 I'm James Milan. Welcome to this talk of the town episode and it is a legislative update with our state rep Dave Rogers who represents Arlington as well as Cambridge and part in Belmont as well. Dave, wonderful to see you. It's been a while. Yeah. It's good to see you, James. And just nice to be back in person with we have our six feet here and exactly to be able to to do this is wonderful. So yeah, good to see you. Yeah, we just can't not start with COVID. I'm afraid. Yeah. You and I were talking before we went on and I think that it's clear to you and to me and to everyone we're tired. We're done. We wish we could be etc. That's not the case, right? So what is your take on the current situation that we find ourselves in as a community here in Arlington, but also within the state and what could or should be done going forward about the fact that COVID is still with us and we need to figure out how to deal with that. Yeah, that's a great question and obviously a big question. I would say at the state level we are spending money through that we received from the ARPA, the American Rescue Plan, the Big Federal Rescue Plan money. Some money was sent directly to cities and towns, colleges and universities got direct allocations. And in addition, a large sum came to the state to allocate. And so both the House and Senate have proposed plans how to spend the money. It's almost six billion dollars. So it's a huge sum of money. And one of the things we're going to do is be spending money on local public health resources. So boosting our public health infrastructure around the state, COVID revealed weaknesses. I think on an individual level, people still need to be careful. Obviously, if you're eligible for a booster, get it. If you're not vaccinated, get vaccinated. There have been breakthroughs. The antiviral drugs are getting better. So there's been improvements. God forbid, you do get COVID, whether it's a breakthrough case or if you're not vaccinated, the antiviral drugs are better. And children, there's pediatric child vaccines. That's a huge development, as I think we talked about before we started. So I think we're making progress. But there is evidence of a spike, a rise in cases here in the Commonwealth. And most experts, public health experts, epidemiologists believe that it's going to continue to rise through the winter months. We're inside more. There is fatigue, COVID fatigue, where people maybe are letting their guard down a little bit. So I think it's to be expected to see a rise in cases in December, January, February, March. But I'm hoping this is sort of the cresting of the wave. And that once we move through this winter and early spring, with more children getting vaccinated, more adults getting their booster shots, we're going to see COVID become still with us, but a much more manageable problem. But we're not quite there yet. Yeah. And I can't help but follow up a little bit on the fact that you strike a little bit of different tone from what I've heard in talking to others, basically, about the situation we're in, in that it sounds a little more hopeful. You were saying cresting, hopefully, we're cresting that wave. And do you anticipate and beyond, of course, we're all hoping for this, but do you anticipate that, I don't know, six months, eight months from now we will be in what feels like a different place? I believe so. Let's be clear. I don't have a PhD in public health. I understand. I'm not an ironclad guarantee. I don't work at the National Institutes of Health or the Center for Disease Control. I read a lot on the topic, both personally and for my job. Everything I've read said that the fact that children can now be vaccinated is a really big breakthrough. The fact that there are mandates, many employers are requiring COVID vaccines. So people who are holdouts are either giving up their job or getting vaccinated. And so the fact that there are mandatory vaccines, the fact that children are getting vaccinated, the fact that booster shots are available, I do think puts us on a good trajectory. But as I said, I think the winter is still going to be difficult. I think we're going to continue to see cases. I just believe based on everything I've read that COVID, now I can't give you a precise date, how many months, a year, will eventually become a much more, still with us, but a much more manageable challenge. Okay. I promise I'm not going to hold you to that because, of course, nobody knows. But again, I was struck by the tone and I'm glad, I appreciate you. I tend to be glass half full person in general, keep them. Well, we could use that in our representatives in the State House, I am sure. Moving on, I actually want to pick up on a topic that I know that you wrote about in your recent newsletter as well for your constituents and that is data privacy. Clearly, again, something we're all very aware of. We have really the big kinds of news, the Cambridge Analytica, the Uber data breach from some years ago, et cetera. But also, this is a very subtle and very insidious kind of issue. I'd like to ask, I know that this is something that you're very concerned about and that you have legislation pending. So tell us a little bit, first of all, what is the situation overall? And then what