Today I testified in front of the Joint Committee on Education for one of the bills I’ve filed this session: H486, An Act Relative to An Act Relative to Enhancing English Opportunities for All Students in the Commonwealth.

The goal of this bill is to improve our system so that ALL students in the Commonwealth who are learning English have the opportunity to become proficient and perform at the level of their native English speaking peers.

As the number of non-native English speakers increases in my district and across the Commonwealth, it’s vitally important – both for the well-being of these students, and for the success of our overall economy – that we make sure these kids are learning English in our schools.

In a state where 14% of residents are foreign-born, a failure by Massachusetts public schools to teach English to the children of immigrants will have a chilling effect on the quality of life of thousands of young adults.

But the research on the state of our current system of teaching Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students is clear: we’re doing abysmally, and failing thousands of students.

LEP students have higher dropout rates than any other group (10.4% for LEP students, compared to 3.6% for non-LEP), and the performance disparity between LEP students and their native English-speaking peers is rising disproportionately.

Quite simply, our system as it stands is horribly ineffective at reaching its goals: helping students become proficient in English.

The bill I’ve proposed would give school districts the choice of what English language programs to offer and holds them accountable for their implementation and effectiveness.

It would increase program flexibility for English Language Learners (ELLs), which research clearly shows is the single best way to make sure students learn English. After all, not everyone learns in the same way, and our instructional system should reflect that. School districts would have the flexibility to choose appropriate instruction, including transitional bilingual education, two-way bilingual education, structured English immersion, English as a second language, or other innovative programs.

The bill would also increase accountability, by requiring that school districts collect data on English language learners and file reports on the programs and curricula that have been implemented to educate them, and the outcomes of these programs

Finally, it would increase the role of parents, by requiring that schools notify parents and guardians of the availability of these programs.

We can’t afford not to reform this failing system. Increasing dropout rates for LEP students affect not only those students and their families, but have a negative impact on the economy of the Commonwealth – particularly if those students never become proficient in English.

The idea that we as Massachusetts residents can look the other way, ignoring reality, while thousands of children move through the public schools to a bleak future is not only deeply cynical, but will have a powerful negative effect on quality of life, state revenues, and reliance on state social services.  Massachusetts has always been a place of innovation, especially in the area of education, and it’s time for us to think more broadly, recognizing the diverse and complex makeup of school children in the Commonwealth.

It’s a broken system, and we need to fix it.

On Tuesday, September 15^th, I testified before the Joint Committee on Children and Families on two of my high priority bills.

These bills came out of the work and recommendations of the the Asset Development Commission, which I’ve chaired for the past two years.

S. 37, An Act Removing Barriers to Financial Stability and Asset Development for Low-to-Moderate Income Families proposes to raise asset limits for people receiving different public benefits, in order to allow low and moderate-income families to save money so they can pull themselves out of poverty by going to college, buying a house, or starting a business.  Too often, state policies serve to create more obstacles for poor families that prevent them from breaking the cycle of poverty, and S. 37 would serve to eliminate some of these financial barriers.

S. 38, An Act Relative to Worker’s Pathways for Self-Sufficiency, would allow these same families to better access Education Rewards grant that allow them to go to college or another educational institution, in order to gain the skills to get a better job and move out of poverty.

While I was pleased to testify on these bills, the most inspiring part of the hearing was all of the policymakers, activists, and residents of the Commonwealth who came to tell their stories.

Among the citizens testifying was a woman who had been able to attend Smith College through an Individual Development Account (IDA) program, allowing her to provide a better life for her family.

Another man, on the board of the Crittendon Women’s Union, talked about how his daughter, in part through the benefits of being raised in a middle-class family, has been able to move onto college and have a successful job while a young METCO student of the same age who the family had hosted ended up dropping out of college after graduating from high school because she couldn’t pay the tuition.  There were also dozens of anti-poverty practitioners who talked about how asset development programs have made such a difference in the lives of  their clients, and how increased flexibility in state asset limits could help even more families.

In my remarks to the committee, I made the observation that state government has passed legislation to invest in biotech companies, promote alternative energy, and attract film producers to Massachusetts, all in the name of economic development.  The state needs to be equally vigilant in promoting economic development for those who are less well off in Massachusetts, so that all citizens have a chance to provide a better life for themselves and their children.  I believe that removing asset limits from state policies is a critical part of encouraging this kind of economic development and self-sufficiency.

