The Lincoln Squirrel – News, features and photos from Lincoln, Mass.

letters to the editor

Letter to the editor: thoughts about the school building project

To the editor:

As you think about the upcoming votes on the school, here are a few thoughts from someone has been involved in the process for the last six years, first as a School Building Advisory Committee member and now as a School Building Committee (SBC) member. Not surprisingly, I believe the project is important for our school and our town. I would like to share with you some of the reasons behind my thinking.

The town, not the SBC or town leadership, chose this project

It is important to remember that it was the town’s residents, not the SBC or town leadership, who chose the option to be voted on December 1 and December 3. This was done at the June 9, 2018 Special Town Meeting (STM), which was attended by almost 650 people. At that time, the SBC presented five options. The options ranged in cost from $49 million to $98 million. The STM overwhelming chose the option that is the subject of the December bonding votes. This option, whose budget is $93.9 million, received 74 percent of the vote. The more expensive option received 17 percent of the vote. The least expensive option, the “repair only” option, received 4.3 percent of the vote in the first round and was eliminated from contention at that time.

I recognize and respect that some would prefer the cost to be less. I also acknowledge that many people in town do not attend town meetings, although I believe a turnout of about 650 people is pretty high for one in Lincoln. Town Meeting has been an integral part of how our town democracy has worked for a long time. It is also a fair and open process, as was the one followed by the SBC before the June 9 vote. In my opinion, we need to be cautious about attempting to re-litigate matters that were decided at a town meeting if we want the town to move forward and avoid a debilitating gridlock.

A “no” vote could depress property values

Understandably, taxes are what people focus on. However, another relevant consideration is property values. In my opinion, there is a risk that, if Lincoln votes down a school building project for a second time in the last six years, property values in town may decline because the town may get the reputation that it does not support its schools. This could drive young families to other towns—those that have a reputation for supporting their schools. If this occurs, there is a risk, particularly for those who do not plan to remain in town long-term, that the financial “hit” they will sustain, on account of a decrease in their property values, could exceed (in some cases substantially) the amount of additional taxes they will have to pay over the period of time they remain in town on account of the school building project. Even a small decrease of only 3 percent in one’s property value could have a significant negative impact on the homeowner.

The tax increase

The June 9 vote indicated that the voters believed it would be irresponsible and shortsighted to simply bring the building up to code for $49 million but provide no educational enhancements to it.  Since we recognize that the school needs more than $49 million worth of work, the question becomes: what are we getting for the incremental $44.9 million ($49 million + $44.9 million = $93.9 million) in order to achieve educational enhancements? This question, in turn, leads to the critical question for the taxpayers: how much more in taxes will we be required to pay on account of this $44.9 million? Excluding the $5.4 million of “cash in hand,” an $88.5 million bond that carries an interest rate of either 4 percent or 5 percent will add $2,415 or $2,717 to the median taxpayer’s annual tax bill. However, the incremental amount of $44.9 million for the educational enhancements only adds about $1,225 or $1,435. The ultimate question for many taxpayers becomes whether this incremental amount is a fair amount to pay in order to realize the educational enhancements that the school project offers.

Tax assistance programs

I realize that some people in town may have trouble paying either the full or incremental amount of the tax increase. Those in this position should investigate the town’s programs for helping people with their property taxes. Depending on the program and whether a person qualifies for it, taxes can be deferred or the benefits can amount to as much as $1,000, $1,500, or $2000, annually. Whether the median tax increase is $2,415 or $2,717 for the full project or $1,225 or $1,435 for the incremental portion of the project, this type of assistance could substantially soften the tax impact of the project. See pages 9-12 of the FAQ document.

The educational enhancements to the school

The educators will explain the educational enhancements the project brings to the school and the students. I will only make a few observations. In my view, the space in which teachers and students teach and learn can have an impact on the breath and depth of educational programming. Instead of continuing with the single classroom model (i.e., each teacher has her/his own box to teach from), the renovated school will combine “distinct classrooms and multi-use spaces that can adapt to changing educational needs over time.” The “neighborhood” model in grades 3-8 features classrooms clustered around a shared common space (“hub”) that supports a curriculum based on the ability to flexibly group students and teachers together and to foster age-appropriate independence.

