This weekend saw renewed attention to the lawlessness far too common among law enforcement, with the release of video footage of cops bragging about brutalizing protesters earlier this summer and a Globe story about how police officers are able to commit crimes off duty with impunity.

Unfortunately, while the news was underscoring why we need to be going further in imposing public accountability of policing and shifting our definition of (and resources for) public safety away from policing, the MA Legislature was narrowing the ambition of its police reform bill.

Rather than signing the MA House and Senate's consensus police reform bill, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed his true colors again by threatening to veto it unless the Legislature watered it down.

In July, both the MA House and the MA Senate passed police reform bills that, although not as strong as they need to be, had a number of vital reforms. Two and a half weeks ago, the Legislature succeeded at hashing out a consensus version of their bills and sent them to the Governor to sign.

Instead of listening to the broad and diverse coalition calling on him to sign the bill, Governor Baker bowed to the pressure of police unions and sent the bill back to the Legislature with harmful amendments.

Baker's amendments curtail key powers to establish training curricula by a civilian board, allow broad use of the notoriously racist facial recognition software, and severely weaken the definitions and independent oversight for use of force by police.

Crucial negotiations are happening over the next few days, and your voice matters.

Can you email Baker today to urge him to stop trying to water down the Legislature's bill?

To quote State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, "The bill that emerged from conference committee was already a compromise package. It’s time to stop asking over-policed communities to give up more and more of the justice they’ve so long been fighting for."

The current legislative session in Massachusetts ends in just three short weeks, with a few holidays in between.

And there's a lot left to do.

This week, Republican Governor Charlie Baker showed repeatedly that he doesn't have the best interests of the commonwealth at heart. And we're not just talking about his stubborn refusal to close in-door dining, casinos (?!), and gyms or ensure that workers and small businesses have the supports they need to weather the dark winter. (Although more on that later.) 

We're talking about his refusal to sign good policies passed by the Legislature and his desire to run out the clock on all of them.

Last week, the MA House and Senate passed their consensus version of a police reform bill, sending it to the Governor's desk.

Baker had three options. (1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listened to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn't care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn't care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill.

He chose #3.

Last night, the MA Senate and House passed a consensus version of the police reform bills from the summer. Read our write-up here.

Let's break down how it went and what's next.

Earlier this evening, the Conference Committee working to harmonize the House and Senate police reform bills passed in the summer released their much-awaited final report: S.2963: An Act relative to justice, equity and accountability in law enforcement in the Commonwealth.

Shortest take: The bill creates a POST Commission with fewer voices for real police accountability than in the Senate bill, establishes a lot of new commissions that may not actually produce anything, creates new regulations on the use of force with various strength (stronger on facial surveillance on chokeholds, pretty loophole-ridden elsewhere), makes notable strides on juvenile justice (from expungement to school policing), bans racial profiling, and lacks meaningful reforms on qualified immunity. (A lot of ups and downs in that sentence.)

• Strong limitations on qualified immunity doctrine (The bill only limits QI in case of decertified officer, as in House bill, and creates a commission on QI.)
• Requirement of a democratic process around municipal acquisition of military equipment
• Investment of funds equivalent to savings on incarceration into workforce development and job training/opportunities
• Strong representation from civil rights groups and impacted communities on the police standards & training commission

In July, the MA House and MA Senate both passed police reform bills (of varying ambition). And the House passed a climate bill (the Senate had done so back in January).

In each case, there are six-member committees of state senators and state representatives ("conference committees") working to come up with a final bill.

So where are they?

The short answer: We don't know.

The long answer: Conference committees are incredibly secretive processes. But the more your legislators hear from you about the need for the strongest bills possible on both fronts, the better the odds are that we will see better final products -- or any final bills at all.

Can you contact your state legislators this weekend with four key asks for each bill?

House and Senate Leadership have appointed a conference committee to reconcile their respective bills. The conference committee -- Sen. Brownsberger, Sen. Sonia Chang Diaz, Sen. Tarr, Rep. Cronin, Rep. Gonzalez, and Rep. Whelan -- will work on a consensus bill, which will have to be voted on and then sent to the Governor.

Please urge your legislators and Governor Charlie Baker to support the strongest bill possible.

Late Friday evening, the MA House passed its police reform bill, following the Senate's passage of the Reform - Shift - Build Act the prior week. Like the Senate bill, it creates a certification/decertification body for police officers, something almost every other state already has, and strengthens regulations around the use of force.

While the bill went slightly further than the Senate bill on the use of force and had stronger regulations on the use of facial surveillance, it barely touched the issue of qualified immunity (the legal doctrine that shields abusive police officers from lawsuits and denies victims their fair day in court), dropped language limiting and regulating the acquisition of military equipment, and failed to include the Senate's stronger language on reducing the school-to-prison pipeline or on a Justice Reinvestment Fund (which would invest sums equivalent to DOC savings into opportunities for impacted communities). And neither bill goes as far as necessary to truly limit the scope of policing, i.e., shifting functions away from police departments and to trained social workers and other non-armed professionals (We don't need armed police to show up when someone has a mental health episode).

The final vote on the bill was 93 to 66 (see roll call below). The House and Senate will now have to work to come up with consensus language.

Over the course of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the House considered 221 amendments and had far more floor debate than is usual for the top-down chamber. Indeed, many votes were far closer than the lop-sided votes that are so common.