Warning about the Movement & Support

This is a message from director and ballot measure co-chair Kirstin Beatty:

I have several concerns.

One, I am worried that Last Tree Laws will not be successful organizing because of technology issues, and so ask that you keep checking this page as kinks are fixed and info provided on newsletter, measure, lobbying. If you do email, please also send your phone number and maybe one or the other will work.

Secondly, I’m worried that last year a well-known advocate pushed bills without being transparent about the content: one was a bill for 5G, for example, but was promoted as against 5G. I’m concerned this advocate may again fail to make problems of some bills clear and promote those bills without caveat, while dismissing our bills as occurred last year.

Please be careful about the bills you support. Please check back here on lobbying for our preferred legislation and for information critical of other bills.

Thirdly, we need active popular direct support, not only for a ballot measure but to help stymie dismissal or mischaracterization of our legislation. Industry has critiqued and will critique the bills, but so will others who fail to accept change is possible. Even without naysayers, I do not think any other public figure or organization will actively share the bills I prepared or actively promote the concepts.

Our funds are also minimal. There isn’t a business model here, business promotions, nor trickle-down economics – maybe that needs to change. Please make a donation to our ballot measure committee.

Here are a few lobbying tips — a version will be posted on the Local page as well:

  1. Speak to Legislators 1-to-1. Speaking privately one-to-one with your personal legislators appears more helpful to being heard – we know first-hand some legislators do not read emails due to the number incoming! If you cannot speak well, then bring writings and bring a group of constituents to help. Take the time to truly educate one or two legislators, since public hearings often limit speaking time to 3 minutes per person and can be disjointed.
  2. Support ideas first, secondly support bills that support those ideas. Avoid signing on in favor of “great” bills that can be changed later anyway, behind closed doors, and stick instead to signing on in support of explicitly stated concrete ideas.
  3. Problem guidance. When signing onto shared testimony or using templates, be careful. Some advocates continue to highlight problem bills as solutions. See this blog post on bad bills for more – one day it will hopefully be updated or a new one prepared.
  4. Behind closed doors. If a spokesperson speaks on behalf of the group behind closed doors, what is being said? If mass emails are sent, does the group have input and how many can verify what was actually sent? Remember, diverging emails may be sent on the same topic to different groups.
  5. Co-opting brand & advocacy. Does the spokesperson represent you or him/herself, i.e. using the group to advance sales, donations, different aims, control, his/her name, etc.? Does the spokesperson promote the status quo and prevent the rise of new ideas or opinions? Does the spokesperson speak as if for everyone, rather than recognizing and admitting differences? Does the spokesperson take credit for everything, or give credit where it is due before being asked to do so?
  6. Collaboration. Does the group or organization focus on the goals, and encourage collaboration, even connections between members and set aside personal gain to work with outsiders? Last Tree Laws needs support and volunteers. Real support, not people taking credit for our work and offering nothing in return. I have shared events of other groups and stopped for now due to lack of (a) time, and (b) for some, lack of fair, sincere quid pro quo and support. I believe in team work, but not at our expense or that of others.
  7. Recognition. Many people work on these issues for free and work hard – failure to provide generous recognition and support increases the pain of doing so and pushes away volunteers.

To Investigate or Not to Investigate? Commission Bills 101.

The merit of a political investigation depends on the state — limits and alternatives are recommended

Outcomes of past wireless health risk investigations have varied by state:

    • New Hampshire – successful acknowledgment of risks and suggestions for improvements
    • Oregon – nothing to see, according to failed investigation

In New York, Doug Wood of Americans for Safe Technology states he has connections and the sense of being able to positively influence the appointees for two similar investigation bills in the NY Assembly (A6448) and Senate (S5926), and he has requested support. This bill must be followed by interested New Yorkers to determine whether continued public support is warranted.

The success of such a bill depends on political intergrity. In many states, political pressures would likely interfere. Popular support forced the Oregon bill forward, but backroom deals watered down the bill such as by omitting all animal studies from consideration.

Even if a bill states that appointees must be ‘experts’ on issues, the industry has consultants & nonprofits at the ready who can claim expertise in nearly any topic, whether or not sincere. Rather than trust, safeguards must exist to prevent industry influence.

The same risk is true for an existing Massachusetts bill, An Act for Disclosure of Radiofrequency Notifications (S. 186), sponsored by Senator Cyr, could backfire.

In 2020 other advocates pushed the bill forward, but Last Tree Laws and I campaigned against the MA bill and direct & indirect appointments by our state governor, who has been widely accused of favoring utility and broadband interests. Neither could the state legislature, now facing a popular campaign changing lack of transparency and integrity, be an expected savior.

In sum, due to political pressures, an investigation bill with substantial political appointments is likely to have a less than gratifying outcome in most states.

To investigate or not to investigate?

The claim is that an investigation provides impetus for change, through education and publicity. Certainly, if grounded in sincerity, that is true.

Yet, technically, legislators have learned about this issue from testimony in public hearings and directly from constituents, and constituents can even easily access and share expert online presentations.

In Massachusetts, when environmental health issues have been at odds with economics, popular demand has pushed issues to the forefront and not legislative investigative commissions. Examples such as halting the gas pipeline, halting biomass facilities, quitting dangerous pesticide use, shutting down nuclear energy facilities demonstrate legislative action results from popular demands rather than legislative commissions.

Setting a new precedent where action requires a “commission” where legislators can become experts as educated by other experts I think is rather dangerous.

Passage of a bill generally takes two years in Massachusetts. This means focusing on an investigation bill could mean waiting two years for a commission, and more years for action on other bills. That delay could be used by industry to protect assets and otherwise limit justice, such as further degrading constituent power. Therefore, I advocate for more direct, concrete bills for change, such as listed under the MA Legislation page.

Adapting a Wireless Investigation Bill for Good Purpose

If choosing to adapt a wireless investigation bill, then there are several options to limit political pressure.

One option is to balance political appointees with independent, outside groups. Selection is critical! Outside groups with good reputation, fairly independent of the issue, should make the majority of the appointments to reduce politics or charges of prejudice.

Board members of the group and donation dependence needs to be vetted. Big organizations may have big donors that are a conflict of interest, and hierarchy may prevent the members from much say. The Audubon Society allows each state branch independence — so it depends on how each independent version is run.

Other ideas to increase independence include limiting the connections of appointees to industry.

Below is one draft I worked on in 2020 which may be useful for comparison and ideas, especially on limiting conflicts of interest. Most commissions have 12 or fewer appointees, but this draft has a great number of appointees for consideration.

I never finished, and instead broke down the bill to focus on a commission for security and emergency services. One reason is a smaller commission is easier to define. Secondly, I felt that was an issue on which research has not been synthesized, where education is needed, and where there is a greater balance of power is needed to counteract politics. Thirdly, police and security forces are treated with respect if only due to fear, and the union remains powerful. For this reason, I felt a commission to examine the impact of technology on emergency and security services could be useful and lead to positive changes.

DRAFT: An Electromagnetic (Wireless, Electricity) Investigation

Prepared by Kirstin Beatty (Beatty.fyi, co-chair of Last Tree Laws)
2 December 2020

SECTION 1. Whereas, other countries and some states have chosen to limit or ban certain exposures to wireless or electrical frequencies.

Whereas, reputable, peer-reviewed evidence shows wireless frequencies may cause or promote cancer, heart disease, and learning problems – such as research on cancer by the U.S. National Toxicology Program.

Whereas, peer-reviewed science associates certain types of electric exposures with cancer, infertility, and miscarriage.

Whereas, Massachusetts residents would benefit from a review of the science and potential solutions free of influence from corporate and political interests.

Whereas, the following investigative commission reduces political pressure by diversifying who appoints, restricting appointments by politicians, and setting limits on conflicts of interest.

SECTION 2. Resolved, Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, there shall be a special commission, hereafter called the commission, to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) radiation ranging from zero to 300 Ghz, with respect to consumer protection, public health, and the environment to determine, if detrimental, how to equitably allay environmental and health impacts.

(a) Commission objectives. The commission shall convene no later than 60 days following enactment in order to research and review non-industry-funded and peer-reviewed science regarding EMR, inviting comment from medical and scientific experts independent of industry.

If concerns are deemed warranted, the commission shall with respect to safer housing, utilities, business, public health, environment, and telecommunications:

(i) identify and review the current state laws, regulations, and administrative directives; (ii) identify the key sectors and regions that would best benefit from improved legislation, regulations, and administrative directives;
(iii) secondarily, as time allows, identify same at the federal level;
(iv) identify funding sources for recommendations;
(v) require the department of housing and economic development to submit reports to the legislature it obtains from cellular and cellular technology companies;
(vi) set a schedule, dividing into smaller committees as warranted to meet objectives; (vii) invite testimony from other experts as useful; and
(viii) may accept public testimony.

The commission shall submit a report of its findings, or a series of reports, including any draft legislation and regulations, to the clerks of the house of representatives and the senate within 16 months of the passage of this act.

(b) Transparency. The commission’s meetings and communications shall be recorded and subject to the Massachusetts open meeting laws so as to be transparent.

(c) Formation and resources.The Office of the Governor shall organize and support the commission arrangements. The chairperson or chairpersons shall with the commission members set a meeting schedule. Commission members shall elect a chair by majority vote, who may be replaced at any time upon majority vote. If the commission members break into smaller committees, the same process shall apply. Commission member attendance and expert testimony by videoteleconference or telephone shall be allowed.

The commission shall be assisted by and have access to all the resources available to the legislature and the executive branch in its investigations.

(d) The commission shall have the following composition:

(a) The Attorney General or designee;
(b) A nominee of the Massachusetts Teachers Association or Boston Teachers Union;
(c) A nominee of the Massachusetts School Nurse Association;
(c) One union member nominated by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO;
(d) One telecommunications worker representative nominated by the Communications Workers of America;
(e) One doctor nominated by the American Environmental Academy of Medicine;
(f) One scientist nominated by the Silent Spring Institute;
(g) One doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Medical Society, ideally with expertise in either cancer, neuroscience, or infertility;
(h) One scientist nominated by New England-based Community Action Works, formerly the Toxics Action Center;
(i) One pediatric doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics;
(j) One doctor nominated by the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility;
(k) One doctor or scientists nominated by the Environmental Health Trust [or Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition];
(l) One representative or lawyer nominated by the Massachusetts Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action;
(m) 2 representatives nominated by the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union;
(n) 2 nominees from the Institute of Building Biology & Sustainable IBN
(o) A representative of the State House selected by the Speaker of the House;
(p) A senator of the State Senate selected by the President of the Senate;
(q) A representative of small business appointed by the governor;
(r) 3 non-voting members appointed by governor:
Telecommunications representative;
Medical system representative;
Engineer in wireless networks;
(s) 4 non-voting commissioners, directors, or their designees for the following departments:
Public Health;
Telecommunications and Cable;
Technical Assistance and Technology Office;
Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation.

(e) Conflicts of interest. No member, except a non-voting member, or spouse of voting member of the Commission shall have a history involving current telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility industry clients or job dependency; nor shall any voting member have a current investment portfolio with conflicts of interest in the areas of energy, telecommunications, IT, or utilities. No voting member or spouse of a voting member of the Commission shall receive funding or a job from telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility sectors in the two years following the commission’s final report. All commission members must file a statement detailing any relevant conflicts of interest as specified, including activities in relation to immediate family and extended family members. Copies must be freely available for viewing by the public. These statements must be filed with the Secretary of State during the commission period and in the two years following closure of the commission.

Chairmanship, legislative and policy decisions for reports to the Commonwealth shall be decided by vote only of all members with voting status.

Only members deemed voting members may author commission reports. Any commission member deemed a non-voting member shall recuse himself or herself from any commission votes to decide or influence the commission reports, and shall instead serve only to assist the commission. Any nominee with conflicts of interest intended as a voting member shall recuse himself or herself from nomination, except insofar as the nominee’s job represents a conflict of interest, is specified in subsection (d), and the individual is not described as non-voting.




Federal wireless bills and 2 phone scripts

The wireless industry has federal bills to halt local community control over wireless infrastructure placement AND to end currently required environmental reviews.

Call or write to tell your house representative to stop these bills and why — be brief (see phone script below). Find your federal house representative here:




Also, call the following persons to say: “I object to wireless exposures based on health considerations and want federal investments in WIRED ONLY and the FCC commissioner set on WIRED communications.”