would the bills that you are sponsoring, cosponsoring involved with, what would they do to help the situation? Sure. So this is a huge new area of public policy. And as I like to say, you can write computer code a lot faster than you can write the law. And technology in many areas of our society has gotten ahead of public policy, of the law. We just passed a law last session as part of police reform on facial surveillance, where we learned the government was using facial recognition software with really no guardrails, no fundamental rules of the road, so that the registry of motor vehicles has our driver's license photos. It turns out law enforcement was going through those photos without a warrant, without any guidelines. Now, there, of course, may be a legitimate role for law enforcement to use face surveillance technology. But to have no rules at all in place was an example of where technology has gotten way ahead of the law. That's true across the society right now. It's one of the big challenges here in Massachusetts and across the country we face. Again, technology is leaping forward with a rapidity that I think is almost scarcely imaginable. And yet, again, public policy requires introducing bills, holding hearings, taking in testimony, revising those bills, building consensus, and eventually passing something, getting it to the governor and having to become law. And that could take years. So there's a trailblazing professor at Harvard, Shoshana Zuboff. She wrote a book about, called paraphrasing surveillance capitalism, that we have a whole new economic business model with big tech, but also smaller technology companies. The analogy is to harvesting timber from the forest. What they're harvesting is human experience and our personal information. And sort of the dossier, the compendium of information that these companies have on us is sort of mind blowing. Think about it, location, everywhere you go. Your zip code. So we know from zip code, maybe your income level or other things. Your race, your gender, who your friends are on Facebook and sort of your social network. And the list goes on and on from there and what you're buying, what you're watching. And they're taking this information and then using it to use machine learning, artificial intelligence, and then to push us and shape our behavior. So it's not just tracking our behavior, but then trying to influence and shape our behavior. So what can we do? Well, the public ought to have a right to know what information do they have on us. The public ought to have a right to limit how their information is used. We all are familiar with clicking okay if we're scrolling through a website. We use cookies. We use, here's our privacy policy. Those aren't really privacy policies. They're surveillance policies and they allow these companies to surveil us. No one reads them or practically no one. Even if you click on them and read these dense legal terms and conditions that can go on for pages, understanding the ramifications of what that means for your personal privacy is complicated. Most people don't fully understand it. So I've introduced a couple of bills to try to rein in and regulate these practices. And I'm sort of leading the charge on the issue in this state. I'm partnering with the ACLU. Of course they're concerned about privacy and people's civil liberties. And a lot of legislators have shown an interest. There's a new committee in the House on technology that was just formed this year. We had our hearing. A lot of experts testified. And so I'm hopeful that we'll make some real progress. It's a big issue and it's cutting edge and it's not going away. It's growing. Right. You said it's big. It's cutting edge. You also just kind of nailed exactly what I was talking about when I said it's insidious. You're saying you simply by bringing up that pablum, that boilerplate language that goes all the way through these things that we just hit agree on. Because I have done exactly what you said. I have occasionally actually looked at the whole thing. I went to law school. I have a law degree. I don't know what the ramifications are exactly. The ones that I do understand are daunting and scary in a lot of ways. And then they sell the information to third parties. And that's the thing. Third parties that had nothing to do with the website you were on. Nothing to do with the transaction you were involved in. So there's not even a nexus or a connection where a company could credibly say, well, this was a logical extension of what the person was doing. I'm just talking about selling your information. So we need to limit it. You were saying, though, that it's brand new, pretty much, right? Yeah. And this is an example of technology, again, outpacing the law. You're doing what you can. So what I'm wondering is, where is that boulder? You're rolling that boulder up the hill at this point. How much further do you imagine you've got to go? Are you just at the beginning of this process? Yes. The short answer is yes. I mean, I often say when I talk to folks about making the law, making public policy, that it's almost the opposite of the private sector. The private sector, the bottom line, drives innovation, but also the need for speed. So Uber and Lyft are