The recent passing of Senator Edward Kennedy is sad news for all of us who admired his unparalleled leadership, his tenacious advocacy for those in need, and his dedication to fairness and equality for all. He dedicated nearly all of his life to public service, and he played an instrumental role in crafting and passing major pieces of legislation throughout his career that had a real impact on families across the nation, including those in the Middlesex and Worcester district. This is a loss that will be felt deeply across the Commonwealth for years to come.

His passing, and the vacancy in the Senate that it creates, also raises many questions, and leaves our state with a serious problem to consider: should we leave the seat open – and Massachusetts underrepresented – for the next five months while we await the results of a special election, or should we modify existing law to allow for an interim appointment?

I believe that ultimately, a Senator should be elected by the people of the Commonwealth, and I would oppose any effort to take the right of the people to vote in a special election away.

However, a special election wouldn’t take place for five months, leaving Massachusetts underrepresented at a time when many important issues are being debated and resolved on the national level, including the issue so near and dear to Kennedy’s heart, healthcare reform. It was for this reason that, before his passing, Senator Kennedy requested that the Legislature revise current law to allow for an interim appointment – someone to represent Massachusetts in the Senate until the people could make their choice.

My personal feelings have not changed since the last time this issue was debated in 2004.  I have serious misgivings about giving any governor the power to appoint someone to a federal office without some kind of guarantee that they won’t be able to gain an artificial advantage in a subsequent election.  A proposal lacking such a guarantee was put forward in 2004, and I voted against it.

At the beginning of this year’s legislation session in January,  a bill was filed without much fanfare by Representative Robert Koczera, “An Act Relative to Filling a Temporary Vacancy in the United States Senate.”  The bill proposes to changes the laws for the filling a vacancy in the Senate by allowing the Governor to appoint an interim Senator but only after election papers have been filed by all the candidates wishing to participate in the special election to fill the seat, thereby preventing the interim appointee from running in the special election.

In my view, this is a reasonable proposal that maintains the spirit of the reforms passed in 2004, guaranteeing that the people get to choose their next Senator in an election while ensuring that Massachusetts is fully represented in the US Senate throughout the process.  I believe that this bill offers a wise, permanent solution to the problem of vacant statewide seats, and I will support the bill if it comes to a vote on the floor of the State Senate.

Some have suggested that any reconsideration of the laws regarding congressional vacancies would be inappropriate at this time.  I disagree.  Not only would this proposal be worth considering regardless of the unique political circumstances of the moment, but it is precisely because the issues being debated in Congress are such great significance that the legislature should move quickly to give this proposal its full consideration.

For decades Senator Kennedy has made the fight to make sure everyone has access to affordable, high-quality health care his signature issue.  The debate on national health care reform now stands at a critical juncture, and I believe that I have a responsibility to do what I can in order to ensure that the people of Massachusetts do not lose their voice in these deliberations.

Yesterday, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard several bills related to criminal records reform.

I’ve been a strong supporter of reform for our Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system for many years, because I think these reforms are urgently needed to improve public safety, boost our economy, and ensure that our system is treating people fairly and in accordance with our basic notions of justice.

I’m proud to be a co-sponsor of  House Bill 3523/Senate Bill 1608, An Act to Reform CORI, Restore Economic Opportunity and Improve Public Safety. Here is the testimony I submitted to the committee yesterday, detailing the reasons I support the legislation:

Dear Chairwoman Creem and Chairman O’Flaherty,

I am writing in strong support of House Bill 3523/Senate Bill 1608, An Act to Reform CORI, Restore Economic Opportunity and Improve Public Safety.

Our current Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) system is broken, and every day constituents of ours across the Commonwealth are falling through the cracks. The Legislature has grappled with this issue for many years, but the problem is urgent, and the time to pass meaningful CORI reform is now.

Our current criminal records system is outdated, and needs to be changed to reflect the new ways it is being used. By simplifying the sealing process, ending the dissemination of irrelevant, outdated records, and providing employers with the tools they need to better evaluate the risks and benefits of hiring an individual with a CORI record, we can make the process better for employers, community groups, landlords, and law enforcement, as well as those individuals with a CORI record.

This is an issue I often hear about from my constituents. Just last week, a gentleman called our office looking for help finding a job. He had just finished probation, and was hitting dead end after dead end on the job market. Although he had been interviewed for jobs several times, he would never hear from an employer again after they checked his background.  This man was trying hard to get back on his feet and find a job, but the information on his CORI record was blocking him at every turn. It’s difficult in these situations when there is little, as a legislator, you can do to help the individual with a CORI record find work. It is on behalf of these constituents and their families that I write in support of this legislation.

Reforming our CORI system makes sense on three levels: first, as a public safety measure; second as an economic booster, and third (though just as important), as an issue of basic fairness.

Public Safety: Our current CORI system actually makes it more likely that an ex-offender will commit another crime, because of the way it prevents those with CORI records from reintegrating into our system.

The biggest predictor of whether an ex-offender will successfully re-integrate is whether or not they can find adequate housing and employment.  We should be encouraging those who have served their time to find a steady job and stay out of trouble, rather than placing additional barriers in their way. This legislation would remove some of these barriers to reintegration and lower recidivism rates in our communities.

Economic: Our current CORI system also poses difficulties for employers looking to hire the best people possible to fill positions. Because CORI reports are difficult to read and often filled with irrelevant or even inaccurate information (such as cases that were dismissed, or incorrectly entered information), employers often end up rejecting candidates who would otherwise be a good fit. Reforming our CORI system will help employers make better-informed decisions, reducing unnecessary barriers to people seeking employment and helping grow our economy.

Fairness: Finally, CORI reform is at its core about fairness – and the many cracks in our current system show the unfairness that many currently face:

o   Because the system is based on outdated technology, there are literally hundreds of thousands of records that legally should be sealed but aren’t – and those seeking to have their records sealed face a bureaucratic mess when trying to do so.

o   In this country, we believe that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And yet current CORI records often notes on cases that were dismissed, or cases where the defendant was found not guilty. As a result, many people who were never found guilty of a single crime have CORI records that often hurt their chances of finding employment.

o   Finally, someone who has paid their debts to society should not be punished forever.  It is true that many people with a CORI record have made a serious mistake, and we should never take those crimes lightly. But once someone has served their time, as a society we should try to help them make the best of their second chance and become a productive member of society.

The Legislature has had a proud record this session of reforming our outdated systems, from our transportation system to our ethics and pension systems. I encourage the committee to help us take the next step, in reforming our criminal records system, by reporting H3523/S1608 out favorably.

Thank you for the consideration of my remarks.

Very Truly Yours,

James B. Eldridge
State Senator
Middlesex and Worcester District

Yesterday, the Senate passed critical legislation to preserve the stock of affordable housing units in our state and protect the rights of tenants in publicly-assisted affordable housing projects.

Our state is currently in danger of losing tens of thousands of subsidized rental housing units at a time when more people than ever are in need of affordable housing due to the economic crisis.

The “expiring use” bill, as it has been referred to for years, targets the state’s estimated 90,000 government-assisted rental housing units, including so called “expiring use” units whose affordability restrictions can end if owners prepay their subsidized mortgages or not decide not to renew their rent assistance contracts upon expiration. Massachusetts is at risk of losing more than 23,000 units by the end of 2012, when many of these contracts are up. Many of the residents in “expiring use” buildings are seniors or people with disabilities.

The Senate legislation establishes provisions that will help preserve as many units as possible. It requires owners who want to sell affordable rental property to offer a purchasing right-of-first-refusal to the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) or the local municipality where the property is located.

I am a co-sponsor of the bill and have been a longtime supporter of this legislation, which was endorsed by the Massachusetts Asset Development Commission this spring.  The passage of this bill in the Senate marks a first win for the ADC, a step towards our larger goal of making sure all people in the Commonwealth are financially secure.

I believe our communities are stronger when all families have access to affordable housing options. Because housing prices are so expensive in Massachusetts, however, too many families are priced out of communities, and the amount of affordable housing available is often not enough to meet the demands. This legislation will take us one step closer to ensuring that families of all economic levels can live in safe, clean, housing across the district.

Read more about the legislation here. It will now go to the House of Representatives, where I hope it will be passed quickly.

This bill is just a first step, however. There are several other important housing bills that need to be passed this year, including bills to protect renters from being evicted if the house they live in is foreclosed upon and provide judicial review of foreclosures.

