Public Meeting Notice  Special Commission to Study LGBTQI Inmate Health and Safety Meeting

Meeting Minutes

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 11:01AM once a quorum of members had been established.

Discussion about HLS Partnership

Attorney John Melander (EOPSS Counsel) stated that the group would welcome HLS’ insight and would be open to engaging them and having interns to assist with administrative details with the Commission but the request to work with HLS has morphed into more than what was initially proposed. He stated further that certain special access to facilities and documents is not going to be allowed by the DOC to this group as they are not on the Commission.

Attorney Jennifer Levi stated that her main concern was fair representation from the population the group is charged with engaging. She was not comfortable that our limited interviews have approached a fair sampling. There is a 6% demonstrated LGBTQI population across the board. Co-chairwoman Jennifer Gaffney stated according to HLS, it would take more than $100k to do an appropriate interviews She understands wanting a representative sample and has done everything to reach a fair sample of people by posting notices, setting up interviews of those requested by any commission member, post through the kiosk, contact known community members individually. Justice Mills said he spoke with Dean Gray (Souza-Baranowski Superintendent) about assuring inmates of confidentiality and making the commission available to listen and they proposed having a single slip of paper under every cell door be given to inmates and they could respond with whether or not they would be interested in speaking with the Commission. Pam discussed the HLS proposal and said that they can help identify best practices for us. Attorney Melander stated that the legislature put the individuals assigned to the Commission on for their specific expertise.

Michael Cox suggested having inmates speak at a public meeting so HLS does not need explicit permission to attend and can simply join the public meeting. Co-chair Gaffney stated she would not be comfortable having inmates interviewed in a public setting and that this group needs to work on the specific mandate it has been charged with.

Attorney Lizz Matos wanted to know what the objection to having inmates speak at a public meeting would be since sometimes they are interviewed in the media if they consent to that.

Sheriff Patrick Cahillane responded that you could endanger those individuals because you don’t know who is listening in a public setting. This is a population that is endangered and we are getting to a point we may endanger them more. He further stated our commission responsibility was to collect the information and we are doing that. Casey Lepisto wanted to discuss having Harvard reviewing the national data and extracting what they can and identify anything specific to Massachusetts to present to us as a possible best practice.

Sheriff Cahillane asked if this Commission falls under the Qualified Immunity Act.

Attorney Levi stated that we could share the conversations we had with individuals who are incarcerated without disclosing any identifying information about them but it is not her understanding that there is anything in those interviews that would be protected by HIPAA or CORI that would necessitate redaction.  Knowing what to redact would be a concern.  Attorney Melander stated he agreed and the purpose of that was to have this data entered into the report. Attorney Levi continued saying there is nothing violating confidentiality so there is nothing stopping us from handing over the interview data to HLS. She further stated that the Commission does not need to take their work and use it completely but it would be smart to draw in some additional resources and that’s not an abdication of this group’s responsibility.

Attorney Melander stated that in the past, we debriefed our interviews at meetings and it would be appropriate moving forward to look back at our notes and invite HLS to join those meetings and we could continue to identify individuals willing to speak to this commission in the meantime. He further stated that HLS has access to public data and public information that has been shared at meetings, but this group is turning over physical notes they we took during interviews. Michael suggested doing an MOU with them to allow for this.

Michael made a motion to bring Harvard Law School in and have them do a literature review and Commission members send them their notes they have taken during inmate interviews. Attorney Levi seconded the motion.

Justice Mills voted yes. Casey voted yes. Attorney Matos voted yes. Sheriff Cahillane voted no. Co-chair Klein voted no. Co-chair Gaffney voted no.

Jenn Gaffney voted no as it is her view that the members of the Commission should do the work and that they do not have the authority to bring on another group.

Sheriff Cahillane stated the problem is that the notes are simply written documents and you aren’t getting the full context when you read them.

Attorney Levi is going to follow up with HLS about doing the lit review and writing up what can apply to Massachusetts as best practices.

Formal Report Extension

Attorney Melander stated the Commission can let the legislature know there would be a delay in the report but that it was forthcoming, but we do not have any other process at this point.

Attorney Matos said it is typical that there are extensions but she did not see anything requiring we get permission to formally extend and the report recommendations will still be valid even after the anticipated timeline. The Commission members are not in control of when we can do visits either due to Covid-19.

Attorney Matos said she can come up with an arbitrary timeline if folks think this is helpful.

Public Comment

Rhiana Kohl (DOC Research and Planning) stated she offered to see if the Commission needed help finding a student intern and she hesitated to pursue that since she hears a lot of distrust with anyone coming from the DOC and if efforts are not going to be satisfying to Commission members, it was not going to be a good idea to pursue. If HLS can do the literature review, that’s great but they did not want to do that based on her understanding of their stance at the last meeting. She continues to work on SOGI collection in a sensitive manner. In terms of systematic study or survey where SOGI individuals respond with their experience, she would be in charge of that. She agrees with the Sheriff about the differences between the state and DOC because they are different entities. In terms of going forward, she can confidently say data collection is going to be complete sooner rather than later. If folks have concerns or considerations about how to improve the collection and reporting out, please make that known so that the DOC can do the best job possible. She stated that her comments were not accurately reflected at last meeting and she will submit her edits to the meeting minutes to Co-chairwoman Gaffney.

A public member, Eli, brought up the Justice-Involved Women’s Panel and noted that they had a recent resignation from a Panelist who was formerly incarcerated.

Adjourn

Co-chair Klein made a motion to adjourn. Justice Mills seconded. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 12:50pm.