By Bob Katzen
NO UNFUNDED MANDATES (H 5349)
House 27-136 rejected an amendment that would exempt any school district from paying any additional costs for implementing the provisions of the social media/cell phone legislation approved by the House. The amendment would allow the districts to pay for the additional cost only if they want to do so.
Rep. Kevin Sweezey (R-Duxbury), the sponsor of the amendment, said it is important to note that when we give authority to agencies to create regulation for our cities and towns, it often comes with a cost. Even if it doesn’t have dollars and cents in the line items, it can still end up costing municipal budgets. He argued that the amendment simply ensures that no policy made by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education incurs a cost for cities and towns and negatively impact our school districts.
“Cities and towns across the state are struggling with rising costs and increasing budget constraints, with more and more communities being forced to pursue Proposition 2 ½ overrides to preserve essential municipal services,” said co-sponsor House Minority Leader Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “Given the potential costs associated with implementing this bill, this amendment would help to ensure that we are not placing an additional financial burden on our cities and towns by imposing an unfunded mandate at the local level.”
Rep. Ken Gordon (D-Bedford) opposed the amendment and said that nothing in the bill calls for a district to spend a penny. He noted that if a district wants to, it can tell the students to simply not bring their cell phones to school. There’s no requirement they get the pouches or anything else and spend the money.
(A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.)
Rep. Christine Barber No Rep. Mike Connolly No Rep. Paul Donato No Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven No