools so that we can have both our public school children getting what they need ...,” he said. “It’s going to get pretty close to the moment where I vote against anything until we deal with that underlying issue, and I think that moment is today.”

(Katie Lannan reporting for State House News Service, I first saw the article in Salem News, also South Coast Today: https://www.salemnews.com/news/board-of-ed-opts-against-approving-new-charters/article_6dba535a-2f01-11e9-a490-777d672eb1f4.html)

I can't think of another thing the BESE has within its purview that doesn't take financial impact into consideration. The November 2016 Charter School Ballot Question 2 decision resulted in voters overwhelmingly opposed to charter school expansion by a vote of 2:1; much of that decision had to do with the financial impact of charters, especially in communities experiencing the reality of decreased funding for traditional public schools due to the presence of charter schools in their region or district/s.

The discussion being had now in communities and in the Legislature, concerning improving School Finance, vis-á-vis the Foundation Budget Formula, is in recognition that we've been short-changing for years those who need it most, especially in Gateway Cities—students in Special Education, English-learners, and economically disadvantaged students among them.

We're more than 25 years on from the promises made in the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993. I believe that a discussion of the financial impact of charter schools on sending districts is the next honest conversation we need to have, especially now that we understand* how urban and rural school districts are negatively and deeply impacted by the charter school decisions of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
⸻
Image credit: Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts' Celebration of State Primary Endorsees, September 19, 2016 ~ mas

* There's also THIS and THIS from MassBudget.

YES for Human Rights

This November, basic protections for our transgender neighbors will be on the ballot in Massachusetts. We must vote YES for fairness, respect, and dignity by upholding the law to protect the rights of transgender people in public spaces.

Right now it’s illegal to discriminate against a person simply because they are transgender. A small group of opponents wants to change that and take Massachusetts backwards. Their referendum question would repeal our state law that protects transgender people from discrimination in public places, including restaurants, stores, and doctors’ offices. If the current law is repealed, transgender people will no longer have explicit protection from discrimination in all places the public is welcome. A YES vote keeps the current law as it is.

This is about human rights. Transgender people have the right to the same basic protections as everyone else—to live their lives with safety, privacy, and dignity—as provided in our Constitution. Protecting people from discrimination, including people who are transgender, is about treating all people as we want to be treated.

The law protects transgender youth, who continue to face mistreatment and bullying; repealing our state’s protections would put them at even greater risk of harassment, discrimination, and even violence. Every young person deserves a fair chance to succeed in school, in their community, and prepare for their future—including young people who are transgender.

Our nondiscrimination law is working well and it’s time to turn our focus elsewhere. No one should fear for their safety because of the color of their skin, who they love, or how they identify. Massachusetts’ nondiscrimination law allows transgender people to live their lives free from harassment and discrimination. Join me in voting YES this November to defend transgender equality in Massachusetts.

A late post on the Fair Share Amendment

As one of the ten original signers of the petition submitted in 2015 to Attorney General Maura Healey for approval as a ballot initiative in 2018, I was proud to see the amendment passed at the second Constitutional Convention in June. If we want to be a prosperous, innovative Commonwealth, then we must invest. (Even our Republican governor has proposed modest reforms to update our tax system.)

Right now, the best income tax proposal on the table is the Fair Share Amendment. Once voters pass this initiative in November 2018, revenues from the tax (generated by a 4% tax on individuals earning over one million dollars beginning January 2019) would be used only for public education, public colleges and universities, the repair and maintenance of roads and bridges, and public transportation.

I was first to support this initiative because it is aligned with my value for fairness, in that it calls on those with the greatest ability to pay their fair share of tax. I firmly believe that this initiative represents our best chance for new revenue in the near future and I will continue to push for its goals.