By Bonnie Adams, Managing Editor
Westborough – As the nation gears up for an important mid-term election Tuesday, Nov. 6, Massachusetts voters will also be asked to decide on three ballot questions. On Oct. 24, nearly 100 local business leaders had the chance to hear the two sides of each of the questions during an educational forum sponsored by the Corridor Nine Area Chamber of Commerce.
Jonathan R. Sigel, a partner with Mirick O’Connell, served as the moderator for the forum, held at the Doubletree Hotel. Each speaker representing a side of the question was given five minutes for a presentation, which was then followed by questions from the audience.
Ballot Question 1 – Patient to Nurse Limits – was the first question discussed on the agenda. A “Yes” vote would limit the number of patients that could be assigned to one registered nurse in hospitals and certain other health care facilities. A “No” vote would make no change in current laws relative to patient-to-nurse limits.
Judith Pare, RN, PhD, director of Nursing Education/Workforce Quality and Safety, Massachusetts Nursing Association, (safepatientlimits.org) spoke first in favor of the question being passed.
“Patient limits are now largely unenforced. I have had nurses sometimes call me and say they have had up to 16 patients at a time,” she said. “And patients are sicker now than they have ever been before. It’s unacceptable when opponents [of the ballot question] say if [the patients] are that sick then they should be in Boston. If you are sick and you are in Pittsfield, you should have the same level of care that you would get in Boston.”
Michael Sroczynski, senior vice president of government advocacy, Massachusetts Health & Hospital Administration (www.protectpatientsafety.com) presented the opposing view. He said that many nurses, as well as 76 leading health organizations, did not support the question. He noted that California, which had passed a measure in 1999 to limit the number of patients that could be assigned to a nurse, was not the same as situation being presented in Massachusetts. One major difference, he said, was that in California there were no financial penalties if nursing limits were not adhered to by institutions.
Pare and Sroczynski also disagreed on the issue of if the state had enough registered nurses for possible patient/nurse mandates.
“We do not have a staffing shortage,” Pare said. “Many RNs leave the state because they cannot find a fulltime position.”
“We actually have a shortage of about 1,200 RNs,” Sroczynski countered. “What if we can’t find enough nurses? Community hospitals will be hit the hardest.”
Regarding Ballot Question 3 – Transgender Anti-Discrimination – A “Yes” vote would keep in place the current law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity in places of public accommodation. A “No” vote would repeal this provision of the public accommodation law.
The question was debated by Jane Steinmetz, managing principal, Ernst & Young Coalition Partner for Freedom for all Massachusetts, who presented the “Yes” point of view (www.freedommassachusetts.org), while Debby Dugan, chair, Keep MA Safe (www.keepmasafe.org), presented the “No” view.
Duggan spoke first, noting that “the primary responsibility of every government is to provide for the safety of all citizens.”
The original law, passed in 2016, was “poorly written and doesn’t protect women and children,” she said, as it allows “all biological men, including sexual predators, into bathrooms, shelters, etc.”
“Beacon Hill failed us but we have the opportunity to repeal this,” she said.
Steinmeltz, in reply, said, “We need to compartmentalize – there are criminals and then there are those who are a little bit different from us, but just want to live their lives, just as we want to do.”
“Everyone should be free from discrimination,” she added. “This is not about criminals; it’s about individuals who want to live without fear of harassment. “
Ballot Question 2 – Commission on Limiting Election Spending and Corporate Rights – was debated by Jeff Clements, president, American Promise (voteyeson2ma.org) and Paul D. Craney, spokesperson, board member, Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance (www.MassFiscal.org.)
A “Yes” vote would create a citizens commission to advance an amendment to the United States Constitution to limit the influence of money in elections and establish that corporations do not have the same rights as human beings. A “No” vote would not create this commission.
Craney spoke first, noting that all “stakeholders” – individuals and corporations – should have the same opportunities. If the question were passed, he said, it would empower the commission to regulate public speech.
“Practically speaking, unions are the biggest benefactors of freedom of speech,” he added.
Clements said that the commission would be a “good cross selection of citizens” and that there is “zero regulation of speech.”
A “Yes” vote would advance an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the influence of money in elections, he added. The measure has been passed by 19 other states so far and has the endorsement of many cross-partisan leaders including Governor Charlie Baker and Senator Elizabeth Warren, as well as many in the business community.
In order for a Constitutional Amendment to be passed, it must be approved by two-thirds of Congress and then ratified by at least 38 states.