Today, the Massachusetts Senate debated and voted on the Mixed Martial Arts Bill, An Act Regulating the Sport of Mixed Martial Arts. The bill passed the Senate, 34-1 (I voted in favor of it). If it is passed by the House and signed by the Governor, Massachusetts will join 37 other states in issuing regulations for Mixed Martial Arts, a sport that has previously been unregulated in Massachusetts.

I supported this bill because I believe it will bring  much needed revenue to our Commonwealth at a time when we desperately need it. At the same time, the regulations we passed today will ensure the safety of participants in what could otherwise be a quite dangerous sport.

Much of the focus of the Legislature (and media) over the past six months has been on major reforms to our transportation, pension, and ethics systems – and rightly so. But in addition to these major bills, the Legislature works on smaller bills every day — many of which most people never hear of — that can end up having a significant impact on residents of the Commonwealth.

The Mixed Martial Arts Bill is just one example of a seemingly small matter that can have a big impact – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for the state, and still more money injected into the local economies of cities holding an Ultimate Fighting Match.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the sport of Mixed Martial Arts, also known as Ultimate Fighting, it is a fast growing full-contact sport that incorporates a variety of fighting techniques and martial arts. Although, as with boxing, going to an Ultimate Fighting match isn’t for everyone, it is a sport that is growing in popularity nationwide.

By regulating the sport, we’ll allow the Ultimate Fighting Champion to hold sanctioned events in the Commonwealth while ensuring the safety and well-being of competitors participating in the events. Safety measures, issued by the Department of Public Service, will help make an otherwise dangerous sport safer for participants.

Additionally, this bill will bring much-needed revenue to our currently struggling economy. Ultimate fighting, or Mixed Martial Arts, is one of the fastest growing sports in America. This sport sells out venues around the nation.  Allowing this sport to come to the Commonwealth will attract tourists who will spend money on tickets, hotel rooms, meals out, highway tolls, and souvenirs, adding revenue to the Massachusetts economy. At a time when we are both cutting services and raising taxes, supporting this economic growth measure was a no-brainer for me.

On Saturday,  my staff and I went door to door in Maine to support marriage equality and oppose the anti-gay marriage referendum that will be on the ballot in Maine this  November.  MassEquality is asking Massachusetts residents, including legislators, to travel north to support  Maine Freedom to Marry in their grassroots effort to defeat the Prop 8-like referendum taking the right to marry away from same-sex couples in that state.

Team Eldridge Canvasses for Marriage Equality

Although I have done plenty of door to door for my campaigns and supporting other candidates for public office, I had never gone canvassing on marriage equality before.  We were sent to Biddeford, Maine, an old mill town 30 minutes south of Portland.

While there is always a little trepidation when beginning door to door, it became  routine very quickly.  The question we posed to every voter, “Do you support same-sex couples being able to marry?” reaffirmed for me how such a basic concept underlies a powerful and emotional struggle.  It would seem hard to fathom that some people would deny other people the right to celebrate their love for one another, yet from the day’s canvassing it was obvious that there is a lot of work to be done in Maine.

I received a mix of responses from votes I spoke with, as did the rest of my staff.  Those who were against gay marriage spoke about tradition, marriage being between a man and a woman, and in some cases their religion.  The men and women who supported marriage equality responded with comments such as, “Why should the government be involved in people’s business?,” and “I have nothing against gay people.”

My favorite comment, however, was from a 91-year old grandmother who confided in me that although she was a Catholic and that the Bishop had made it clear in church that gay marriage was wrong, she had two grandchildren who are gay and in long-term relationships, and she could not vote for something that would hurt them.  Because one of her grandchildren lives in Massachusetts, this gave me the opportunity to talk about gay marriage in Massachusetts, and how much it has made thousands of families safer and more secure.

While our efforts this past Saturday felt gratifying, it is clear that there is a great amount of work left to do in Maine.  I would encourage Massachusetts residents to take a weekend or week off to go up to Maine, and talk about the important of marriage equality to Maine voters.  To get involved, please contact MassEquality’s Maine Canvass Coordinator, Ian Grady, at 617-878-2365 or IanGrady@MassEquality.org.

Given the swift advancement of marriage equality across New England, it would be both deeply unsettling and sad for Maine to go the way of California.  The opportunity to influence this is in your power.

