Massachusetts POST Commission Criticized Over Database Transparency

Photo by Andrew Valdivia on Unsplash

Established by legislated police reform in the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission’s goal is “to improve policing and enhance public confidence in law enforcement by implementing a fair process for mandatory certification, discipline, and training for all peace officers in the Commonwealth.”

The POST Commission is responsible for creating and managing a statewide police officer certification process, including retraining in case of certification suspension or decertification. They also collaborate with the Municipal Police Training Committee to establish "use of force" regulations.

The most anticipated part of the new law was the creation of a database, accessible to the public, that would include complaints against police officers and any subsequent disciplinary action. 

Rollout Hiccups

The Commission’s database was launched online in August 2023, a year later than planned, providing the public with its initial access to police disciplinary records dating back to 1984. It contained a little over 3,400 records out of an original 36,000–a discrepancy described by the Commission’s Executive Director as weeding out those involving “minor matters”. This practice did not appease some law enforcement groups who felt some database entries dealt with inconsequential issues that caused embarrassment for the officers involved.

However, some news outlets noted that important information was missing–such as reports concerning misconduct by several police chiefs.

In a recent (paywalled) Boston Globe article, Commission officials acknowledged information gaps and strengthened regulations regarding disciplining departments and officers who withhold complaints from the Commission. Officials also noted that the database contained information that should not have been included while excluding relevant data.  

Shortcomings of the POST database

The Commission updated the database on August 19, 2024, adding approximately 600 new complaints. While generally lauded by the media and civil rights groups, concerns were raised over including “sustained” allegations only and the ambiguous language used to describe many offenses. Often, the database characterizes offenses as “other misconduct” without further commentary.

The Officer Disciplinary Records Database webpage lists the specific types of misconduct complaints that will be added to the database: 

• Reports alleging bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

• Complaints regarding use of excessive, prohibited, or deadly force

• Actions that resulted in serious bodily injury or death including officer-involved shootings

• Truthfulness or professional integrity (misrepresenting or falsifying reports or evidence)

• Criminal misconduct (felonies, misdemeanors)

• Other misconduct (unprofessionalism, policy violations, conduct unbecoming, conformance to rules, etc.)

It also notes that certain information, such as data regarding police officers who resigned or retired in good standing, or “unfounded or non-sustained complaints” is not included in the database.

While it makes sense to list only infractions supported by evidence, the vagueness of the language used in the database limits its usefulness to the general public. 

A database search shows the phrase “Other Misconduct” dominates each page, showing up 4,986 times throughout the document’s 567 pages. “Allegation Details” are often scanty or non-existent, giving readers little or no understanding of the nature of the offenses. In some cases, the wording used in the description is difficult to understand; in others, the allegation details appear to be listed in the “Allegation Subtype” column.

Reporting Methods for POST Complaint Submission

There are two ways complaints are submitted to the Commission: through the state’s approximately 440 Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA),  or the public complaint form. According to the articles referenced in this post, both methods can potentially cause confusion or errors in the database.

LEA Reporting

In each case, the reliability of the information submitted is crucial. For LEAs, cases are processed before being submitted to the database, meaning the agency or department has already decided on the case. This means that descriptions of offenses can vary between cases and departments. It also means that the Commission cannot know if all the relevant information is being submitted for each case – or if entire cases are being omitted.

Other reasons submissions from LEAs can create database omissions are that cases have yet to be completely processed, or departments and agencies are still learning what is appropriate to submit and what is not. 

Complaints by the Public

Complaints by members of the public are submitted via the Police misconduct complaint form. While the LEA and public forms list the types of misconduct noted above, not all the descriptions on the public complaint form are fully explained (“other misconduct”) or are left out entirely (“misconduct”).

The form indicates that after a complaint is submitted, the Commission will notify the relevant agency or department and determine whether to conduct its own investigation or wait for the involved entity to do so. The Commission can then accept the entity’s decision or conduct its own investigation and take disciplinary action if necessary.

It's unclear how, or if, complaints submitted by the public are listed on the database, as the word "public" does not appear in any of the "Reporting Agency" columns. Since the Commission can simply accept the results of the complainee’s investigation, it's possible that these submissions do not proceed to the point where they would be included in the database.

Conclusions

Despite the deficiencies of the POST Commission database, it is a huge win for transparency and the right of residents and taxpayers to gauge whether public servants are performing their duties lawfully.

