Legislative Q&A: State Sen. Benjamin Downing

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
Sen. Benjamin Downing in his Pittsfield office.
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — State Sen. Benjamin Downing says reducing poverty remains his top focus. 
 
In the last legislative session, the state has raised the minimum wage, made adjustments to the unemployment system and passed new laws for drug abuse and mental health treatment.
 
But, that is only the start of what Downing sees as an overarching conversation about poverty. And in the next session, he is hoping the state focuses even more attention on improving the economy for everybody. 
 
With the formal session concluding at the end of July, we sat down with Downing in his Pittsfield office to recap what has happened and what to expect when the Senate reconvenes in January.
 
Q: What were some of the highlights from the last legislative session?
 
BD: Looking back on it, I would say raising the minimum wage and coupling that with real changes in the unemployment insurance system that don't impact the amount of time you can collect benefits but impact how benefits are calculated and provides relief for businesses were the more important pieces of legislation we've done this session.
 
The omnibus package of substance-abuse programs that came out of the special commission that Sen. [Jennifer] Flanagan brought to North Adams along with many other communities across the state. Unfortunately, one of the things in the past two years that have united all 351 cities and towns is the impact of prescription drugs, heroin and the related opioid drugs. We've all seen that the system we have now doesn't serve our constituents well. We'll all heard too many stories of our family, friends, neighbors who want treatment but are unable to get it and spiraling further and further down. That package provides us with much more of a safety net when it comes to substance abuse and treatments around, particularly with the amount of time insurers are required to cover for treatment. 
 
I would say those two are the biggest things we've done this session. There were a lot of other important pieces of legislation that build on efforts we have made throughout the past few legislative session, things like increasing our net metering caps and creating a new renewable energy program. Both of those help us build on the leadership role we've taken when it comes to energy efficiency and clean energy. That is something that no matter who is the next governor they can continue to make a priority. It is the right thing for the environment and certainly is the right thing for the economy. We have 80,000 workers in green tech jobs here in Berkshire County and they are spread throughout the state. But, we have a lot more work to do there.
 
The slate of bond bills that were passed include a lot of local investments here. The top area for me was the $50 million for the last mile that was included in the IT bond bill. We, as a delegation, will get together with Mass Broadband really soon to talk about how they were planning on implementing it. The Broadband Institute is planning on a large public process and to engage with Wired West and the communities to make sure we get the best bang for the buck out of that $50 million. We've been incredibly lucky to have a governor who is committed to closing that digital divide in western Mass. That's required significant investment from the federal government and the state is going to have to make that investment again. But, we have to partner with the communities to make sure we have the telecommunications in the state.
 
The capital facilities bond, with a potential investment at Mass MoCA; and the environmental bond with investments at the Greylock Glen site, the Hoosic River Revival is a project with a lot of possibility and promise if we get the details on it right; the transportation bond bill and the increase, not as much as we'd like it to be but the increase the governor has already authorized in Chapter 90 funding.
 
Q: Can you be more specific about the substance abuse, what does the package call for? And the same question for the minimum wage.
 
BD: The minimum wage is going to be in several steps raising to $11 an hour. It does not index that to inflation. The version of the bill did have it and I would have preferred that, it makes sense to make sure that someone who works hard and plays by the rules continues to be able to have the same purchasing power. Ultimately, that was a position that didn't prevail so we have work to do to continue to go back at that.
 
On the unemployment system, the major change was to make it such that if you as a business are using the system more, if you are relying on seasonally laying off workers and bringing them back, if you can plan for that, then you ought to be paying more because you are assuming they will be going on unemployment. It is a far different use of the system than someone who had a business sporadically based on the market and the flow of their business. If you can plan for it, it is different than if it is there for a safety net. You ought to pay more into it if it is part of your business plan then if it is just a backup. That really is the focus of the changes. Broadly there is an agreement around that change, some of the specifics are more difficult.
 
On the substance-abuse recovery package, the focus first and foremost was funding for existing programs and then expanding access to programs. One of the things we realized is that there are a lot of good pockets of programs across the state. And this is really something Sen. [Jennifer] Flanagan brought up when she was here in North Adams and when she was meeting with a group of us about the findings of her work and her committee. They were finding not only pockets of good work and good ideas but that those ideas didn't have a process or the connections to be disseminated. Part of that is basic funding for the Bureau of Substance Abuse in the Department of Public Health. 
 