competing against each other to get to the first market with some new innovation. People who write computer code for these companies or for Airbnb or for thousands of other new technologies are cranking away 10, 12, 14 hours a day against a deadline trying to innovate and bring new technologies to the marketplace. The law and legislating is very different. We have to listen to every stakeholder, voices in favor of something, voices against it. Voices in favor may be in favor for different reasons. The voices opposed may be opposed for different reasons, or they're opposed in part or in favor in part. So as I say, there's often not two sides to a public policy question, but a dozen. So you're hearing a lot of voices and a lot of points of view, and then revising the actual legislative language to get it right. It all takes time. And you can introduce a bill, work on it for a year or two, and it never becomes law. Matter of fact, most bills, there's over 7,000 that get introduced in Massachusetts and far fewer become law. So I'm encouraged, though, the two chairs of this new technology committee, Linda Dean Campbell, Representative Linda Dean Campbell on the House side and Senator Barry Feingold on the Senate side, they both expressed an interest in trying to do something in this area. So I'm hopeful, and you just have to keep pushing, keep advocating, keep building consensus. I call experts from Harvard and MIT, we're blessed to have experts in the intersection of law and technology, and so get experts to weigh in and send letters to the State House. And it's all part of building a coalition and trying to change the law and, in turn, change society a little bit. Well, good luck, and you'll keep us posted on how this moves forward. We'll be continuing to check in with you on that for sure, because, like you said, it's huge. We're talking to you now in the waning weeks of 2021, and that means that the census was taken last year as it is every 10 years. And one of the results and ramifications of that is here in town, re-precincting, which we have been wrestling with on the select board level and with Town Clerk, et cetera. But also on the state level, there's redistricting. And that's, you know, well, I'll let you go ahead and explain both what the process is and what the promise is at the moment around redistricting as you see it. So every 10 years, it's part of the U.S. Constitution. We take the census and, based on shifts in population, redraw both the legislative lines for state representatives and state senators, but also for governors, counselors, also for our members of Congress. And Massachusetts lost a House member in a previous census because of we lost population. That's not true this time. So there's a lot of law and a lot of policy on redistricting and sophisticated software now to understand where people live and analyze it all. And we really got to a great outcome in the House. Voting rights advocates and civil rights activists wanted the House to try to create 29 so-called majority minority districts. That is 29 districts where a person of color, someone from a non-white community, would have a shot of winning a seat. And so again, that was, after a complicated analysis, that was sort of the main goal of the civil rights and voting rights activists. And we got 33. So they were shooting for 29 and we got it all the way up to 33 out of 160 out of 160. So more than one-fifth of the seats. And so in terms of statewide, it was considered a really good outcome by the voting rights activists, civil rights activists. In my own district, didn't change a lot. I did pick up one precinct in Arlington, precinct six. I've always had two, four, skip six, eight, 10 and 12. So sequentially, in terms of even numbers, two, four, eight, 10, 12. It's always been a little, as you go up Mass Ave, the part around Spipon, the part of town, was not in my district and that will now be part. In terms of Arlington, since we're here at ACMI. And matter of fact, I was just at an event yesterday and met some folks from six and let them know they didn't know. Why would they? It's just pretty new. But I tell you, maybe next time we have you in, I'll introduce you not only as representing a portion of Arlington, but two, four, six, eight, 10, 12, because who can resist that? And of course it's always, and then there's Congress, different members of Congress weighing in, hoping to advocate. One thing that became controversial is that Fall River and New Bedford, which have substantial Portuguese populations, Portuguese speaking populations, were divided. They used to be together. The new map, they'll be separate. And that became controversial. Yeah. I know some people are not happy about that. I've heard that. Yeah. And on the Senate side of the state, the state Senate, their maps, like our maps were approved almost unanimously. I think one member of the entire House, State House of Representatives voted against it. I think in the Senate side, there was more. There was more dissension. But that happens. And it's not shocking to me. Well, we'll move on. But just with one final note from me, which is, as you said, it is a triumph of sorts, right? That there was the hope that 29 majority-minority districts could be created. And