The database is new, and growing pains are to be expected. The Commission has shown a willingness to listen to concerns and address them, a process that should continue to improve its usefulness to all stakeholders. 

The Massachusetts Fair Share Tax is a Winner

Photo by Dinero777 via Pixabay

In November 2022, Massachusetts voters passed ballot question No. 1, the  Fair Share Constitutional Amendment that would impose an additional 4% tax on taxable income above $1 million.The money raised from this so-called “Millionaire’s Tax” would be used exclusively for public education and transportation infrastructure. 

The Fair Share Tax was estimated to bring in approximately $1.2 billion in revenue in the first year, FY2024. Ten months into the fiscal year, that total exceeded $1.8 billion!

It is estimated that 0.6% of taxpayers are affected by the Fair Share Amendment. 

Fair Share Highlights in the FY 2025 Budget

For FY 2024, budget funding from the 4% additional tax (surtax) totaled $1 billion, split almost evenly between transportation ($476.5 million) and education ($510 million). Funding increased to $1.3 billion for FY 2025 and a greater percentage of those funds was allocated to education ($761.5 million) than transportation ($538.5 million).

Here are some Fair Share funding highlights included in the FY 2025 budget.

Education

• $170 million to fund free meal programs at all Massachusetts public schools;

• $175 million for the Commonwealth Cares for Children early education and care programs;

• $117.5 million to provide free community college access across the state;

• $80 million increase in financial aid for Massachusetts residents attending state universities.

Transportation 

• $250 million for the Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF);

• $110 million for Regional Transit Authorities throughout the state, including funding for  fare-free service;

• $45 million in supplemental roads and bridges aid for municipalities;

• $4 million for increased mobility options for seniors and others in need.

The CTF is a primary funding vehicle for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the entire $250 million will prop up its operating support and debt service. An additional $106 million is allocated for MBTA capital investments, worker safety reserves, and the MBTA Academy.

Though Boston and its environs get the lion’s share of the transportation funding revenue under the new Amendment, Fair Share makes a $100 million pot of money available to all 351 municipalities each year. The first $50 million is distributed via the Chapter 90 program, using a formula based on local road mileage, population, and employment. The second $50 million is based on a city or town’s road mileage alone.

Shutesbury received $51,490 from the Fair Share Tax for FY 2025 in addition to its Chapter 90 amount of $33,105.

Concerns About Fair Share Ease

In the days and weeks leading up to the November 2022 election,   opponents of the Fair Share Amendment voiced warnings that the wealthiest residents would leave the state if the ballot question passed. Nearly two years later, those dire predictions have not come to pass. The Bay State’s population increased by .27% from 2022 to 2023 and the first 12 months of the Amendment’s existence brought $2.2 billion into the state’s coffers. 

Another concern raised was that the tax would significantly reduce the savings of homeowners, small business owners, and retirees who sell their assets in a one-time transaction. However, it's important to remember that the tax only applies to any income exceeding $1 million, not the entire transaction amount.

Why Are Appropriations Not Equal to the Revenues Generated by Fair Share?

Despite the probability that Fair Share raised $2 billion in FY 2024, only $1.3 billion made it into the budget. Why is that the case, and where did the overage go?

Since the state budget process is a long one, reason dictates that budget appropriations work will begin before all revenues are received. $1.3 billion was likely agreed upon based on estimates, not the fiscal year’s total Fair Share revenues.

This explanation from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center brings some clarity:

Revenue raised by the surtax is first deposited into the Education and Transportation Fund (E&T Fund). Lawmakers set a spending cap on the amount that can be spent from the E&T Fund each Fiscal Year (see next section). Surtax money that exceeds that cap, “the excess,” will be transferred from the E&T Fund to one of the other two funds. Fifteen percent of the “excess” gets deposited into the “Education and Transportation Reserve Fund” to offer stability if surtax revenue decreases, such as an economic downturn. Eighty-five percent of the “excess” gets transferred to the “Education and Transportation Innovation and Capital Fund,” which supports one-time spending like the construction of a new rail line or vocational school. 

The article explains that imposing caps on long-term spending can help smooth out revenue fluctuations over time, making it easier to make funding decisions for long-term projects. During lean years, excess funds can be used for projects that have already been planned. Eventually, the spending cap will be determined based on the Fair Share revenues received over a previous 10-year period.

The Fair Share Amendment is successfully providing financial support to two previously underfunded areas essential to our state's economy and society. The best part is that it has achieved this without burdening low- and average-income residents' finances; a definite win-win.