Part of it is also making sure we fill in the gaps that existing system and requiring insurers to cover in-patient treatment for detox. Right now that requirement is scandalously low and this will increase the amount of days that they have to cover. We think that will be a significant boon to people who are seeking treatment. Right now, just as you start to get going you can get cut off by insurance. We think by increasing the requirement to at least 21 days, it will be much more an environment where someone can detox in the proper setting. 
 
Q: You said there is more work to be done with those, moving forward what more needs to be done?
 
BD: There is a couple of things, some of which we might take up and some of what voters might take up in the election. Minimum wage as a ballot initiative has been coupled with earned sick time. That legislation didn't get addressed in this session. It is an idea whose time has come and I am hopeful that initiative passes on the ballot.
 
Both minimum wage and earned sick time, hopefully becomes a broader discussion about how we try to tackle poverty here in Massachusetts. We've talked about it in the minimum wage and also in the debate we had about closing loopholes in our welfare system, which is another important piece of legislation we passed this session. There seems to be flash point that come up both when people make arguments about what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong. But, one of the things I said on the floor of the Senate is that minimum wage is a necessary step to take to start to reduce poverty but it is not sufficient. The benefits of raising the minimum wage will be far greater if we continue to take steps wherever and whenever we can. I don't think there is one piece of legislation out there that you could point to, I think there are a lot of different things.
 
Here, locally, I've been having more and more conversations about the re-entry process for former inmates at the county House of Correction and trying to figure out what we can do to economically stabilize those individuals when they come back to the community. Especially in the first 72 hours, if we can get them on the right path then, we know it is far more likely that they will not only be more productive members of our community but also less likely to go back to the ways when they went astray and ended up in the justice system. That is one part of it.
 
Another part of it is to do more to create more middle-class, good-paying, jobs. Personally, I think that is one of the benefits of doing everything we can to combat climate change. It means we are going to create jobs here, whether it is through energy efficiency measures or through increased investment in clean energy. In solar we've seen the state move from 2007 with two megawatts of energy to 500 with plans to get to 1,600 megawatts of solar. That is part of the 80,000 clean energy and clean tech jobs that can be done right here.
 
We also need to do more to think about how to build off of the strengths that we have. What really interests me is how we can build off of the anchor institutions we have in the community already — Williams College, MCLA, Berkshire Health Systems — they are here in our community, they are spending money. What do they have to go outside of our community for and how can we provide that here locally and create jobs locally? It is something we've talked about but now we are really drilling down on it. I don't necessarily think there is anything legislative there. It may well be that we could increase requirements around purchasing and that is certainly something we ought to look into. But, there are steps we can take.
 
Q: In recent years health care has been the No. 1 issue. What has the Senate done in health care and what does the future look like?
 
BD: A lot of this session was more tweaking around our existing health care law to bring us into compliance with the Affordable Care Act and make sure we can implement it in the most affective way possible. Along with the legislative side of my office, there is the constituent side and we heard from a good deal of people who were frustrated with the connector website, here locally. Interestingly enough, that became more of an IT issue than a health care issue. There were changes made in procurement we made in the IT bond bill that will address some of the hurdles in procurement around the connector. Our focus was getting into compliance and the ACA and then trying to make sure that as we went through that transition, it worked for our constitutions as much as possible.
 
Certainly, if you are thinking about the last two years in the Berkshires, you are talking about the hospital and the real dramatic affect that had on the Berkshires and the health care delivery system in the Berkshires. Unfortunately, that showed that if we don't get ahead of the challenges some of our smaller hospitals have, especially those that are rurally located and regionally isolate. We've got a lot of work to do there. We can lose a hospital if we are not smart about out payment systems. That has been a conversation that has been going on for a long time — how can we change our reimbursement systems? What can we do on the state level? We would love to have a critical access designation federally but we can't mandate that on the state level. We're trying to figure out what that set of changes will look like. Is it something that is just going to impact the Berkshires or is it a discussion with the Cape or the Pioneer Valley.
 
Admittedly, the health-care debate has been less legislative over the last couple years and more about how do we implement all of the steps that have been taken. If you look back to 2005, our own Chapter 58, Massachusetts own health-care law that was first signed into law by Gov. [Mitt] Romney, and that period from then until 2012 it was a period of intense legislative activity around the establishment of the system and then what do we do to get at costs? 
 
Now we are watching those systems play out. That includes things like the implementation of the CHART grant, which is really important in establishing services in the Northern Berkshires. It includes things like review of mergers by different partners in the eastern part of the state to try and address some of the different market issues. Our focus now is more watching everything play out and figuring out what we can do. Sometimes when you are a legislator you fall into the rhythm of thinking every problem is a nail because you have a hammer. Sometimes it is about stepping back and watching what has worked and what hasn't. 
 
