The Charles River Regional Chamber’s Board of Directors takes its responsibility as stewards of your chamber and representatives of our business community seriously.
To that end, our directors have been meeting over the past two months to discuss the four statewide ballot questions before voters on Nov. 8. We had many side discussions as well, listening carefully to stakeholders across our communities including, for example, local law enforcement when considering Question 4 (the undocumented drivers bill) and our independent liquor retailers for Question 3.
Ultimately, the board reached near unanimous consensus (with a few abstentions from directors who felt they had a professional conflict) on two questions and agreed to pass on two others. The board also agreed on this:
- As an organization representing the businesses and nonprofits in our four chamber communities, it is mission-appropriate for us to recommend positions on referendums that directly impact our region’s economic and cultural vitality, while also fully respecting and appreciating that not all our membership will agree.
- Second, legislating complex matters by referendum is often a bad approach. It occurs too frequently perhaps because our Legislative leaders are too often unwilling, or too slow, to act. And it’s particularly bad public policy to ask voters to become subject matter experts on nuanced, industry-specific, reforms.
On Tuesday we recommended a “yes” vote on Question 4, which affirms support for an existing new state law, rather than creating a new one. Read our reasoning here.
Questions 2 and 3 are trickier
But after much deliberation, we're choosing not to issue a recommendation on Questions 2 and 3, primarily due to a lack of data in the first instance, and a faulty approach in the other.
Question 2 seeks to remedy a real-world challenge: Providing affordable dental care to our employees and their families, while fairly compensating dentists.
The question asks whether insurance companies should be required to spend the bulk of their customers' premiums — 83 cents of every dollar — on patient care.
Likely we’ve all been frustrated by how little most dental policies cover. If you’ve reviewed your statements, you’ve likely noticed how little your dentist receives for work that requires a substantial investment in staff, rent and equipment.
But an analysis by The Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University concluded that this first in the nation proposal “is built on relatively thin information.” There’s little data telling us how much insurers retain now, if 83% is the right amount, if it might drive up costs for employers or deductibles for consumers, or if this will remedy the problem it seeks to address.
Then there’s Question 3, the hangover no one wanted (and 2022’s poster child for why legislating by referendum is a bad practice).
As the Globe’s Jon Chesto explained this question was put forward to thwart a different expected ballot question that never materialized. Organized opposition has been limited to one chain retailer while support is soft at best.
That leaves the rest of us scratching our heads trying to figure out how the heck we should vote on a proposed law no one really asked for.
The Commonwealth should thoughtfully balance the number of retailers allowed to sell alcohol in a way that protects our smallest independent merchants. But Question 3 is random, not thoughtful.
And while we support the provision that would allow alcohol sales to those with out-of-state licenses, that’s something Beacon Hill can and should fix instead.
Then there's Question 1
That brings us to the single biggest decision before voters this fall: Question 1, the Tax Hike Amendment, also known as Fair Share/Millionaire’s tax.
This question would implement a constitutional amendment that would add a 4% tax on income over $1 million. (And unlike Questions 2 and 3, this question needs to be on the ballot, because it seeks to amend the state constitution which mandates a flat tax.)
Earlier this month, the chamber sponsored a forum on Question 1. Here’s the video replay from this week’s Question 1 forum, as well as the BBJ's coverage of our event. |
|