Here is a phone or email script:

I object to house legislation to limit local rights to contest deployment of wireless infrastructure, including to eliminate NEPA environmental review.

I ask you to remove Title I from the Lift America Act (HR 2741) to prevent the auction of further wireless spectrum; halt increasing 911 wireless power density; and stop funding of communication infrastructure that lacks consideration for safety.

I ask you to halt these 5G bills:

    • HR 1060,
    • 1069, and
    • 1074 [Slowly list so numbers can be written down].

I ask you oppose these bills for the same reasons:

    • HR 1039,
    • 1043,
    • 1045,
    • 1051,
    • 1053,
    • 1056,
    • 1058,
    • 1064, and
    • 1067 .

One last bill is simply to create broadband availability maps, but this could be improved by identifying the state of wired broadband and telecommunications availability. This bill is: HR 1044.

Related, I ask you to remove Title III of the Lift America Act (HR 2741), for similar safety reasons with respect to electric vehicle charging, and remove sections of Title IV to prevent further broadband or energy requirements with respect to on health information technology

Lastly, I ask that you support a commission of relevant, independent scientists, medical experts, and engineers to examine how to insure non-ionizing radiation exposures from electricity and communications are limited for public and environmental health.


    1. H.R. 1060: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline siting processes for personal wireless service facilities, including small personal wireless service facilities, and for … other purposes.
    2. H.R. 1069: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that the Federal Communications Commission is not required to perform any review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or division A of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, as a condition of permitting the placement and installation of a communications facility, and for other purposes.
    3. H.R. 1074: To provide that the deployment of a small personal wireless service facility shall not constitute an undertaking under section 300320 of title 54, United States Code, or a major Federal action for the purposes of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and for other purposes.
    4. H.R. 1039: To provide that a project for the deployment or modification of a communications facility entirely within a floodplain is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    5. H.R. 1043: To provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews. [Note: https://wia.org/wp-content/uploads/Advocacy_Docs/6409a_Siting_Checklist.pdf]
    6. .R. 1045: To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to amend the definition of eligible facilities request, to codify the 60-day time frame for certain eligible facilities …
    7. H.R. 1051: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline siting processes for telecommunications service facilities, and for other purposes.
    8. H.R. 1053: To provide that a project to remove and replace communications equipment or services listed under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    9. H.R. 1056: To provide that a project for the collocation of a personal wireless service facility is not subject to requirements to prepare certain environmental or historical preservation reviews.
    10. H.R. 1058: To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to amend the definition of eligible facilities request, to codify the 60-day time frame for certain eligible facilities, and for other purposes.
    11. H.R. 1064: To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to amend provisions relating to franchise term and termination and provisions relating to the elimination or modification of requirements in franchises, and for other purposes.
    12. H.R. 1067: To streamline the process for consideration of applications for the placement of communications facilities on certain buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

The following bill is simply to create a map of broadband accessibility, which ought to be a neutral task.

  1. H.R. 1044: To create a task force at the Federal Communications Commission to ensure the policy and funding decisions of the Commission are informed by data collection and analysis required in title VIII of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.

Initial List of MA Legislation to Support 2021

Scroll down for relevant Massachusetts bills on ecology and tech.

To protect environmental and public health, we must protect the trees and limit and regulate exposures to wireless and certain types of electricity – certain types of exposures are worse and must be curtailed. To protect humanity, we need also to regulate technology use.

PDF: Updated MA-legislation

Bills Supported by Last Tree Laws

H. 110 An Act halting 5G high frequencies and close proximity antennas. Why? Hard-wiring alone will not stop residential 5G or more cell towers. Because the FCC makes saying no tough and for some new technologies it bypasses local permitting, the state must act. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty

HD.3394 An Act studying technology impacts on police, firefighters, and emergency and security personnel. Summary: Invites police and firefighters to examine how to address health impacts of technology with a few experts and 1 black lives matter representative. Note: The IAFF, which represents many MA firefighter unions, is officially against antennas on fire stations. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty

H.112 An Act hard-wiring state offices and investing in hard-wired communications. Summary: Massworks, Massachusetts Broadband Institute, the executive office of info tech, the director of wireless & telecommunications — all are to use or invest in wired, not wireless tech. The MBI board constitution is slightly changed to bring in public health and privacy advocates. The Ed. commissioner is to develop a plan to hard-wire public educational institutions. Also, requires an annual, public audit report from telecommunication companies and utilities, and sets penalties for lack of compliance, changing from an optional audit. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty

H. 105 An Act reducing non-ionizing radiation such as wireless from early to higher education. Summary: The bill requires hard-wiring broadband services and reducing non-ionizing radiation with reasonable deadlines in public schools through higher education. Early education executive offices are to examine how to reduce such exposures and set guidelines. Also, it provides that schools take steps to reduce power density of wireless so long as in use. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty & Rep. Patricia Duffy

H.108 An Act supporting patients and residents suffering from environmental pollutants and modern technologies, e.g. wireless. Summary: Doctors, nurses, and practical nurses are trained regarding health impacts of wireless & certain kinds of electricity, and insurance covers patient education on the same. Patients with leukemia & lymphoma are given extra help. Nursing homes and medical providers are to work towards reducing such exposures. Nutritional therapy is to adopted. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty & Rep. Patricia Duffy

H.109 An Act improving non-ionizing radiation regulation and monitoring. Summary: Supports reporting to the state of all cellular infrastructure with names of owners, etc., public mapping of sites, qui tam exposure monitoring, state exposure monitoring, a public listing of consultants, dedicated monitoring employees, and allows for state fines — adaptation of original statutes. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty

H. 113 An Act requiring wireless insurance. Why? Insurance companies will provide oversight and incentive to limit the most dangerous exposures, and the insurance provides protections. Personal devices and appliances are exempted. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty

H.111 An Act requiring better power quality and reduced radiation from utility infrastructure. Summary: Requires utilities protect privacy and insure electromagnetic public exposures fall within ranges of ‘slight concern’ based on Building Biology guidelines. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty

H. 106 An Act regulating screen time in early and K-12 education. Summary: This bill allows school communities to set screen time limits, and sets limits on screen time in early education. The bill requires that Massachusetts state standards remove mandates for screen time from PreK on up, unless specific to the subject. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty & Rep. Patricia Duffy

H. 107 An Act regulating privacy and technology in education. Summary: PreK-12 and higher education are to set data processing agreements with providers abiding with privacy intent of section and limit data collection to that necessary for an expressed purpose. The state is to pull back and revise its requirements so as to limit data collection, and to examine whether some information can be kept inhouse, offline, or in closed systems. Also, it protects teachers from the theft of academic work by EdTech or IT companies, and respects that teachers’ work is their own partly in order to protect job status as education is increasingly automated. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty & Rep. Patricia Duffy

H. 895 An Act ending water fluoridation. Why? There is a current federal court case where the EPA appears to be losing because of the judicial statements and EPA’s acknowledgements, yet ending water fluoridation is hard under the current statute. More information on the trial at Food & Water Watch or Fluoride Action. Sponsor: Kirstin Beatty


An Act relative to smart metersSD. 163 – This bill is meant to allow individuals to opt out of a wireless smart meter at no cost. This is a very good bill, although it does not address apartment dwellers who may have 20 or more smart meters on one wall. Sponsor: Senator Michael Moore

An Act Establishing the Municipal Reforestation ProgramH.905 S. 1323 Summary: Each municipality creates a reforestation plan the state financially & technically supports, prioritizing needy. Sponsors: Senator Creem and Representatives Lewis, Ehrlich, and Owens

An Act to update the public shade tree lawS. 1323 H.2195 Summary: No one may trim or cut down a municipal tree without municipal tree warden permission. Tree wardens may make regulations to be approved by town authorities. Why? More tree belts are being cut down for better 5G transmissions, to install close proximity antennas, by utilities due to the fires in CA. Some towns fail to get any protection together. Sponsor: Senator Cindy Creem, Rep. Steven Owens

An Act relative to a streaming entertainment operator’s use of the public rights-of-way.

    • H. 130 Summary: Taxes at 5% use of public rights-of-way by streaming providers. Gives state right to audit profits. Sponsors: Joan Meschino , Paul F. Tucker
    • S.2200Summary: Similar, but in senate. Sponsors: Jason Lewis, Kenneth L. Gordon

An Act to protect personal biometric dataS.220 Summary: As title states, sets some limits. Sponsor: Mark C. Montigny

An Act relative to data privacy HD. 3847 – Creates executive agency of privacy with head approved by multiple parties. Sponsors: Representatives David M. Rogers , Andres X. Vargas

An Act relative to student and educator data privacyH.127 Summary: Requires that K-12 educational data processors do not use data for ads or sales, secure data, and allows suits for violations. Could accompany school privacy bill HD 3347 above as well. Sponsors: Representatives Kate Lipper-Garabedian & Jeffrey N. Roy

An Act relative to the digital right to repairHD. 260 SD. 199 Summary: Allows independent repair of digital devices. This helps by (1) providing competition for price and quality of doing job well, (2) increases number of people able to fix devices and provides local jobs, and (3) reduces enormous amounts of electronic waste pollution. Sponsor: Rep. Claire D. Cronin, Sen. Michael J. Brady

An Act establishing the Massachusetts Information Privacy ActSD. 1726 Summary: I have not read this one in full. It seems to require that data processors be honest about uses, allow correction or deletion of non-public information, and implement practices and promises to protect privacy. Sponsor: Senator Creem

An Act relative to wifi and cellular infrastructure along rail linesS.2195 Summary: Senator John Keenan is putting forward a bill to require railroad antennas have local zoning approval BUT ONLY for Quincy, Braintree, Abington, and Rockland – therefore, not as interesting to support so all railroad towns need to be included.

Bills for School Recess Protections:

      • H.566 — at least 20 minutes of recess a day to grade 5, no reduction in recess time. Sponsors: Rep. Decker, etc. (Click link)
      • S.383 — same as above. Sponsors: Sen. Rush, etc. (Click link)

An Act for Massachusetts Toxic Free KidsH.939 Summary: Requires Department of Environmental Protection, working with Toxics Use Institute, to publish a list of toxics in children’s toys, update every 4 years, and begin to set limits on sale. Sponsors: Representatives James Hawkins and Tami Gouveia


Nothing personal, but there are reasons to oppose these bills.

An Act internet access on private waysHD 2252 – requires internet service in public rights of way – problematic due to internet service equating to powerful antennas potentially just a block or two apart in residential areas.

An Act relative to a 5G technology task forces HD 2898problematic due to 5G equating to powerful antennas likely just a block or two apart in residential areas.

Resolve relative to disclosure of radio frequency notifications SD 214 Last session we worked to oppose this bill – so much work! We tried and tried to get in contact with the sponsor without hearing back. The issue is all these nominations are by the governor and his conduct so far has not been supportive. Supporting such a bill is a big risk and moving it forward would be another time waster as last session it took up so much time. Also, we’re not big on all the many purposes of the bill — these objectives mostly ignore things important to people who are sick from exposures.


An Act relative to best management practices for wireless in schools and public institutions of higher education HD 1723 This bill mistakenly suggests wireless is safe. Supporting this bill gives an illusion wireless is A-OK. Our energy, while it remains, needs to go to hard-wiring instead.

H. 2351 An Act relative to a special commission to study electric and magnetic fields – This investigation lacks full independence. The American Cancer Society has licensing agreements and donations from utilities and the Environmental League of Massachusetts may also be questionable as it works closely with a big business corporate council, at one time included a smart meter expert in its administration, and has industries like electric cars as top priorities, rather than environmental health issues as top priorities. Sponsor: Rep. David Paul Linsky

Quick Call: Co-Sponsorship Requests!

There is a new list of bills Last Tree Laws will support, though not all will receive equal or full attention.

Please call your legislators to request support or cosponsorship – instructions below! Senators can cosponsor until public hearings. State representatives cannot cosponsor but getting support from them is very important for future votes!

Most legislators know of these issues, but if you need more info please see the Resources page. There are also posts on Facebook and I’m on Twitter to share relevant social media images occasionally.

Please tell me who you call and who listens or cosponsors.

~ Best, Kirstin


Hi, my name is _________, and I am a constituent of ______ (name town).

