DAVID FLOREEN
Bills ‘costly’
In one of the last hearings of the current legislative session, the Joint Committee on Banks and Banking heard testimony on bills regarding electronic banking laws, automated teller machine safety, check cashing identification cards, money laundering and privacy rights of certain bank customers.
David Breen, a Stoughton native and gunshot victim who was robbed at an ATM in New York in 1991 and has since been an advocate of establishing state-mandated ATM safety initiatives, offered emotion-laden testimony on the topic.
Breen gave his testimony in support of Senate Bill 10, a measure providing public safeguards and protections for users of ATMs, at the hearing held last Wednesday.
Breen called the bill “common sense legislation that would help ensure the safety of the hundreds of thousands of people who use ATMs throughout Massachusetts everyday.”
S.10, drafted by Sen. Brian Joyce, D-Braintree, and its sister legislation, House Bill 98, drafted by Rep. William Strauss, D-Fairhaven, were originally developed for New York City and would mandate security measures for bank ATMs and safety precautions for users of ATMs.
Joyce modeled the bill after the New York ATM safety bill that was enacted in 1993. The bill suggests prohibiting the use of tinted glass, mandating the use of reflective mirrors, additional lighting and access to a 911 telephone line or panic button.
Breen testified about the experiences that led to his lobbying for increased public safety at ATM spots.
“I used my ATM to do most of my routine banking … on that night [in 1991] I entered my local bank’s ATM in Brooklyn Heights – a residential neighborhood that is similar to the Back Bay,” said Breen. “Until that night, I was just a kid from Stoughton … who was an assistant district attorney working in Manhattan.”
Breen recounted the events of the evening, and said there were no mirrors in the vestibule, the customer service representative for the ATM phone put him on hold when he called for emergency assistance and the camera in the vestibule was not working. Breen said it is the responsibility of state government to protect citizens and enact legislation to mandate changes involving ATMs.
Banking industry officials, however, said that they opposed the measure because the proposed safety procedures would be costly and ineffective.
In a testimony submitted by David Floreen, senior vice president of government affairs and trust services at the Massachusetts Bankers Association, the MBA opposed S.10 and H.98. “While the association understands the overall goals of these bills and has a strong record of supporting ATM security, we feel these two bills as drafted are costly and would not achieve the intended results,” Floreen said.
According to Floreen, prohibiting tinted glass would render some ATMs unusable because of glare from the sunlight. Reflective mirrors might warn consumers of potential danger, but also would allow others to see a PIN number being entered, compromising account security.
Floreen reminded the committee of the MBA’s task force aimed at developing ATM security guidelines, which are posted on the association’s Web site, and pertain to lighting, landscaping, site selection, customer security education and site monitoring.
In addition, Floreen said Bay State banks are constantly involved in educating their consumers and often hand out or post consumer safety tips at the bank and in ATM vestibules.
“We believe the best course of action is a comprehensive approach including consumer education along with proper site selection and monitoring of ATM activity,” said Floreen.
Privacy Issue
In addition to the bills relative to protections at ATMs, the committee opened the floor to testimony on Senate Bill.20, an Act to Further Regulate the Cashing of Checks; Senate Bill 21, an Act to Establish the Financial Consumers Association; House Bill 92, an Act Making Amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code Covering Provisions Dealing with Negotiable Instruments and Bank Deposits and Collections; House Bill 295, an Act Relative to the Privacy Rights of Certain Customers of Financial Institutions; and House Bill 2742, an Act Relative to Money Laundering.
In a statement in opposition to H.295, Mary Ann Clancy, senior vice president and general counsel of the Massachusetts Credit Union League, said additional state legislation mandating financial privacy is premature.
“Credit unions view consumer privacy as a long-term issue and expect that the privacy expectations of members will continue to evolve as technology continues to advance,” said Clancy, who also cited federal legislation including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which prioritizes the confidentiality of member information. “[MCUL] believes that H.295 represents many of the concepts currently in place and under review at the federal level … H.295 would be premature in light of the various pending legislative, regulatory and technological developments at this time.”
Even as the implementation of anti-money laundering and customer identification programs are being addressed at the federal level, the subjects also are being raised by state legislators.
H.2742 would establish a state counterpart to the existing federal law on money laundering.
Massachusetts Division of Banks General Counsel Joseph Leonard testified on behalf of the DOB in support of H.2742 and said, “establishing a crime of money laundering within the General Laws [of the commonwealth] could give government another tool in prosecuting those who may be financially assisting terrorist activities.”
The bill would name the DOB as a criminal justice agency, which Leonard said would enable the DOB to have complete access to criminal information on a nationwide basis.
H.2742 was written and sponsored by Rep. John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth, co-chairman of the Bank Committee, who was absent for the hearing.
The Joint Committee on Banks and Banking will have two more committee hearings in the current legislative session before adjourning.
Melanie Nayer can be reached at mnayer@thewarrengroup.com.
