JALSA is concerned about the continuing escalation of rhetoric and violence against Muslim centers of worship around the country.  Arson, physical attacks, and graffiti cannot be explained by concerns about the feelings of families of Ground Zero victims.  Right wing commentators and political activists are drumming up the level of rhetoric for their own ends.  This is not in keeping with American traditions of freedom of religious worship, a constitutional liberty that has provided the Jewish community great protection.

Listen to report by Rachel Maddow.

Ballot Question #2 puts affordable housing at risk in Massachusetts.

40B Statute is essential at protecting the building of affordable housing in all communities.  This proposed ballot initiative would repeal this affordable housing law, the single most effective tool in creating affordable housing in the state.  This law allows the development of affordable housing in communities that really need it, often providing the only new development for housing for seniors, teachers, and other municipal workers who could not otherwise live in those communities.  JALSA is part of a large coalition working to save that statute.

An Interfaith Petition is now available for leaders of different faith communities.  We stand together against efforts to repeal the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law, a critical means of expanding affordable housing opportunities for thousands of people who need it.

Housing is a basic human need.  The Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law, also known as Chapter 40B, has created affordable homes for tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents.  Seniors, working families, veterans, and people with disabilities are just a few examples of people who need more affordable options to own or rent a home.  Without this law, fewer people will be able to attain an affordable home to serve as a foundation for human dignity, health and well-being.

Social justice and the dignity of all persons are fundamental values for communities of faith and they call us to speak out:  All people should have the opportunity to live in affordable, safe housing.  We stand in solidarity to protect the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law and invite members of all faiths to join us and Vote ‘No’ against repealing this critical law on Question Two in November.

Interfaith Leaders: You may sign onto the interfaith letter by going  directly to the website: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/protectaffordablehousing/

General Volunteer Support: You may volunteer to help work on this campaign by signing up on the Protect Affordable Housing website directly or calling the JALSA office, 617-227-3000.

Asian American communities celebrate success at legislative passage of Boston’s home rule petition requiring bilingual ballots.  The Chinese and Vietnamese communities worked hard for their victory notwithstanding the opposition from the Secretary of State.  JALSA was delighted to be a part of the coalition working to help make the bilingual ballot a reality.

http://www.senatorchangdiaz.com/bilingual-ballots-boston-signed-law

Great idea by Joan Vennochi in the Boston Globe:

Let’s bring the presidential wives or even former President Bush and current President Obama to the site of the proposed mosque to end the hate:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/08/26/amid_ugly_mosque_debate_follow_first_ladies_lead/

Ground zero protests are fanning the flames of bigoted hostility toward Muslims akin to anti-Semitism and communist witch hunts. JALSA believes the hot rhetoric is an affront to cherished American values of religious freedom and tolerance of diversity.

Look at this video of a Brownshirt-like responses at “No Mosque Here” rally: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/22/black-muslim-same-difference/

See our JALSA statement on controversy around Muslim community center planned for lower Manhattan and links to articles of special merit.

JALSA, the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, has criticized the decision of Federal District Judge Royce Lamberth, enjoining the use of federal funds for research on embryonic stem cell lines.  The judge has for the first time interpreted a 1995 federal statute as barring government funding of all research using embryonic stem cells, and has put all such research, nationwide, into jeopardy.  “In this situation,” said Sheila Decter, JALSA’s Executive Director, “the decision will have no effect on the process of in vitro fertilization, which will continue to create many more embryos than are needed.  Rather than cells from some of these surplus embryos being devoted to research, they will now all simply be destroyed.  The potential cost in human suffering from the interruption of ongoing medical research, however, is incalculable.”

JALSA has long been involved in the efforts to encourage embryonic cell research.  The Boston-based social justice group was instrumental in putting together a Massachusetts coalition of academic, health, and civic groups – Mass-CURE — that successfully encouraged passage of legislation in Massachusetts demonstrating that such research was welcomed here to help provide cures for diseases such as Diabetes, Parkinson’s Disease, spinal cord breaks, Alzheimer’s Disease, and many others.