instead, on your map, there's 33. Great. Still, 33 out of 160, we've got a long way to go. Sure. Absolutely. Obviously. I think we made big progress. And of course, you know, there could be populations from minority communities that will still have a big impact in other districts, even if it's not majority minority. So I think, you know, anytime the civil rights activists and the voting rights activists are praising what you've did, you know, we made a big step forward. But always, we need to do more. I wanted to invite you either through the work that you're chairing a different committee from the last time that we saw you. And so either from there or any place else, if you want to just pick a selection of things to, again, let us and the rest of your constituents know about. Sure. Well, and thanks for the opportunity. Well, I am chair of the Higher Education Committee now in the State House. I should say co-chair, because the way the State House is organized, there are joint committees with the House and Senate. My Senate co-chair is Ann Gobi, who's been wonderful to work with. She's really an outstanding legislator. And Massachusetts is synonymous with higher education. And both our private universities, the Harvard's, the MIT's, BU, BC, Northeastern, but also our public universities, the UMass system, our state universities. And of course, our community colleges, all in that's 29, five UMass campuses, 14 community colleges and nine, 15 community colleges and nine state universities, Fitchburg State, Salem State. So it's a big portfolio. And there are a lot of big issues pending. Chief among them, of course, is the cost of attending college. And adjusted for inflation, the portion that the state pays for students to attend has declined. So a lot of the advocacy, just like at the national level, where people are urging Joe Biden, President Biden, to cancel student debt, take other actions, is affordability. So we're looking carefully at that. And what can we do with the state level? I've been a strong advocate for more funding for higher education. And then there are a lot of other issues helping people with disabilities get a shot at achieving advanced education. And there's some great results we've had in our state where we've been able to help those with disabilities get continuing education beyond high school. There are new rulings, excuse me, from the NCAA on athletes and whether they should be compensated. That's a bigger issue in states like University of Michigan or Alabama. But in our state, we have, for instance, hockey players who become superstars at BU and BC and Harvard and go on to be stars in the National Hockey League. So we're going to have to address that because the NC, the United States Supreme Court, said schools can no longer prevent student athletes from benefiting from their name, image or likeness, the right of publicity. And but they sort of have left in the wake of, so the NC double, so the Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA suspended their rules and put out interim guidelines, but it's a really gray area right now as to what we can do. So there's there are a lot of bills pending on that. Another big one is adjunct faculty. Many of our universities, public and private are depending more and more on adjunct faculty and less on traditional tenure track positions. And adjunct faculty, that puts them at a disadvantage. They're often left with inadequate benefits, for instance. So there's a bill to give them health insurance as long as they teach a certain amount because if they often teach across multiple colleges and universities. So we have all these adjuncts in our state doing really important work to prepare the next generation and to, you know, be innovators in education. And yet they're often sort of for lack of a better way to put it the poor stepchild in the higher education system. Absolutely. I have about that. Yes, I have a number of friends who are in fact in positions that such as you described. And I think they're going to be delighted to hear that at least their situation has risen to the level of awareness where you and your committee are looking at what you can do on the legislative front. Absolutely. And then we have a growing need and on climate we're going to be doing a lot more in our state on wind energy. The roadmap climate bill that we passed last session and renewed this session because Governor Baker amended it. So we had to do it again. Authorizes 5600 megawatts of offshore wind. That's enough to power 3.2 million homes. 800 megawatts. The Vineyard Wind Project is already well along. Another company, the Mayflower Company, has another 800 megawatts in the works. Bids have gone out on another 1600 megawatts. So we have put money into training. These are clean energy jobs of the future, but we have inadequate training for some of these jobs. So the community colleges, particularly two or three of them, have outstanding programs to train people to work in this field. So that's another thing I've been working on. And then finally the ARPA money, that 5.8 billion I mentioned, I've been working with the budget committee on helping to develop where should we be spending that money. And the House put a lot more money into our state university system. So that keeps me busy on higher ed. And then I have 70 bills that I introduced, which is more than I've ever introduced before. Some on my own, some in partnership with another, with a colleague. And they cover the range from the right to counsel, which create a new civil right in Massachusetts for low income individuals facing eviction. 