The new center of the school will include a “learning commons” that can accommodate large-scale programming and a “dining commons” that can be used as flexible educational space during non-dining hours. The addition of the flexible spaces throughout the building provides spaces that can handle different-sized groups for different educational purposes. In my opinion, this flexibility model, which combines traditional separate classrooms with different-sized flexible spaces, is not an educational fad. It is also not a return to the discredited “open classroom” model. It represents common sense because education is not a one-size-fits-all experience for students or teachers.

The cost of the project is in line with comparable school projects

The cost of the school project is not excessive when it is compared with the cost of other school projects in our area. The SBC, working with its owner’s project manager, Daedalus Projects, whose business is the school public construction market in Massachusetts, investigated this issue and concluded that the cost of the Lincoln project is not out of line, when adjustments are made for when the projects were undertaken and the size of the other projects. See the SBC post titled “Construction Costs and Other Matters” and SBC member Craig Nicholson’s November 20, 2018 post on LincolnTalk. The FinCom also investigated this issue and reached the same conclusion (see points 3 and 4 in its May 22, 2018 recommendations).

The costs of public and home construction projects are not comparable

Based on what the SBC has learned from Daedalus and an SBC member who works in the construction industry, this type of comparison is not valid. A public construction project in Massachusetts is governed by a panoply of statutes and regulations that do not apply to home construction, such as earthquake resistance and additional fire resistance. Wage rates for workers on such projects are determined by the Commonwealth, which ensures a middle-class income level for the skilled tradesmen who will build the school. The market for the public construction of a school is separate and distinct from that for home construction. See page 4 of “Construction Costs and Other Matters.”

I hope this letter has helped you prepare for the very important votes you will cast on December 1 and December 3. In my opinion, they will have a significant impact on the future of the school and our town. For the above reasons, and many more, I think that future is best secured by a “yes” vote.

Sincerely,

Steven P. Perlmutter
90 Todd Pond Road

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

A note to readers

Happy Thanksgiving! A couple of notes:

Letters to the editor

As we prepare for the Special Town Meeting on December 1 and the ballot vote on December 3 to decide on school project funding, the Squirrel will accept letters to the editor on this subject up until noon on Tuesday, Nov. 27. Readers are welcome to submit new letters or opinions they have already posted on LincolnTalk. As always, letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and those containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

A lot less logging in

Good news! I think we’ve found a way to “log in for a lifetime.” Previously, you had to log in again every three months or so, but now, your login is extended for one year every time you visit the site. As a practical matter, this means as long as you log in and read a story at least once a year, you shouldn’t have to log in ever again on that device, unless you clear your browser cookies, switch to a different browser, etc. If you ever have any trouble logging in or recovering your password, just let me know, and I can get you back into the Squirrel very quickly.

Enjoy the holiday!

Sincerely,

Alice Waugh
Editor, The Lincoln Squirrel
lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com
617-710-5542 (mobile) ~ 781-259-0526 (home)

Letter to the editor: Lincoln teachers urge “yes” vote on school project

To the editor:

The Lincoln Teachers Association, the Lincoln School Committee and the Lincoln School Administration have a long history of working collaboratively to support the education of the children in Lincoln. It is with this collaboration in mind that we are reaching out to the residents of Lincoln prior to the new school building vote in December. The Lincoln Teachers Association strongly supports the school building project for several reasons.

In our work together, the LTA, School Committee, and administration share a commitment to teaching the children of Lincoln in a forward-thinking manner. We aim to create an innovative learning environment where students’ academic and social development can flourish, where students develop confidence to see themselves as leaders of their own learning, and one that fosters collaboration amongst students and faculty. We see the following as some of the positives points in the building project:

  • A new building will provide a climate-controlled environment that will better allow students and teachers to better engage in and focus on learning.
  • The variety of spaces the new building will provide allows students to be taught in a variety of different groupings and allow for more interdisciplinary and collaborative work.
    between students and within teaching teams. These spaces are more suitable for collaborative, project-based learning.
  • In addition, the numerous learning spaces allow teachers to better meet student needs, as we have a variety of teaching spaces to work within.
  • The new learning commons, dining space, and media center/library have the flexibility to be used in a number of ways, both for the school and the community.
  • A dedicated kitchen/dining space allows for the gyms to be used full-time for learning.
  • Given the beautiful town we live in, it is always our desire to get students outside for both learning and recreation. The new building provides opportunities to further connections to the outdoors.
  • The specific design of the building for grades 3–8 allows for better use of resources and provides dedicated spaces for collaboration.
  • Bringing preK into the same building allows all the teachers in Lincoln to work together as we teach students from preK to eighth grade. It allows for greater cross-grade interaction and eases the transition from preK to K.
  • With a central entrance and single administrative suite it allows the building to truly feel like a preK–8 building.

The LTA hopes you take these factors into your thinking during the upcoming building project process vote and decision. As always, we look forward to seeing residents in and around the school and appreciate your support in our efforts to provide the best education for your children along with the School Committee and administration.

Sincerely,

Matt Reed and Elaine Herzog
Lincoln Teachers Association co-presidents

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: thanks from Rep. Katherine Clark

(Editor’s note: this is a district-wide letter sent out by Rep. Clark’s office on November 7.)

To the editor:

Thank you to the voters of the 5th District for your confidence in me! It is the honor of my lifetime to represent you in Congress, and I am eager to continue my work fighting for policies that will strengthen our families and our economy like making child care more affordable, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and ensuring equal pay for equal work.

Tonight was a historic victory for the Commonwealth and our nation. By electing a Democratic majority to the House, we have chosen compassion and common sense over policies that are motivated by callousness, fear, and division. We have elected the most diverse class of new members of Congress in our nation’s history and in doing so, have acknowledged that we are stronger as a country when Congress reflects the American people. I am thrilled to welcome Ayanna Pressley and Lori Trahan to the Massachusetts delegation, and for the first time in our history we will have a record number of women representing the Commonwealth in Washington, D.C. 

Together, we will enact policies that will create opportunity and security for everyone. Democrats are ready to fight for you. Now, let’s get to work!

Sincerely,

Katherine Clark
D-MA (5th District), U.S. House of Representatives

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: “yes” on school project is the wise choice financially

(Editor’s note: Shiller is an assistant professor of economics at Brandeis University and a father of two.)

As an academic economist at Brandeis University, I study empirical relationships in economic markets. As our town considers a major school building project, I want to share the results of some peer-reviewed, high-quality economics studies that look at how school projects affect property values.

Rigorous research strongly supports the contention that school funding pays for itself by raising property values. In fact, there is quite a bit of research supporting this claim. Consider one example: Lisa Barrow and Cecilia Rouse (2003) exploited a change in the formula which determines state-provided support for local school districts. They found that every $1 increase in state-provided funding raised the total value of homes in a school district by $20.

But perhaps a more pertinent question is whether spending on school structures raises property values. Like many questions, this one is hard to answer. Raw correlations may lie. Towns that choose to build new schools or renovate may be different in many ways from towns that choose not to do so. Maybe these other differences explain why property values rise in towns that choose to build new schools or renovate them. Fortunately, empirical economists have developed techniques to answer these types of questions.

To address this concern, Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein (2010) used an estimation strategy called a “regression discontinuity.” Intuitively, the approach exploits the relationship between the share voting to approve school building projects and property values. Of course, towns with 75% of voters agreeing to fund a new or renovated school structure are inherently different than towns with only 25% approval. But the approach focuses on towns right around the vote-share threshold needed to approve funding. Presumably, on average, towns where 49% of voters approved funding are very similar to towns where 50% of voters approved funding. But only in the latter case is school structure funding approved. Hence, we can compare property values across towns barely on either side of the 50% vote share cutoff (note that in Lincoln, a two-thirds vote is needed to secure funding).

Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein focused on California, which had enough local school infrastructure funding referenda to determine the impact with a high degree of statistical significance, i.e., confidence that the results are correct. They found that funding for school facilities more than paid for itself. Each $1 increase in capital spending on schools increased the aggregate values of homes in the district by $1.50.

While their study focused on less expensive measures than we are currently considering (there are not enough larger measures to yield statistical significance), available evidence suggests property values will go up by more than costs. After all, new school structures are a very conspicuous indication that a town supports education.

Even though the school should pay for itself by raising property values, it is natural to think back to the school building costs from 2012, when we failed to reach the super-majority needed for approval. Many might ask: why should we pay for a new school now, since the total cost has gone up? The answer is that we still have an opportunity to build at a reasonably low cost, and costs will probably only move higher.

Yes, the price of a new school structure was very low in 2012, but only because of a perfect storm—three separate rare occurrences, each of which lowered the price and all of which happened to line up at the same time.

First, the state had promised to pay $20 million. I am not an expert on these state programs, but I think it is unlikely that the state will offer $20 million again soon, since we spurned them once and there are many needier towns. Second, interest rates were near all-time lows. Hence, the costs of borrowing to fund the project were incredibly low. Third, construction costs were low.

So yes, we may have missed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build/renovate the school in 2012 at an incredibly low cost. But we cannot undo that decision. The question now is, what to do going forward. We need to build or renovate relatively soon. Should we do so now?

While we may not receive as good a deal as in 2012, it still makes financial sense to build now. Interest rates are still low by historical standards, but going up. We should try to lock in the loan’s interest rate soon, to lessen the costs of borrowing the money up front to pay for the school building project.

In conclusion, I believe we should approve the school building project for two reasons. First, and most importantly, it is the right thing to do for the children of Lincoln. Second, approving the school building project appears to be the wise choice financially. Be selfish, and vote YES for the school building project.

Sincerely,

Ben Shiller
181 Bedford Rd.

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: support L-S music programs

To the editor:

Another year of music education has begun at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. Directors Tom Grandprey, Kyung-Nam Oh, and Michael Bunting are working diligently to create and carry out a rich curriculum with a wide array of performances opportunities.

Lincoln-Sudbury Friends of Music (LSFOM), a volunteer organization, seeks to raise funds that will benefit all students enrolled in band, orchestra, and chorus. The financial support you lend will allow us to honor specific requests from the Music Department that the school budget is unable to support. This may include enrichment through master classes, clinics and music festivals; the purchase of supplementary instruments and musical scores; and year-end awards and grants for music lessons, concert attire, and any other needs that families in our district may require to allow their children to succeed in this program.

Specifically, this year we aim to support coaches for orchestra sectionals, clinicians for chorus and band, and equipment requests for band, jazz, guitar, and multimedia music classes. Contributing (tax deductions and matching gifts available) helps us fund the efforts of the staff, directors, and performers. We are grateful and appreciative of those who support us financially and/or by attending our performances.

For more information about LSFOM, a list of upcoming events and to donate, please visit www.lsfom.org. Thank you.

Sincerely,

L-S Friends of Music:
Julie Alix, Laurence Baize, Theresa Kneeland, Carla Lievano, Glenn Merrill-Skoloff, Amy Rose, Rob Silsby, Dawn Solowey, and Maryann Tabola

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: removing political signs is illegal

To the editor:

Political election and campaign time is here again, with the attendant practice of candidate signage. Judging by experiences in the past few elections, there seems to be a lack of understanding or appreciation regarding an interpretation of the sign bylaw issued by the town of Lincoln in 2012.

In the words of the town officials, this compromise was developed to recognize the historical practice of town residents; in the apparent interest of restraint, fair play, and courtesy; and to be consistent with statewide legal precedent protecting free speech. The town published a notice at that time defining these interpretations, but apparently many residents did not see that notice since there is widespread misunderstanding. Following are the key points.    

  • Unattended political signs can be placed by right on town-owned land at the designated intersections in Section 16.2 (d) of the Zoning Bylaw. These five locations are at the intersections of:
    • Sandy Pond Road and Lincoln Road
    • Ballfield Road and Lincoln Road
    • Lincoln Road and South Great Road
    • Bedford Road and Morningside Lane
    • Codman Road and Concord Road
  • Political signs can be held by right (without a permit) on town-owned land as long as they don’t impact safety or constitute a hazard for either motorists or pedestrians.
  • One political sign can be placed by right on private land, not to exceed 8 square feet and for no more than 180 days prior to the election.

Enforcement of these provisions is the responsibility of the Building Commissioner. 

It should also be noted that such political signs are the private property of the relevant candidate’s campaign and as such, vandalism and/or unauthorized removal is illegal.

I hope this will clarify misunderstandings and become more widely appreciated by town residents and campaign supporters alike.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis
Indian Camp Lane, Lincoln
Co-Chair, Lincoln Democratic Town Committee

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: vote for three progressive candidates

To the editor:

You may not have heard about three candidates who are running for three important statewide offices because they do not take money from corporations, lobbyists, or super PACs. Thus there aren’t expensive TV ads and mass mailings for them. These three candidates aim to keep BIG money out of politics.

Jamie Guerin, running for state treasurer, will work to shift the power back into the hands of the people and communities. She will work to built socially just investment programs and divest from corporations that move jobs overseas, that pollute our environment and create abusive work environments. She will work to ensure that local communities—not national conglomerates—benefit from the cannabis business. She supports the movement for a state bank, now under consideration in 17 states to end the influence of Wall Street in local politics. Profits from a state bank go directly into the state budget, which means greater revenue for state programs and more support for students seeking reasonable, low-interest loans for education. Jamie supports investing in the people.

Juan Sanchez, running for secretary of the Commonwealth, supports campaign finance reform and ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting will happen in Maine for the first time this year. It allows voters to vote their real choices for office without “throwing away” their vote. Massachusetts needs ranked-choice voting. Juan supports transparency in politics and increasing and improving voter education. He is running against a long-term incumbent who has been criticized by the League of Women Voters, among others, for misusing taxpayer money.

Jed Stamas, a candidate running for auditor, understands the role of auditor in moving the priorities of Beacon Hill away from corporate interests. As auditor, he will be an independent watchdog, ensuring that Democrats and Republicans are not playing political games with taxpayer money. He will ensure that tax revenues are used ethically and efficiently to benefit the people of Massachusetts. Close auditing of agencies ensures accountability.

Please vote for Jamie Guerin, Juan Sanchez, and Jed Stamas—candidates who are responsive to all the people. They exemplify integrity. If you support progressive values, please support these super candidates who want to put power back in the hands of the people and communities. A vote for them is a vote to give the power back to ourselves.

Sincerely,

Jean Palmer
247 Tower Rd., Lincoln

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: support Gonzalez and Palfrey on Nov. 6

To the editor:

We write to express our support for Jay Gonzalez and Quentin Palfrey, the Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

Gonzalez and Palfrey are experienced public servants with a bold vision to pursue the values, policies and investments required to tackle the big challenges to provide a better future for every Massachusetts individual and family. The status quo and the wait-and-see approach are not good enough.

Jay Gonzalez served as president and CEO of CelticCare Health and New Hampshire Healthy Families dedicated to helping low-income residents access health care. He served as Gov. Deval Patrick’s secretary of administration and finance managing the state budget, and was chairman of the board of the Massachusetts Health Connector, where he oversaw implementation of the Massachusetts’ health care reform.

Quentin Palfrey served as deputy general counsel for strategic initiatives in the U.S. Commerce Department and was President Obama’s senior adviser for jobs and competitiveness fostering innovation and creating American jobs. He was also chief of the Health Care Division in the previous Massachusetts attorney general’s office, where he played an important role in the implementation of health reforms and consumer protection efforts.

As candidates for governor and lieutenant governor, they have defined at length their priorities to invest in public schools at all levels to make Massachusetts a leader once again in expanding access to high-quality healthcare, and to create opportunity for all residents of the Commonwealth—not just the wealthy. They will re-engage Massachusetts prior commitments to pursue climate change goals and clean energy sources.

Now more than ever, we need bold leaders in Massachusetts who will stand up for those working families being left behind. Thank you for joining us in voting for Gonzalez and Palfrey on November 6.

Sincerely,

Gary Davis and Barbara Slayter
Co-chairs, Lincoln Democratic Town Committee

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.

Letter to the editor: vote no on Question 1

(Editor’s note: Care Dimensions runs the hospice house on Winter Street in Lincoln.)

To the editor:

I am CEO of Care Dimensions, the largest hospice organization in Massachusetts, and a nurse who worked for nearly 30 years in the emergency room and critical care units of a hospital, and I’m voting no on Ballot Question 1.

Like anyone, and most especially as a nursing leader, I have a responsibility and a desire to make sure that the work of nurses is protected and revered. While on the surface this proposed legislation may seem like it would bring benefit for nurses and patients, fixed staffing approaches to meeting the changing needs of patients would have severe consequences without improving care.
Staffing decisions are made by nurses and managers together considering many factors such as the acuity of patients, admission/discharge/transfer activity, availability of support staff, and the capabilities and experience of the nurses. All of these elements would wash away in a pure ratio-only model.
Consider what a nurse would do when a patient condition deteriorates on a floor or a trauma patient arrives in the emergency room where nurses are at their number limit. Fixed ratios decrease access to care and prohibit nurses from using professional judgment in managing care of patients. If the ballot initiative were passed, the fixed ratios would need to be followed “at all times” and steep fines will be applied if violated, even if there were serious outcomes as a result of the lack of access to care.

Question 1 is an important issue to those of us who deliver post-acute care in non-hospital settings. If hospitals are forced to hire nearly 6,000 nurses in just 37 business days to comply with the law, they will have no choice but to pull from organizations like ours. There will be no nurses left out in the community. There is already a dire nursing shortage. Hospitals could hire every nurse in the state and still not have enough. Being left without nurses would be catastrophic for our patients.

We currently employ more than 500 people, the vast majority of whom are nurses. Most of them travel and see patients in their homes. Nationwide, healthcare has moved toward keeping patients out of hospitals, which is what home care, hospice, and community services do. If we can’t recruit nurses, we can’t keep patients safe in their own homes. Question 1 would unwind our progress in transitioning to comfortable, home-oriented community care.

I have another worry about the impact on our community hospitals. One of our nearby community hospitals estimates the impact at over $7.9 million per year and would require the hiring of 48 full-time RNs. This will result in having to make serious decisions regarding programs and the number of patient care units that could remain open. From a personal standpoint, I don’t want my own community hospital to close; that would be damaging and dangerous to communities and patients.

Additionally, many hospice patients are referred from community hospitals, meaning this law would directly impact our work. Patients would hear about hospice and palliative care options even later than they do now, causing hardship for families.

Finally, there is only one other state in the nation that has mandated hospital nurse staffing ratios:  California. There is evidence that quality and satisfaction scores have gone down since ratios were introduced there. After 14 years of the ratio rule in California, that state ranks behind Massachusetts in five of six mortality prevention measures and in all of the 11 patient satisfaction categories.

In reality, Massachusetts consistently ranks among the best states in the U.S. on hospital quality and outcome measures. Our state has earned national acclaim from several top-tier ranking systems including the Commonwealth Fund’s State Health System Performance that placed Massachusetts second overall in the nation, versus California’s 14th-place finish.

This law would harm everyone, everywhere, and incapacitate Massachusetts healthcare. I plan to vote no—not because I don’t care about nurses, but because I care very deeply for all of them, wherever they work. I encourage you to examine this issue more closely, and welcome you to join me in voting no on 1 on Nov. 6.

Sincerely,

Patricia Ahern, RN, MBA, FACHE
President and CEO, Care Dimensions

Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.