The focus in health care has really been on the epidemic of heroin and drug abuse, all with an eye toward how to bring this whole system into better coordination so we aren't talking about substance abuse and mental health completely separate from traditional primary care and in patient. How do we coordinate those? I think that will be the discussion moving forward.
 
Q: What committees were you active in and what resulted?
 
BD: The two committees I spent the majority of my time and work on were the telecoms, utilities and energy, which I continue to be the chairman of, and the Senate committee on ways and means, the budget writing committee.
 
In telecom, utilities and energy, our focus this session was on a natural gas leaks bill, where we tried to make sure that all of the utilities have the same classification for leaks and then set up, the first time in law, requirements in how quickly those leaks will be addressed. Then we gave the Department of Public Utilities the authority to clamp down on the gas companies if they came forward with a plan and didn't follow through.
 
To make all of that work within the finances of the gas companies, we said that as long as you are in accordance with the plan and are doing it to reduce these leaks then we will allow you to recapture the investment you make to do it quicker. We think it makes sense from a public health and public safety aspect. We think it makes sense from an environmental perspective. And it certainly does from a rate payers perspective because right now we are paying for too much gas that is being leaked into our communities. We don't see the benefit of it on the back end. 
 
We have some of the oldest gas infrastructure in the United States and all you have to do is look down to Springfield and see where they had a significant explosion. We were just incredibly lucky that it wasn't on a regular business day. It was right by a day-care and if it was in the middle of the day, we don't even want to imagine what that could have been like. So we think that is an important piece of legislation. 
 
We passed a renewable thermal bill. When we talk about the amount of clean energy that we have, generally we're talking about electricity. But that is only one side of the story. We also have how to heat and cool buildings and most of that is done with heating oil or natural gas at this point. What we tried to do with the renewable thermal bill is to create a stronger incentive for the use of renewable thermal, like solar hot water. You've got the photovoltaic panel and just about everybody knows what they look like. And then there are longer panels that look like they have PVC piping in them. Those are panels for solar hot water. We want to increase the incentives for things like solar thermal, geothermal and small-scale biomass if it is in compliance with the regulations we have in place here in Massachusetts.
 
In that bill we also increased our net metering cap. Right now net metering is one of the strongest incentives for solar energy in Massachusetts. There is a broader proposal that the administration had tried to advance that was negotiated between some solar companies and the utilities. There are certainly some upsides like the removal of the net metering caps bringing us to the governor's 1,600 megawatt goal. Ultimately, there wasn't consensus on that and we thought that instead of acting without consensus, we wanted to make sure we kept moving forward with the existing solar programs. And then we'd think of the long-term view of solar, taking more time to take in some of the concerns people have brought up. 
 
Those were the two we spent the majority of our time on. There was also a bill called An Act Relative to Clean Energy Resources in which the Patrick administration proposed going out to bid for long-term contracts for hydroelectric energy. The idea being that in New England market we have some 8,000 megawatts of baseload energy that is coming offline. Generally that is coal, oil and some natural gas plants. The idea was that hydro is much more reliable that even solar or wind in the sense that if you build a dam, you know when the water is going to flow. 
 
Some of our neighbors to the north in the Canadian providence have built very large dams, all of which have their own environmental challenges. But, they've gone ahead and built them and are looking for markets to sell now. The idea would be that we purchase those and we'd get a much more environmentally friendly form of electricity and be able to make up some of that delta. With that as well, there wasn't a consensus. We, as a committee, thought it had value but the membership of the Legislature didn't or, at least, wasn't convinced of it just yet. The existing power generators were opposed to it for a variety of different reasons both good-natured and not. Then you have some folks in the environmental community that wanted more requirements. Then there were debates about including off-shore wind, which is something I think makes a lot of sense but the business community, especially the Boston community, really pushed back hard on. That left it to sort of get stuck in neutral. 
 
That's really where we spent a lot of time and effort on the energy side of things. In telecom, we passed legislation to address small communities that have some cable service but also have portions of their communities are unserved for purposes of broadband. After redistricting I picked up Shelbourne, Buckland, Chester and Blandford, all of which have some cable — I don't know if Blandford does but the other three do and there are some eight to 10 hilltowns that have some cable provision. They wouldn't have been able to be served by the $40 million the governor proposed. We added $10 million to that and set up a grant program saying the state can enter into a grant with existing cable providers in those communities to build out their neighborhoods. 
 