90% of landlords have a lawyer. About eight to 10% of tenants do. And I'm a lawyer myself and I volunteered in the housing courts. The Boston Bar Association has a program called Lawyer for a Day. And lawyers can go volunteer. I've done it. It's chaotic. People lose their rights quickly in housing litigation. It's different than other forms of litigation. You write to a trial by jury, write to discovery. Certain other rights can be lost quickly. So by giving folks a lawyer that attaches early on in the process, it will protect them. I took care of, I handed a case for one woman whose child had bug bites all up and down his legs. She had bites. So in other words, they were a little behind on their rent. But there were code violations. There were significant code violations. So she needed a lawyer to negotiate with the landlord. In fact, we have a number of large landlords who are supporting the bill because they find housing court to be chaotic. And they think it's smart and efficient to have both sides represented by counsel. So I've been working on this for six years. We have a coalition of over 200 groups now supporting it. That started with two or three groups supporting it, then 10 groups, then 15 groups. Now we're over 200. And back to my point about how long writing the law, passing the law takes time. So that's another signature piece of legislation for me. And so I have bills really across the full range of public policy challenges, housing, preventing discrimination, civil rights, civil liberties, economic development, and other things. Well, we talked about the data privacy issue. So there's a lot going on. Yes, as, as always, I have to say, you know, we welcomed you here in person first time in a long, long time. Yes. In person is one thing we can't do at the state house still. Right. It is still largely remote work that is being done. And I know you guys are allowed in on a limited basis. The public still isn't. Yeah. What's your take on that? Yeah. Well, quickly, you know, one thing that's been good about the ability of folks to come in over Zoom or Microsoft Teams is that a lot of folks who would never come into the state house. And I think this has been true in Arlington Town government, too, have been able to come and testify and participate. So in terms of access and open government, in fact, a lot of people can participate. But in terms of the specifics, I have had to show and all staff has now had to show that they're vaccinated. That's mandatory. Now that we have that, we want to put in place, because it's a museum. People come from all over the country and all over the world, tourists to do, to come to the state house. So we're trying to put in place protocols, not just for staff and members, but how we welcome the public. I'm hopeful by early next year we'll have that figured out. So, you know, we're making progress and hope to get there soon. That would be great because you and I were talking about this before we went on air, but there are some kinds of jobs and some kinds of work that just really need to be done in person, if at all possible. And the work you do is exhibited. That's what I was saying. As you said before we went on, maybe if you're writing computer code or certain other types of tasks you can work from home, no problem. But legislating really is dependent upon personal contact. Even to the point of if we're on the floor of the house and I could say to you, James, why did you file this amendment? What does it do? How can I help? You know, when we're remote, we're voting from our living rooms. It's just more difficult. I mean, we've gotten a lot done. We did police reform, climate change, expanding voting opportunities, the ROAC to codify a woman's right to choose, and many other things. So we've actually been quite productive, but there's still, it makes it more challenging if we can't interact. And there are enough challenges already. As you said, you've been at it for six years and you're just beginning on the day to privacy front, etc. So anyway, we enjoy this personal contact with you and we plan to continue to do so. We look forward to seeing you in the new year. We appreciate you coming in today. It's great to be here and I want to say to all the folks in Arlington, I hope you have a happy, we're shooting a couple days before Thanksgiving. I don't know when this will go on, but I hope you and your family have a wonderful Thanksgiving, a wonderful holiday season, and a happy new year, and I look forward to a continuing conversation. And our best wishes to you and yours as well. Thank you. I have been speaking, of course, with Dave Rogers, our state representative, or one of our two, and this is Talk of the Town. And this legislative update, we really appreciate Dave taking the time, and we appreciate you being here as well. Thanks for joining us. I'm James Milan. This is Talk of the Town. We'll see you next time.