Decter noted that although the lawsuit was nominally brought by researchers claiming unfair competition from the federally funded research, it was initiated and financed by right-wing religious and political groups on ideological grounds.  These groups have long sought to impose their narrow religious views in the face of an abundance of scientific evidence on the unique usefulness of embryonic cells.

“Fundamentalist religious groups that did not oppose IVF –In Vitro Fertilization work in its early years woke belatedly to recognizing that the process meant the creation of multiple embryos, and, then, the destruction of excess embryos.  Not being able to turn the clock back, they fastened on opposing embryonic research making use of those cells which might be used to find cures for disease.  Thus, some Catholic and fundamentalist Christians have encouraged the use of adult stem cells only. While Judaism shares high regard for the protection of all those cells, and shares concern at the development of more embryos than are needed during IVF procedures, most Jewish ethicists find such use of those embryos toward the saving of lives preferable to seeing them discarded.  Most researchers believe that embryonic stem cells promise cures not possible from adult stem cells.

“Judge Lamberth’s decision erroneously extends the statute to affect research on embryos that were neither created with federal funds, nor created for research purposes.  JALSA believes that the decision is an unfortunate setback both to this important research, and to the process of keeping American science free of limitations imposed by narrow sectarianism.

“JALSA applauds the Administration’s determination to appeal this decision.”

Where the Board and Commissioner of Education awarded a charter after the Department’s Charter School Office concluded that the school did not meet the legally required educational criteria; after a memo from the Secretary of Education urged that the Commissioner and Board award the charter for political reasons; and the Inspector General concluded that it had never validly been awarded and should be deemed void ad initio.

Parents of Gloucester school children asked for an injunction to prevent the school from opening this month.  The Court did not find irreparable harm to the parents sufficient to respond with an injunction, in contrast to the waste of funds and educational resources already contracted if the school did not open as planned.  Notwithstanding its reluctance to issue a preliminary injunction at this time, the Court did grant that the parents had standing to contest the Board’s grant of the particular charter on limited grounds and to be able to proceed with their lawsuit.

Judge Richard E. Welch, III concluded:

This lawsuit represents more than a disagreement over whether a proposed school deserves a charter.  The plaintiffs present considerable evidence that the Board and the Commissioner blatantly ignored and violated state law when granting the GCA charter for political reasons.

JALSA does not believe that privatization of education is the way to improve the quality of schools for the full body of students who are due quality education from the Commonwealth.  This particular case has shown a blatant disregard for the requirements of state law.

Slate provides a serious look at the state of maternity leave.  Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts law did not protect individuals who took more time than explicitly stated in the state law – 8 weeks.  In the case under review, the employee had relied on verbal permission.

See Slate article for an understanding of the limits of state and federal law and how badly we lag behind all other developed countries in the world on the matter of paid leave.   See Slate:    slate.com/id/2263065

Hope you’ve all seen the decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the Federal District Court in the case involving the Genocide curriculum guide.

JALSA had joined a brief with members of the Armenian community to support the earlier decision and the right of the school department to determine what ought to be in the Curriculum Guide. JALSA had encouraged passage of the original legislation which directed that students study genocide in school, with the selection of possible courses of study from several historical events including the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the European Holocaust, the Irish Hunger Famine, the Middle Passage of the Slave Trade, etc. JALSA believed the Curriculum Guide set out possible directions for the course of study, but did not prevent teachers or students from bringing additional materials to the classroom. The notion that elimination of material (provided by Turkish challengers to the understanding that the massacre of Armenians by the Turks during WWI was genocide) by the Commissioner of the Department of Education in the Department’s suggested list of resources was not a prohibited limit on freedom of speech. (more on this case coming)

An act to update and streamline the  State Employment Agencies is in Senate Ways and Means

Action Required: Please call Senator Panagioutakos, 617-722-1630 and urge that the bill be released for debate in the Senate.