I am calling to request that __________ cosponsor or support the bills supported by Last Tree Laws to limit wireless radiation. All bills are listed at LastTreeLaws.com, including a PDF listing.

These bills are the first step to begin hard-wiring the state and limiting our wireless exposures.

I would appreciate if you would confirm support or co-sponsorships. You can call me at ________.

Please understand this is very important! __[SAY WHY OR SAY THE FOLLOWING:]. The Federal Communications Commission is in court about the safety of its wireless exposure guidelines and likely to lose according to recent statements of the presiding judges. The LA public schools were just required by the CA Court of Appeals to provide disability accommodations for a teacher’s sensitivity to wireless. Clearly, there is something wrong with wireless.

Thank you for efforts!

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

New Hampshire Report Supports Restricting Wireless

By Kirstin Beatty on 31 October 2020


A New Hampshire commission has released a report recommending that wireless expansion be reversed on the basis of public health.

The recommendations include migrating schools and public libraries away from wireless, providing health warnings, mapping and labeling cell towers, and adopting policies to hard-wire communications.

Some of the recommendations by the commission, such as setbacks from cell towers, reflect measures included in ordinances across the nation designed to limit 5G cell towers.

In Massachusetts, towns such as Cambridge, Burlington, and Worcester have adopted new ordinances to regulate new technologies like small cell towers, but many other municipalities question the right to set requirements.

To protect residents more universally, the New Hampshire Commission recommends state-wide laws to regulate cell towers. The trick is to make sure state-wide laws are strong and protective, rather than weak regulations that limit the setting of more stringent local zoning laws. Legislators in the pockets of industry can easily turn a promise of protection into a trap. States such as Connecticut have enacted state-wide regulations that weaken, instead of strengthen, local zoning protection.

The commission was initially formed after passage of NH bill HB 522 written by Rep. Abrami, which he wrote after investigating the concerns of resident Deb Hodgdon. The commission’s finding are the result of a months-long investigation by an independent state commission including:

    • Paul Héroux, PhD, a scientist in the electromagnetic field
    • University of New Hampshire electrical and computer chair specializing in electromagnetics, Kent Chamberlain, PhD
    • 5 legislators, including:
    • Bedford Town Councilor Denise Ricciardi
    • two industry representatives, Bethanne Cooley (CTIA) and David Juvett (Business and Wireless Association);
    • Brandon Garrod, Esq., from the Attorney General’s office;and
    • state agency representatives:
      • Michele Roberge (health) and
      • Carol Miller (business).

Of the commission members, two industry representatives and Senator James Gray, a former naval engineer, opted to write an opposing report reflecting industry views.

Full recommendations of the commission can be found online as the Final Report of the Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology (HB 522, Chapter 260, Laws of 2019, RSA12-K:12-1).

Many of the recommendations reflect legislation I put forward in Massachusetts, via my legislator and posted here on LastTreeLaws.com, but which have not moved forward: to hard-wire public libraries, limit school wireless, invest in hard-wiring infrastructure, register cell towers, and educate medical professionals and patients. Some recommendations reflect ideas I researched and developed with an ordinance group, and then further placed in a sample ordinance for Massachusetts. The overlap is welcome, yet more must be done to improve organizing and lobbying to enact these recommendations.

A summary of the recommendations is listed below, as well as links to presentations.

    1. Resolution for US Congress to require FCC to conduct an independent study into mitigation and health effects.
    2. Require appropriate NH agencies provide health warnings, particularly for newborns, pregnant women, and youth.
    3. Label every small cell tower antenna, in such a way as to be legible 9 feet away.
    4. Migrate schools and public libraries away from wireless.
    5. Measure radiation at all facilities, repeating at every instance of software or other relevant change, with costs borne by the site installer.
    6. Improving accuracy of cellular radiation.
    7. Setbacks from businesses, schools, private citizens.
    8. Upgrade the educational offerings of home inspectors to include private measurements.
    9. Map state-wide measurements.
    10. Require cellphone software to prevent radiation when held against the body.
    11. Adopt a state-wide position to hard-wire and use fiberoptic cables.
      Use warning signs in buildings. Establish safe zones in hospitals, state, and commercial buildings for refuge, especially for those sensitive to exposures.
    12. Engage scientists with ecological knowledge to establish measures to protect nature.
    13. Legislate that the FCC do a NEPA (environmental) evaluation of the state- and country-wide impact of wireless expansion.

The following are direct links to presentations given to the commission:

The following are 2 examples of presentations recorded in the minutes – with notes to highlight some points:

  • Dr. Tim Schoechle, on policy
  • Dr. Paul Heroux on historical background of federal guidelines and scientific aspects, – notable points:
  • History perspective:
    • US guidelines were developed by 15 people, 10 being from the military.
    • USAF exposure limits from 1960 survived more or less as the current US limits – at the time, lowering the exposure limits was considered antipatriotic due to use by military
    • Soviets based exposure limits on nervous system disturbances, and differentiated limits between the public and military.
    • 44% of the world has lower limits than the USA and most of the western world.
  • Industry will want to change federal exposure limits to prevent 5G phones from being illegal
  • 5G Necessity:
    • Remote medicine can be accomplished with FioS, you do not need 5G
    • 5G is not necessary for autonomous vehicles
  • Wireless Properties & Effects:
    • 5G mmW penetrate further than the UV waves from the sun
    • 5G beam steering and focusing is a new aspect
    • 5G beams can be narrowed to 3 to 10 degrees in width
    • 5G frequency can change every 12.5 seconds
    • Amplitude modulation, modulated by a person’s voice, of wireless and digital amounts to being hit, a pulsing, and has a more negative effect than analog which is more like a push.
    • 5G will create more problematic noise (like static)
  • Health impacts:
    • altered enzyme activity, biochemical changes, oxidative changes (ROS), pathological cell changes, neuro-behavioral changes, DNA damage, altered gene instruction, brain wave changes [hundreds of research papers]
    • cancer cells all react to wireless & other non-ionizing radiation
    • most at risk: youth, brain, pancreas
  • Dr. Herman Kelter on 4G and 5G power densities and associated health effects, sample points:
    • Manufacture of antennas may malfunction, increasing exposures
    • With multiple transmitters in an enclosed space, meters understate the actual power density due to variations in space
    • Pulsating, peak power of great concern
    • 5G may lead to:
      • temperature spikes and tissue damage in skin
      • more adverse effect than recorded for 5G mmW frequencies due to combination of pulsing, data sending, and special phased array antennas
      • Sommerfeld and Brillouin precursors are induced in the body, damaging cells and organs by moving charged particles [Albanese,R, Blaschak, J, Medina, R, Penn, J. “Ultrashort Electromagnetic Signals: Biophysical Questions, Page 13of 34Safety issues, and Medical Opportunities.” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine. May 1994: A116-A120 (“Albanese May 1994”.; see also OMB No. 0704-0188 94-24875 AD-A282 990 dated Jan 90-Aug 93; Jakobsen PK and Masud Mansuripur. “On the Nature of the Sommerfeld-Brillouin Forerunners (or Precursors.” Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foundations(November 8, 2019)]
    • Bioweapon capability enhanced by targeted 5G beam, which envelopes user, by facial recognition software, and by ability to intensify beam using software – one known instance of wireless being used in past to injure Catholics in Northern Island in conjunction with investigation by Dr. Barrie Trower
    • Associated with exposures:
      • rising suicides and reduced mental health – Dr. Kelting suggests federal agencies have concealed this by removing the online federal data after he sent a letter informing of rising suicides
      • brain damage to fetuses, miscarriages, cancer, children’s behavioral difficulties, ADHD, cancer of the brain, salivary gland, and breasts; leukemia, anxiety, depression, stress, sleep disturbances, reduction in melatonin, cataracts, inflammation; damage to the testes, sperm, blood brain barrier, DNA (damage through strand breaks), eyes, heart, thyroid hormones, electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EMH), damage to the autoimmune system, etc.

Request to Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

Please share with medical professionals. Scroll down for PDF version.

13 October 2020

Request to All Medical Professionals for Electromagnetic Education

Fighting against environmental pollutants is often hindered by ignorance, corporate public relations, and the burden of harm. Death and disability has resulted from industry denial, as seen with tobacco, asbestos, and other products.

Most experts in the field recommend rolling back wireless and other electromagnetic exposures, yet these voices have been neglected in mainstream U.S. news, even though the evidence is very strong that wireless greatly increases cancer, infertility, and contributes overall to ill health and disease.

Medical professionals have a pivotal say in whether society recognizes environmental pollutants and their ensuing harm.

Given this social responsibility, as a medical professional, wireless awareness and education is critical. Excellent free resources are available online as well as medical conferences that may provide CMEs, support networking, and help establish a broad base of knowledge.

Because of the relationship of wireless to industry and military interests, unified public support is needed. As a medical professional, you can directly influence public awareness, understanding, and support, thus persuading public officials and the courts to change course. Unified public statements by medical groups, associations, and professional medical guidance to every single patient are needed to help shift public opinion and protect patients.

In Massachusetts, I’ve written many state legislative solutions, such as policies to reduce exposures in medical settings, but seen these die. Legislators shy from sponsoring bills for actual change, or leadership prevents a vote. Instead, legislators have advanced legislation focused on protecting big business, such as allowing industry dominance on a legislative commission to propose 5G laws, and some advocates have mistakenly supported problematic bills. I am concerned that some are willing to delay progress due to timidity or even for personal gain, and that deceptive legislation favoring businesses will continue to move forward under the guise of “moderation” and empty promises.

I hope for patient education on safer technology habits and your support.


Kirstin Beatty

Co-chair of Last Tree Laws

Massachusetts ballot measure committee



  1. Beatty.fyi is my own blog, with a resume of my advocacy since c. 2013

  2. MA Legislation at https://LastTreeLaws.com/ma-legislation; lawsuits and other examples of state legislation on top menu

  3. Register for virtual conference, held 28-31 January, Thursday – Sunday, at https://emfconference2021.com/

  4. Bioinitiative dot org (see Henry Lai’s research summaries)

  5. Physicians for Safe Technology and SaferEMR.com

  6. EMF-Portal search engine (Aachen University, Germany)

  7. Additional resources at https://lasttreelaws.com/local/ ~ and the recent New Hampshire Report recommending reduction of wireless exposures: https://lasttreelaws.com/11/nhreport/


PDF DOWNLOAD: Request for Medical Education




Asking Legislators to Sponsor Bills – Model

The following is an UPDATED model to ask state legislators to sponsor bills as listed under MA Legislationmake a phone call first!

Legislative contact information can be found at the MA legislature or Openstates. For Kirstin’s #, contact by email!



Hello Senator ____ and Representative ______:

I’m following up to ask if you would like to be a lead or supporting sponsor on one or more bills to regulate wireless, many written by Last Tree Laws co-chair Kirstin Beatty of Holyoke. A summary of bills is listed in the attachments, details are online at Last Tree Laws under MA Legislation.

Research indicates wireless is extremely harmful to our health, environment, and even a factor in climate change (see links to educational resources in attachments below).

Champions and supporters are needed.

Are you willing to:
    • sponsor or champion any of these bills?
    • join other sponsors to support their existing bills?
    • willing to call or email Kirstin to share feedback or offer assistance?

I hope so – you can email Kirstin using lasttreelaws@ followed by pm.me and cc: me if willing to help.

Best wishes,


Attached Below:
  1. Overview of proposed MA Legislation
  2. Educational resources on topic

Overview: proposed MA Legislation at Last Tree Laws:

  • 2020 – in play now!

    1. amendment to make 5G investigation more neutral – see version here or under MA legislation.
    2. opt out of smart meters (S. 1988) – Sen. Michael Moore
  • 2020 > 2021 – bills with prior sponsors:
    1. opting out of smart meters bill (S. 1988, still in play) – Sen. Michael Moore
    2. state recommendations for school exposures (changes recommended to strengthen) – Rep. Carolyn Dykema
    3. local control of cellular siting by railroads – Sen. Keenan
    4. Note – Senator Cyr’s bill on cellphone labeling probably can’t go forward due to a recent federal appeals court decision against labeling.
  • 2021 bills – ready as is:
    1. independent wireless investigation (see 2020 amendment above)
    2. hard-wire libraries
    3. set school policy to reduce electromagnetic radiation/wireless
    4. reduce school screen time, but retaining local control
  • 2021feedback sought, can be adapted
    1. make reducing exposures a quality control measure at hospitals (review)
    2. fund to hard-wire public schools
    3. educate patients
    4. ban certain dangerous facilities (review & discussion)
    5. registering towers – this was cosponsored with me in 2020 by Rep. Gonzalez
    6. Protect school technological privacy and safety (2 or 3 versions exist, one is listed)
    7. invest in hard-wiring facilities – this was cosponsored with me in 2020 by Rep. Gonzalez
  • 2021 bills suggested to write (see link for detailed content)
    1. resolution to reduce wireless
    2. setting insurance requirements on all cellular infrastructure
    3. monitoring of wireless levels
    4. set standard warning label for all manufactured goods (intended to get around prohibition on consumer awareness of cellphone warnings buried in manual)
    5. accounting transparency of state monies invested in telecommunications (will post version from another state when time)
  1. Education:

  2. General facts
  3. Disturbing reproductive effects, presentation reviewed by Dr. Paul Heroux
  4. 71 of 82 studies find wireless harmful to insects likely significant cause of decline; wireless harms & heats bees; research listing of nature’s sensitivity.
  5. At 35:23, Dr. Devra Devries says a cow brain heated to 140 degrees Fahrenheit from 6 minutes 5G frequency exposure (39 GHz) – study by IEEE life-long fellow.
  6. Digital technology inordinately draws on energy, increases consumption, and creates pollution and waste.
  7. Climate change may be substantially influenced by wireless increasing electron precipitation (p.4, section 2).
  8. Digital technology is hijacking minds, & digital entrepreneurs are unplugging
  9. Opening of the blood-brain barrier for 2 weeks or more from wireless exposure, Physicians for Safe Technology – note this effect favors meningitis, Alzheimer’s, other nervous system diseases, etc.
  10. Immune & endocrine system harmed, Physicians for Safe Technology (scroll down page for research)
  11. Symptoms of exposure & electromagnetic sensitivity, by Dr. Beatrice Golomb (acclaimed research for work with statins, Gulf War illness)
  12. 5G summary (cataracts, bacterial resistance, etc.) by physician Dr. Cindy Russell
  13. Regulators steamroll health concerns (Dr. Moskowitz, Washington Spectator)
  14. World policy or regulations to restrict exposures, Environmental Health Trust

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

Support Attorney Healey’s Smart Grid Investigation

By Kirstin Beatty

Update20 April 2021:

The lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Utilities has not demonstrated any interest in our presentations. I lay the blame largely before the DPU, which has consistently played loose with law in favor of specia utilityl interests!

Update 6 November 2020:

November 17 & 20, the DPU is holding virtual technical conferences on the smart grid, which advocates can present regarding opt-out provisions on November 20th at the very end, within a one hour slot, with the request being that repetition of prior testimony be avoided and a joint presentation occur synthesizing ideas.

The topic of the technical conferences is essentially to discuss technical workings & needs of smart grid, appearing to acccept smart grid expansion and continuation as a done deal. I initially thought was meant to discuss the uneven burden of ratepayer costs upon those without EV – but that doesn’t seem to be considered. The only recognition of the health issue appears to be the possibility of an opt-out provision.

If you have facts or suggestions for topics to include in a synthesized presentation, please email using addresses in the footer.


Deadline: Friday, 4 September, 5 PM Eastern.


The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities is accepting public “reply” comments on whether to expand the smart meter program, possibly to serve electric vehicles (EV). As a result of existing comments on the docket by various organizations and individuals as described here, the Massachusetts Attorney General is initiating a public investigation into the matters discussed in the docket, which included counter-arguments to the grid for reasons of health, environment, economic justice and civil rights.

See an excerpt of the statement, where the Attorney General states she is engaging consultants to investigate the claims and suggest (propound) discovery, a pre-trial procedure: “better insure an outcome in this proceeding that is in the best interests of ratepayers, the Attorney General’s Office must engage consultants with the expertise to review and analyze the material filed in response to the Department’s Vote and Order, and to assist the Attorney General’s Office in preparing itw own filings and in propounding discovery . . . “


Reply comments could help guide the Attorney General, with domino effects on smart grids in Massachusetts and others states, as well as upon 5G and other wireless technologies.

Reply comments are meant to reply to existing comments in the docket. The Attorney General’s initial comment was in support of smart meters in order to advance green technology and to save energy.

Filing comments may mean that you can be included in any court case filed against the DPU or the state. You would need to say in the docket and be able to prove you are being or would be harmed by grid expansion.

Do say if the smart grid harms you & how.

If expounding on a topic, pick one or two and just do those well – the AG may have to read all comments. The best reply comments would probably include or be as follows:

      • Information on why smart meters are not green
      • Personal suffering and disability caused by the smart grid and/or wireless
      • Scientific and medical references
      • References from proven sources
      • Submissions from scientific and medical experts
      • Submissions by legislators, such as Senator Moore submitted
      • To thank Last Tree Laws, please link to the website in your submission!

A template and instructions are provided below.

Much thanks to Patricia Burke, who initially was very active with Halt Smart Meters Massachusetts and is likely the state smart meter expert, for sending a mass email encouraging comments on the DPU docket and for suggesting the topics of economic and environmental justice as well as health. Patricia Burke’s detailed comments can be found online here.

Submission Requirements:

Draft your statement and save as a .pdf file. The DPU requires a .pdf file to be posted to their website.

  1. Observe deadline – fillings are required by Friday, September 4, 5 PM Eastern
  2. Address email to:
    • Peter.Ray@mass.gov
    • Tina.Chin@mass.gov
    • Sarah.Spruce@mass.gov
  3. CC line: Please add Patricia’s gmail account, as she is confirming the DPU receives and posts emails – please cc Last Tree Laws as well:
    • gmail via stopsmartmetersmass@
    • lasttreelaws.com via action@
  4. Subject line for email:
    • Reply Comment MA DPU 20-69 Modernization of Electric Grid Phase Two
  5. Place in text of email:
    • See attached reply comment of ___________ (your name) in Opposition to MA DPU 20-69 Modernization of Electric Grid Phase Two
    • Your name or company, title, credentials
    • Email address
    • Telephone number
    • Note: File size may not exceed 20 MB, so larger files must be split. If you send additional attachments or articles other than your comment, please list them in the email.
  6. Craft your testimony in a separate document (not in the body of the email)
    • See template below.
    • Include your name and credentials at top
    • For all links and references, state at the end: “All references, including links, are incorporated into this testimony by reference.”
    • Do not include personal contact information, which will be posted online as part of the PDF.
  7. Save your document as a PDF. If you’re not sure how to create a .pdf file, reach out to Patricia’s gmail account and she’ll help: stopsmartmetersmass@
  8. Attach the PDF to your email and send.
  9. Check that your PDF is posted a few days later by typing 20-69 into this search box.



FROM:____[Name, credentials]_____

TO: Mark D. Marini, Secretary, Department of Public Utilities, One South Station, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02110

RE: Reply Comment MA DPU 20-69 Modernization of Electric Grid Phase Two

Please halt any smart grid expansion and roll back existing installations. Right now, the question of safe wireless infrastructure is a subject of federal and state court cases. Proceeding is foolish. Smart meters threaten health, safety, resources, energy, and economic justice.

Expanding the smart grid in Massachusetts impacts me because _______.

I am going to discuss: _________.

[Discuss topic – for resources, see SmartMeterHarm dot org (reports); StopSmartMeters dot org (problem page); StopSmartMetersBC dot com (tabs of many issues); MichiganStopSmartMeters dot com (legal and other points); and ElectronicSilentSpring dot com (eco-focus) – EHTrust dot org and MDSafeTech dot org are also helpful]

Please take these concerns into consideration.


Appeal to Amend 5G Bills and Smart Opt Out

Appeal to Amend 5G Bills and Support Allow Smart Meter Opt Out

The following is a simple, short email that can be modified to send to your legislators as well, followed by phone call if no response. Ideally, the committees with the bills would get this as well.
Email addresses:
Speaker of the House Rep. Robert Deleo:
Senator Rodiguez, Chair of Senate Ways & Means: Michael.Rodrigues@masenate.gov
Representative Aaron Michlewitz, Chair of House Ways & Means:
Senate President Karen Spilka:
23 August 2020
Hello Rep.s — and Senators —:
Please set up an appointment with me and co-chair Kirstin Beatty via LastTreeLaws.com (elm@) to discuss relevant legislation for 2021.

Secondly, please fully support S.1988, a bill to allow free opt-outs of wireless digital meters:

      • Support: S. 1988 in the Senate Ways and Means Committee
Thirdly, these two 5G bills benefit or may benefit industry:
      • Halt or Amend: H. 383 is in the House Committee on Rules
      • Amend: S. 129 is in the Senate Ways and Means Committee
Both of these terrible bills can be amended.
Kirstin has written a very sensible replacement text, listed below this email and available at LastTreeLaws.com under MA Legislation, since 5G needs to be halted.
Please act for me and others. I am concerned –[add thoughts]-. Dr. Devra Davis, who shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore, wrote a relevant appeal that Massachusetts legislators protect youth from wireless radiation.


[Add your name]

[Add your town]


For amendment of H. 383 OR S. 129 – a full replacement text

Or as a new bill in 2021

Prepared by Kirstin Beatty (Beatty.fyi, co-chair of Last Tree Laws)

The following changes were made to insure a wide range of stakeholders are representated in all fairness, and to emphasize independence. The major stakeholder missing would be the sick and poor, who haven’t time or money to participate. Excepting the American Environmental Academy of Medicine, none of the organizations have made a public statement on this issue.

A Wireless or Electromagnetic Investigation

Resolved, Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, there shall be a special commission to research the impact of electromagnetic (EMR) and radiofrequency (RFR) radiation on consumer protection, public health, and and the environment, and determine, if detrimental, how to allay health and financial repercussions, the former having primacy.

The commission shall be composed of the following 21 members, as follows:

(a) The Attorney General or designee;

(b) A nominee of the Massachusetts Teachers Association;

(c) One union member nominated by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO;

(d) One telecommunications worker representative nominated by the Communications Workers of America;

(e) One doctor nominated by the American Environmental Academy of Medicine;

(f) One scientist nominated by the Silent Spring Institute;

(g) One doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Medical Society, ideally with expertise in either cancer, neuroscience, or infertility;

(h) One scientist nominated by Community Action Works;

(i) One pediatric doctor nominated by the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics;

(j) One representative or lawyer nominated by the Massachusetts Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action;

(k) 2 representatives nominated by the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union;

(l) A representative of the State House selected by the Speaker of the House;

(m) A senator of the State Senate selected by the President of the Senate;

(n) A representative of small business appointed by the governor;

(o) 3 non-voting members appointed by governor:

    • Telecommunications representative;
    • Medical system representative;
    • Engineer in wireless networks;

(p) 4 non-voting commissioners, directors, or their designees for the following departments:

    • Public Health
    • Telecommunications and Cable;
    • Technical Assistance and Technology Office;
    • Consumer Affairs & Business Regulation.

Chairmanship, legislative and policy decisions for reports to the Commonwealth shall be decided by vote of all members with voting status. Commission members shall elect a chair by majority vote, who may be replaced at any time upon majority vote.

No voting member or spouse of voting member of the commission shall have a history of or current telecommunication, energy, IT, or utility industry clients or job dependency; nor shall any voting member have current telecommunications, energy, IT, or utility direct financial investments exceeding the sum of $5,000. No voting member or spouse of a voting member of the commission shall receive funding or a job from telecommunication, energy, IT, or utilities in the two years following the commission’s final report. All commission members must file a statement of any relevant conflicts of interest as specified above, including in relation to immediate family members, i.e. parents, children, siblings, uncles, aunts, with the Secretary of State during the commission period and continuing through each year until two years after the commission ends. These statements must be made public by the Secretary of State.

The meetings and communications shall be subject to the Massachusetts open meeting laws so as to be transparent. The commission shall be assisted by and have access to the resources available to the legislature and the executive branch in its investigations. The commission shall file a report of its recommendations and proposed legislation or regulatory changes, if any, with the clerks of the House and Senate and with the chairs of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure not later than December 31st 2022, and may file a series of reports.