We did some good work on the committee this year. I would have liked to see us advance an expanded bottle bill, which has been with the committee for some time. It was unable to get support from the majority of the members of the committee. An expanded bottle bill was passed in the budget but it was lost in negotiations with the conference committee. I think it is unfortunate because I think voters will pass it resoundingly at the ballot this fall. It makes all of the sense in the world. If you get a 5 cent deposit on a plastic soda bottle, you should get a 5 cent deposit and be able to redeem it on a vitamin water. It is kind of silly that you can't.
 
Q: How are the state's finances looking and what were you able to do with this budget?
 
BD: Over the course of the two years of this legislative term, the state's finances are strong and in really good position. We've got a healthy rainy day fund and we've been able to increase our investments. At the start of this session we had a debate about taxes and in particular transportation financing. But making the investments we needed through increases in revenue through taxes we were able to take some of the pressure the deficit in our transportation system put on the rest of the budget and make other investments that had been too long ignore — particularly in the 16 years before Gov. Patrick took office. I, for one, am happy that over these two years we've continued to make investments in public higher education and also K-12 education. We've had a long history of investing in K-12 education in Massachusetts but we haven't had a consistent enough history with investing in public higher education. We've continued to do that but we have a lot more ground to make up to get to where we ought to be when it comes to that. But, we are headed in the right direction there.
 
Over the last two budgets, we've made significant investments in early education as well and trying to draw down the waiting list for vouchers and state sponsored early education and child care. We know that those settings pay dividends for a long time to go and I think it is important to continue to head in that direction as well.
 
In this budget we've made a significant investment, over 90 percent reimbursement, in regional school transportation in no small part thanks to Sen. Stephen Brewer, the soon-to-be former chair of the Ways and Means Committee. He wanted to finish the work he's been working on for some time and we can't say thank you enough to Steve for that. 
 
Those are areas we made the most progress in the budget. That and I'd add the substance-abuse programs. I think transportation through new revenues and then the committee beyond K-12 to accompany early and higher ed and then substance abuse. Those are the three areas we focused on the most and consistently. 
 
There is some need that has gone unmet in some areas and we're going to continue to do whatever we can, wherever we can. I talk to the folks who run the Western Mass Food Bank and the supporting agencies throughout my district and the need there continues. That speaks to the discussion we had around the minimum wage. While the economy has recovered and the economy in Massachusetts is doing better than some other states, there is certainly many of our friends, family and neighbors who aren't feeling that. There are neighborhoods and communities where the poverty rate is three or four times what the state average is. We need to find ways to create opportunity in those areas to both support people in their greatest need and to show them that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
 
In Pittsfield, there are census tracts where the poverty rate is 5 percent and then there are tracts where the poverty rate is 25 percent. The same with North Adams and Adams. In each of the 32 communities in the Berkshires, poverty is a real issue and it has a real cost. If we don't talk about it, the cost continues. We pay it. We manage the problem instead of solving the problem. My hope is the increase in the minimum wage and the discussion about earned sick time on the ballot is the beginning of a real discussion about how to reduce poverty, if not end it.
 
Q: What do you expect to be the bigger issues in the next legislative session?
 
BD: Based on what every candidate has said, they are going to be focused on jobs. They know the recovery has put us in a good position and that we are stronger than many other states but that could very easily go south if we don't continue to invest in our communities and grow out economy. That will be the focus whether it is Republican Charlie Baker or any of the Democratic candidates. I think that ought to be the debate. Who is best to continue to progress we've made in the last eight years? That should be the question all of the candidates should have to answer.
 
I think the cost of health care will continue to come up. I think there will be a discussion around energy issues that will continue to come up, in particular the various pipeline proposals — here it is the Tennessee Gas pipeline — not that the state has a role in legislating for or against it, that is left to the FERC, but certainly the regional energy needs and how to best meet those. I continue to believe that is isn't by building the 20th century infrastructure in the 21st century but instead by continuing to invest in efficiency and conservation and renewable. I think the debate didn't keep up about importing hydro power in Massachusetts, it is going to have to be part of the debate moving forward. And how do we build on the success of our clean energy programs. 
 
I think jobs, health care, energy. Again, I would hope that part of what the candidates are seeing or hearing on the campaign trail because I hear it around here, is that yes the economy is growing but there are still too many communities and still too many families that feel left out by it. What as a state can we do to get to those people and help the make the most of their God-given talents if they are willing to work hard and play by the rules. 
 
