I. Work With the Legislature and Other Stakeholders to Revise and Update the State Placard Laws.
The RMV should work with the Legislature and other stakeholders to revise and update the state’s placard laws. In particular, the RMV should work with the Legislature to:
- Eliminate the meter-fee exemption or impose a time limit on parking for free at a meter;
- Make the obstruction of a placard number or expiration date, as well as reversing a placard, a citable offense under state law;
- Impose penalties for making a false statement when reporting a placard lost or stolen;
- Increase the fines for misusing a placard;
- Make it a crime to use a deceased person's placard; and
- Expand the RMV's ability to detect and correct placard abuse.
The most urgent change needed is the elimination of the meter-fee exemption for certain placard holders. A two-tier system would grant the meter-fee exemption to placard holders who are physically unable to reach a parking kiosk or insert coins into a meter. This would significantly reduce the financial incentive for individuals to misuse a placard. Based on the success of other cities that have taken this approach, implementing this recommendation would likely eradicate much of the placard abuse this report identifies. The Boston Commission for Persons with Disabilities supports this recommendation.
Alternatively, the RMV should work with state lawmakers to add a time limit to the meter-fee exemption. For example, placard holders could be required to observe the posted time limit for metered spaces. If the RMV pursues this option, the Boston Commission for Persons with Disabilities proposes a four-hour limit for vehicles with placards parked in Boston. A time limit, such as two or four hours, would help curtail placard abuse because it would limit the ability to use a placard to park at a meter all day for free.
Additionally, the RMV should work with the Legislature to require drivers to display the front of placards in vehicle windshields, with the placard number and expiration date clearly visible. The legislation should include fines for violating these requirements. Currently, Massachusetts law provides that “a placard shall be displayed so as to be readily visible through the windshield of the vehicle and in accordance with instructions provided by the registrar from time to time” and that “[a]ny person who wrongfully displays … a placard … is subject to a fine….” See M.G.L. c. 90, § 2. However, the legislation does not clearly state that reversing a placard or concealing information other than the photograph constitutes wrongful display.
Further, the RMV should work with the Legislature to require individuals to submit a statement under the pains and penalties of perjury when they report their placards lost or stolen. The legislation should also include penalties for making a false statement when reporting a placard lost or stolen. While the RMV’s form for reporting a placard lost or stolen contains strong perjury language, the RMV cannot enforce that requirement without statutory support.
In addition, the Commonwealth needs stronger penalties for misusing a disability parking placard. Currently, the fine for using another person’s placard is $500 – less than the cost to park in a parking garage in Boston for a month.64 Similarly, even though using a deceased person’s placard is unscrupulous and essentially cheating cities and towns out of revenue, it currently is not a crime. To create a true disincentive, the RMV should work with the Legislature to increase the penalties for misusing a placard, including using a deceased person’s placard. The Office has filed House Bill 11, An Act Relative to Disabled Persons’ Parking Placards, to increase the penalties for misusing a placard.
Finally, the RMV should work with state lawmakers to increase the agency’s authority to evaluate applications and investigate potential fraud. Members of the disability community have reported that they are unable to find parking in Boston and other cities due to suspected placard abuse. The ISAU’s investigation also found that some placard holders had job duties – such as walking and standing for long periods of time – that conflicted with the mobility criteria in 540 CMR 17.03(2)(a). While most individuals obtain and use placards appropriately, the current placard laws do not contain any mechanism to investigate potential fraud or to take action against wrongfully obtained placards.
II. Revise Placard Application to Comply With State Law & Only Issue Placards to Qualifying Persons.
The RMV should revise its current placard application to be consistent with 540 CMR 17.00. Specifically, it must remove the arthritis classification from the application and apply only the criteria specified in the regulations. An individual with arthritis would still be able to get a placard, as long as a medical provider certified that the individual could not walk more than 200 feet without resting, assistance or an ambulatory aid. See 540 CMR 17.03(2).
Additionally, the RMV should exercise greater scrutiny in approving placard applications by ensuring that each application contains all of the required information, including a clinical diagnosis that qualifies for a placard under the state regulations. The Registry should reject applications that only list symptoms (such as back pain and knee pain).
The RMV should also explore ways to strengthen the medical provider’s certification. This could include requiring the medical provider to attest that she is treating the applicant for the medical condition listed in the application. The RMV could also consider prohibiting an applicant’s employee from signing the application. Finally, the Registry should consider imposing additional procedures for extending temporary placards. For example, the RMV could contact providers who sign an individual’s temporary placard application three or more times to verify that the temporary status is appropriate.
III. Work With Cities and Towns to Enforce the Placard Laws.
The RMV should work with municipalities to enforce the placard laws and combat abuse. This could include providing cities and towns with information about the placard laws, common methods of placard abuse, the impact of such abuse, and enforcement options, including self-funding enforcement models. For those cities and towns that have not established commissions on disability, the RMV should educate these municipalities on the legislation that enables them to create commissions, and encourage their development. Municipalities throughout the Commonwealth may not be aware of the existing legislation and the potential benefits to their communities.
The RMV should also explore ways for parking clerks to issue fines for certain placard violations. Because parking clerks monitor parking meters and parked vehicles, they are in an ideal position to identify vehicles with expired placards, as well as placards that are obstructed or not forward-facing.
IV. Educate Healthcare Community on Criteria Required for Placards and the Impact of Placard Abuse.
The RMV should work with healthcare providers to review the standards for obtaining a placard, as well as the effects of placard abuse. The RMV should stress the basic purpose of a placard: to assist individuals who, “by reason of [a] disability, need a plate or placard to minimize the distance to be traveled between the person’s parked vehicle and ultimate destination, or to accommodate movement between the [person’s] vehicle and a wheelchair or other assistive device.” See 540 CMR 17.01. The RMV should emphasize the importance of completing all of the information on the application, as well as the need to exercise due scrutiny before approving a placard application. The Registry should also emphasize the significance of placard abuse on the disabled community, including discussing specific instances of abuse to highlight the seriousness of the problem.
V. Create a Uniform Process for Law Enforcement Officials to Report Placard Abuse.
The RMV should design and implement an electronic process for local law enforcement officials to immediately report cases of placard abuse within their jurisdictions. The electronic system should include an online reporting tool that would automatically update the RMV’s records when an individual’s placard is confiscated and when a driver is cited for violating the parking laws.
VI. Ensure its Electronic Records Contain Accurate Information.
As the RMV looks to replace its ALARS system, it should ensure that the new system has the capability both to add new providers and to easily change provider information. As part of the system conversion, the Registry should update its medical provider information and ensure that its database lists the correct provider who signed each placard holder’s application. Also, the Registry should consider incorporating an edit in the new system to prevent RMV clerks from leaving provider fields blank.
VII. Formalize the Placard Abuse Task Force.
The Registry took an important step when it created the Placard Abuse Task Force. The RMV should now consider formalizing the task force, such as through legislation. Combatting placard abuse requires a combined effort among stakeholders at the state and local levels, and the RMV’s task force is the appropriate vehicle for this collaboration. The task force could be mandated to work with the Registry to implement the recommendations in this report, evaluate ways to strengthen the RMV’s ability to investigate wrongfully obtained placards, and provide additional reports and recommendations.
Additional Resources
Contact for The Abuse of Disability Placards: Recommendations
Online
Phone
Address
| Date published: | February 24, 2016 |
|---|