Background: The Commonwealth’s Employment Agency (EA) Law (G.L. c. 140, §§ 46A-R) currently leaves large gaps in coverage and protection, and has different requirements for similar businesses.  Depending on whether an agency works to place employees in permanent or temporary positions, or whether agency fees or charges are paid by the job applicant or the employer client, licensing, record keeping, and other requirements vary greatly.  At the same time, Massachusetts workers employed by certain temp agencies are being denied their basic rights.  The new EA Law will streamline provisions that burdened the industry, place all employment and staffing agencies on a level playing field, simplify requirements imposed by the Division of Occupational Safety (DOS), and incorporate the protections of the Temporary Worker Right to Know bill which carried the same bill numbers, S. 680.

For Workers: The bill provides much-needed protection for workers in temporary jobs.  Since many temporary jobs are low-wage and characterized by high turnover, these workers constitute some of the most vulnerable members of the workforce. Frequently, workers are sent off not knowing where they are going, what they are doing, who they are working for, what they will be getting paid, or anything much more than a nickname for a contact person.  Only after they begin working, do they discover charges for transportation, meals, or necessary safety equipment.

Incorporating the Temporary Worker Right to Know legislation, the new law will require agencies to provide written notice of key details of job assignments- the name of the agency, the work site employer, the type of work to be done, disclosure of who the employer is, wages, and the details and costs of transportation, equipment, and meals provided by the worksite employer. It also requires disclosure of how to reach DOS, the right to workers’ compensation, a copy of the contract to be given to the applicant, as well as a receipt for any charges paid by the applicant.

For Businesses: Currently, employment agencies that charge fees to applicants must go through a full licensing process.  Other agencies, doing essentially the same business, are exempt from the licensing requirement and   must simply register to operate.  Under the new EA Law, all employment and staffing agencies will be subject to the same process, a less burdensome registration process.  Employment agencies will no longer go through a hearing process before starting their business, nor will they be required to submit their forms and/or contracts to DOS for prior approval.  The new EA law will also make it easier for businesses to transfer their registrations, by eliminating the need for pre-approval of transfer and allowing a simple registration.  The law will provide clearer definitions of key terms, enabling businesses to better understand their rights and responsibilities.  Additionally, the new EA law will simplify record keeping requirements.

For the Commonwealth: Required annual registration fees from all employment agencies will remain in place.  Additionally, a streamlined and simplified registration and enforcement process will ease the burden on DOS by eliminating the cost of unnecessary hearings and inspections allowing DOS to focus on those agencies that attempt to circumvent the law.

For further information, please contact: Tim Sullivan, Mass. AFL-CIO, 781/324-8250; Isabel Lopez, MassCOSH, 617/825-7233; Yessenia Alfaro, Chelsea Collaborative, 617/259-6659; or Sherley Cruz or Monica Halas, Greater Boston Legal Services, 617/603-1533 or 617/603-1666..

For 100 years, Massachusetts has had a special relationship with the Savings Bank Life Insurance company so that basic life insurance policies were available to people of all income levels.   That special relationship is no longer regulated under this new statute which has been signed by the Lieutenant Governor  (acting on behalf of the Governor while the Governor was out of state).

The final bill not only wipes out the “gender neutrality” requirements that have been characteristic for over twenty years, but wipes out the requirement that the company fulfill  “special responsibilities,” such as the regulations that guarantee that the company provide low amount life insurance policies.  (The Governor’s Office says the company has promised to continue offering these same policies; JALSA and other organizations will monitor.)
Notwithstanding the special responsibilities,  this company has enjoyed great profits for the sale of this insurance in Massachusetts.

We thank the many individuals and organizations that worked to the last moment urging the Governor’s staff to recommend a veto.  Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful.   As on many other occasions, equity for women was sacrificed for other goals.

Read  our letter to the Governor.