Transparency. Accountability. Reform. These have become the buzzwords of the current Legislative session, repeated over and over in every debate to the point where I worry, occasionally, that they begin to lose their meaning.

And yet every time the Senate turns its attention to a new issue, the need for more transparency in government actions, and more accountability from decisionmakers, becomes all the more obvious, and all the more urgent.

The importance of transparency and accountability came up over and over again in the debate over ethics reform and pension reform. We also saw, with the indictment of former Speaker Sal DiMasi, the way greater transparency could have prevented some of the (alleged) crimes that were committed.

Recently, I’ve worked with a number of colleagues, including Senator Mark Montigny (who has been a leader on this issue for years) and Representatives Carl Sciortino and Steve D’Amico, to try to bring more transparency to our tax credit system ,  and to make information about which companies are receiving these tax credits, and what economic benefit the state is receiving in return, public knowledge.

And today, the need to demand transparency in government came up yet again, as the Senate considered a bill that would pledge a portion of new sales tax revenues to turnpike bondholders and reinstate the state’s credit behind interest rate swap agreements that the firm the United Bank of Switzerland (UBS) wants to terminate. The hope — though there’s no guarantee — is that passing this bill would prevent taxpayers and tollpayers from getting stuck with $274 million in new costs tied to the Big Dig.

This issue – the “swaptions” deal – is incredibly complicated, with many moving parts. It’s been discussed frequently on BlueMassGroup and elsewhere, and I’d refer you to a few excellent posts (here and here are two good examples)  for a summary of what this swaptions deal is all about, and why the Commonwealth is currently in such big trouble over it.

I claim no expertise when it comes to complex financial transactions like this one – but I do know a risky deal and irresponsible actions when I see them. And in this situation, I see them. It’s clear to me that people who were entrusted with the care of millions and millions of public dollars, people who really should have known better, entered into an extraordinarily risky deal, a deal made with a callous disregard for the financial health of the Commonwealth, and the burden now being born by taxpayers and tollpayers.

And yet we still don’t know how this happened. We don’t know who made the deal, why these transactions were agreed to, and whether any criminal activity took place. The Commonwealth could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet even these basic questions remain unanswered.

Senator Mark Montigny, who has been an unrelenting champion for transparency on this issue, proposed an amendment (which I supported) to the current legislation that would:

1.      Require the head of the Turnpike Authority and Secretary of A&F to affirm in writing that there exists no feasible alternative to pledging the commonwealth’s full faith and credit.

2.      Call for a detailed report from the commonwealth and quasi-public agencies, signed under oath, on each entity’s borrowing practices including: who was involved in past deals, how agreements were reached, and the rationale and impact of each signing.

3.      Require all quasi-public agencies to seek and receive approval from the governor and A&F before entering into any future derivative financial transaction.

4.      Instruct the Inspector General to investigate these murky Turnpike swap agreements (including the UBS agreement at hand).

Given all of the uncertainties surrounding the swaptions deal, this amendment is the least we can do to insert a measure of transparency into the process.

The fact is, we are currently in a lose-lose situation. If the Senate didn’t pass some version of this bill, the Commonwealth would likely have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars at a time when we certainly cannot afford it. And yet, as Senator Montigny noted in a letter he sent to colleagues today:

“With each guaranty extension, the legislature becomes more complicit in exposing taxpayers and toll-payers to financial risk while allowing the Turnpike to thwart transparency efforts and evade a permanent solution.”

We may not be able to come up with a good solution to this swaption situation. Certainly, I haven’t seen any on the table. We may well have to do the best we can with a limited set of not-so-great options.

But we CAN push for more accountability and more transparency with regards to past actions, and going forward — not to mention an adequate dedicated revenue source for our transportation system –  so that the Commonwealth is never put in this situation again.  That’s why I supported Senator Montigny’s amendment, and I look forward to seeing the results of the Inspector General’s investigation.

Today, House Bill Senate 1728/Senate Bill 1687, An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes, was heard by the Judiciary Committee, in a packed hearing that is actually still going on as I write, at 6pm. Many, many people came out today to offer testimony on the need for this bill and to share  stories about the discrimination they have faced — from being fired from their jobs for being transgender, to being kicked out of their apartments, assaulted on the street, or even being denied access to a homeless shelter because of their gender identity or expression.

I’m proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation, and I joined a large group of legislators in offering testimony in support of the bill before the committee today. Below is a copy of the written testimony I submitted to the Committee, detailing the need for this bill and why I am supporting it.

The bill is ultimate about equality, and I hope Massachusetts will take the next step forward on the path towards equality for all people by passing this bill this year.

Dear Chairwoman Creem and Chairman O’Flaherty,

I am writing in strong support of House Bill 1728/Senate Bill 1687, An Act Relative to Gender-Based Discrimination and Hate Crimes.

Massachusetts has a proud history of promoting and protecting civil rights for all, and ensuring that minorities in our state receive equal treatment in the eyes of the law. In passing this law, we would continue that history by ensuring that a minority which currently faces high rates of discrimination and violence is clearly protected in our state.

Ultimately, this legislation is about equality. No one should be fired from their job, evicted from their apartment, denied access to public facilities, or harassed on the street, simply for being who they are. As a Legislature, it’s our duty to ensure that all of our constituents – including our transgender constituents – have those basic rights.

Although this matter has only recently received legislative and media attention, it’s not a new issue for many in this state. The City of Boston passed legislation protecting transgender people from discrimination over seven years ago, with only positive results. Many businesses in our state have had policies on the books for years, prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression in hiring and promotion practices. These businesses know what many other businesses will discover if this law is passed – their ability to attract and retain talented employees increases when they don’t exclude people because of their gender identity (or, for that matter, their race, religion, gender, etc.)

If this legislation passes, Massachusetts would join 13 other states, the District of Columbia, and numerous cities and town (including Cambridge and Northampton, in addition to Boston) in extending these rights and protections to transgender people. The legislation has received strong support from the civil rights, legal, and business communities, all of whom appreciate the clarity that it would bring to a current batch of laws and judicial decisions that can be difficult to understand and enforce.

This bill has been termed a “bathroom” bill by opponents, who falsely claim that allowing transgender people access to public facilities would put women and children in danger. The fact is, in none of the cities or states where similar laws have already been enacted have there been complaints of the kind. If someone enters a public facility for the purpose of harassment, assault, or any other illegitimate reason, they may not simply hide under the umbrella of anti-discrimination laws. This point is underscored by the fact that this bill has been endorsed by numerous women’s and children’s advocacy organizations, including Massachusetts NOW, Jane Doe, Inc., the Women’s Bar Association, and the Massachusetts Society for the Protection of Children.

On behalf of my constituents who this bill would benefit, and all the other people across the Commonwealth who have been harmed by discrimination based on their gender identity, I urge the Joint Committee on the Judiciary give this bill a favorable report quickly.

Thank you for the consideration of my remarks.

Very Truly Yours,

James B. Eldridge
State Senator
Middlesex and Worcester District

Early Sunday morning, I stopped by the grand opening of the Acton Farmers’ Market to say a few words and maybe buy a few items.  While I had been to the Maynard Farmers’ Market last year during my campaign for State Senate, this visit was different — and not just because I was giving a speech.

Even before the ribbon was cut, the sense of community and interconnectedness was really strong.  Not only did I know many of the residents checking out the fresh produce and baked goods, but the interaction between buyers and sellers was much more intimate.  It wasn’t simply about picking up some groceries after work. It was the opportunity  to buy local, healthier (organic) food, and to actually meet the producers of your food (not to mention almost no plastic bags!).

In my remarks to the gathering of a hundred-plus people before the ribbon cutting, I noted that the “buy local” movement found at so many farmers’ markets allows people to take action to create a more environmentally and economically sustainable consumer market.  While the federal and state government  wrestle with how to encourage Americans to eat healthier, reduce sprawl, and preserve our communities’ rural character, farmers’ markets across the globe are already making a difference.

What is even more exciting is how quickly this phenomenon has grown across Massachusetts.  Massachusetts increased the number of organic farms from 129 in 2002 to 295 in 2007, and the state is first in New England for direct sales of farm products to consumers.  And by buying more locally-produced goods, we are doing our part to preserve the agricultural traditions of Massachusetts.   More than 80% of Massachusetts farms are family-owned, and over 95% of these farms fit the category of “small farms.”  But this doesn’t just happen on its own – we, the people of Massachusetts, need to put our money where our mouths are to maintain the farms, our critical link to locally-produced food.