With as many ballot initiatives we have, it could certainly play out the first few months for the incoming governor and their team. It is an odd election season because it isn't abundantly clear what the five legislative goals a Gov. Grossman or a Gov. Coakley or Gov. Baker would have. I think that speaks to the success of the last eight years. Everyone is trying to figure out how to improve what we know is a good trend. (This interview was prior to the primary that saw Coakley win the Democratic nomination.)
 
Q: Some of the bigger issues in the Berkshire right now is the North Adams hospital, the Tennessee gas pipeline and the Rest of the River cleanup. What is your role in those moving forward?
 
BD: With the hospital it is and continues to be for the next four months to work with the Patrick administration on the report that will come out. What are the recommendations that will come out of it? What will be the community's response? What resources will be required for either Berkshire Health Systems or directly from the state to make those recommendation work? What does it look like on the ground? Are there policy changes?
 
Once we have that report, we continue discussion with the federal delegation around critical access or any support they can provide to make that work. I'm anxious to see what comes out of that report. The good news is, we have with Secretary [John] Polanowicz as a member of the governor's cabinet on a local issue like this. I think it speaks to not only its importance but also how good at his job John Polanowicz is. If I am anxious about any aspect of losing the governor, I'm anxious about looking John Polanowicz as a partner there. I've said to all of the Democratic candidates that they should do whatever they can to not let him leave. I've said it to Charlie Baker as well. It is really making sure the candidates know where the issue is.
 
On the community side it is about making sure that there is an open line of communication between state policymakers and the community on the ground. Mayor [Richard] Alcombright talked about that as well. 
 
On the pipeline, I've made my thoughts known and clear. I am opposed to the project. I will continue to work with communities that have questions about it and I will continue to meet with the project proponents if they want to meet with me if they can think of ways to lessen the negative impact. At large, I don't think that building new gas pipeline solves the bigger problem. We need to do everything we can to transition away from fossil fuels. That doesn't mean we can wish away the problem of many large power plants in New England coming off line and there being pressure on our system as we transition through market forces to natural gas. 
 
Part of it is to think of the local impacts and what I can do to support my communities knowing full well that FERC will make the ultimate determination. Part of it is also what can we do as a state to say there is a better way on this as [U.S.] Sen. [Elizabeth] Warren herself has said. I think that is a discussion that we are going to have and will continue throughout these winter months and into next session. What can we do to show that there is another alternative?
 
On the river, it has been coordinating meetings among the six communities and the various federal leaders and state leaders. At this point, it is also trying to listen to constituents to hear what their concerns are with the proposal as it is. As the project gets more and more real, I am hearing from neighbors of the river about the impact they are going to have in their backyards, in their communities when they don't see as much as a need. I think we always expected that as we got away from the days of heavy activity on the GE site itself. It is trying to sort through that and find out how we can be helpful during the comment period.

Tags: beacon hill,   Ben Downing,   Legislature,   Q&A,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

MassDOT Project Will Affect Traffic Near BMC

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Prepare for traffic impacts around Berkshire Medical Center through May for a state Department of Transportation project to improve situations and intersections on North Street and First Street.

Because of this, traffic will be reduced to one lane of travel on First Street (U.S. Route 7) and North Street between Burbank Street and Abbott Street from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday through at least May 6.

BMC and Medical Arts Complex parking areas remain open and detours may be in place at certain times. The city will provide additional updates on changes to traffic patterns in the area as construction progresses.

The project has been a few years in the making, with a public hearing dating back to 2021. It aims to increase safety for all modes of transportation and improve intersection operation.

It consists of intersection widening and signalization improvements at First and Tyler streets, the conversion of North Street between Tyler and Stoddard Avenue to serve one-way southbound traffic only, intersection improvements at Charles Street and North Street, intersection improvements at Springside Avenue and North Street, and the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of First Street, North Street, Stoddard Avenue, and the Berkshire Medical Center entrance.

Work also includes the construction of 5-foot bike lanes and 5-foot sidewalks with ADA-compliant curb ramps.  

Last year, the City Council approved multiple orders for the state project: five orders of takings for intersection and signal improvements at First Street and North Street. 

The total amount identified for permanent and temporary takings is $397,200, with $200,000 allocated by the council and the additional monies coming from carryover Chapter 90 funding. The state Transportation Improvement Plan is paying for the project and the city is responsible for 20 percent of the design cost and rights-of-way takings.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories