GOAL Seeks Administrative Fixes to Licensing System

[Roof gunner]

I had my license restored after the FLRB shit show a month and a half ago. I still have not received it tho. The DCJS sent me a letter yesterday saying that my licence is set to expire soon !! WTF !!! Don’t these people even talk to themselves or is everything computer generated !!??

 

[Len-2A Training]

Covered in another thread.

Bills filed "on behalf of" an individual or org have virtually ZERO chance of even rating a vote. They are deep sixed simply because they were not filed by a legislator.

Filing an "on behalf of" because you can't get a legislator to file it as a sponsor is a waste of time. This is MA legislative process 101. In the most optimistic reading, GOAL intended to make a statement knowing this was DOA.

Believe Rob!!

Many years ago I had my State Rep file a bill for me. He even told me not to bother showing up for the hearing. I had no idea back then, now I know why. It's just the way that the corrupt process works.

I had my license restored after the FLRB shit show a month and a half ago. I still have not received it tho. The DCJS sent me a letter yesterday saying that my licence is set to expire soon !! WTF !!! Don’t these people even talk to themselves or is everything computer generated !!??

Better check the expiration date on your restored LTC.

Yes, it is all automatically computer generated.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not surprised. The representatives weren’t getting anything out of it, so why bother listening to their constituency?

Worse. Allowing an "on behalf of" bill to come up for a vote is ceding power that the legisature reserves for itself.

 

[42!]

As Len said, a bill filed on behalf of a constituent is pretty much DOA, I was working my rep at one point to get a bill filed, he was helpful with the language and he was open to my arguments in favor of the bill. But all he would do is file it on my behalf. I held back, I figured with a little more work I might actually get him to sponsor it. Unfortunately he passed away (cancer) before I was able to convince him. But my point is, this is unlikely to ever see a vote.

I was also a little confused what the purpose of this was, I had to give it a little thought, and if I didn't believe that the anti side could figure this out I wouldn't mention it here.

This could potentially be done by beginning the process online at the state level. That way the system can be better monitored. By starting at the state level it should save the local licensing folks, and applicants time. For instance, if the application began online, the state might be able to conduct initial background checks to determine if the person is statutorily prohibited. If this were the case, the local authority would not have to schedule time to process anything. It would also allow the applicant to act faster on a potential appeal if needed.

In a way this would eliminate all those extra conditions CoPs add. Since they can't deny based on you not meeting those extra conditions, all they can do is refuse to accept the application. With this, the application is submitted before the CoP even knows about it. What it doesn't do is eliminate interviews and/or suitability denials. In fact I would expect more suitability denials as the CoP will see all this as an attack on his authority, and will be looking to make it clear who is in charge. In the long run even this could help as suitability get more time in court it will become more clearly defined and CoPs will have less "broad discretion"

So I think the idea is a good little step in the right direction, but if GOAL wanted an actual change it would have been sponsored.