Public Meeting Notice

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

Wednesday, April 14, 2021
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m.
  • Posted: April 12, 2021 9:34 a.m.
  • Last Updated: May 26, 2021 2:50 p.m.

Overview   of Special Commission to Study LGBTQI Inmate Health and Safety Meeting

The Special Commission will be meeting from 11:30AM-1:00PM via Webex at the following link: 

Special Commission to Study LGBTQI Inmate Health and Safety
Hosted by Michaela Martini

https://statema.webex.com/statema/j.php?MTID=m290eeca5aa4615e7ca6f04a1c13d31ea
Wednesday, Apr 14, 2021 11:00 am | 2 hours | (UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Occurs the second Wednesday of every month effective 4/14/2021 from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM, (UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Meeting number: 185 655 7301
Password: EOPSS123!

Join by video system
Dial 1856557301@statema.webex.com
You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number.

Join by phone
+1-203-607-0564 US Toll
+1-866-692-3580 US Toll Free
Access code: 185 655 7301

Meeting Minutes

Meeting Minutes

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 11:32AM once a quorum was established.

Members in Attendance:

Chairperson Jennifer Gaffney

Casey Lepisto

Michael Cox

Attorney Jennifer Levi

Justice David Mills

Sheriff Patrick Cahillane

 

March Meeting Minutes Approval

Justice David Mills made a motion to approve the March minutes and Sheriff Patrick Cahillane seconded the motion. All were in favor.

 

 

Discussion of Harvard Law School Partnership

Chairperson Jennifer Gaffney highlighted a meeting that was held with Harvard Law School (HLS) to discuss what exactly they can do within the authority of the statute. She said that HLS was asked to complete a literature review to spotlight best practices. She noted that the Department of Correction (DOC) nor herself could provide HLS with any personal notes or documents. Additionally, HLS is not authorized to interview inmates or staff personnel. The primary information from which HLS can work from consists of meeting minutes and the commission will set up future meetings to review the interviews already completed by the commission. Jennifer explained that the timeline is to have the current HLS students gather information, then have the fall semester students continue to work on the project.

 

Justice David Mills agreed that the commission needs to guard against having student interns in institutions gathering interviews due to privacy concerns which he noted is a legitimate position held by the DOC. He then raised the concern that the commission’s current method of operating is not able to gather the proper number of interviews. Additionally, he is concerned about gay issues not being addressed along with allegations of abuse.  He feels that the current sampling completed by the commission is inadequate and without a proper budget, commissioners cannot conduct the proper number of interviews. Justice Mills admitted that he is not sure what the answer is with respect to both his position and the DOC’s. However, with respect to the DOC’s concerns, he noted that student interns take part in intimate decision-making processes within the courts and that he was not aware of any breach of trust during his time at the court. He concluded that he is disappointed that the commission cannot utilize HLS more than their current tasking.

 

Jennifer Levi agreed with the concerns of Justice Mills. She explained how she was optimistic with the legislative charge of the statute to collect facts and info as required however, the commission has not been able to fully realize that charge. She then asked if the commission was going to ask HLS if they could pull from the existing national studies which included Massachusetts numbers which could be isolated for an analysis. Chairperson Gaffney replied that she could not recall if that was discussed during the meeting with HLS.  Jennifer Levi offered to clarify with HLS.J. Gaffney noted that she respects the concerns and disappointment expressed by the commission members and that it can be noted within the final report.

 

Michael Cox agreed with the concerns raised by Justice Mills and Attorney Levi.  His recollection was that HLS would gather more than best practices. Chairperson Gaffney agreed that she recalled this idea being discussed during the last meeting.

 

Justice Mills clarified that it is not practical to interview every possible individual, interviews will be limited to those who notify the commission after invitations are delivered to the institutions. He added that these interviews can be held under carefully crafted conditions and the commission should be utilizing HLS in some fashion to utilize their specialized knowledge with information gathering. Chairperson Gaffney replied saying she has indicated that advertisement of the commission can happen in any way the commission feels is best. She noted we have tried numerous methods - kiosks where the population had difficulty finding the notice, the use of notices which  resulted in backlash. Additionally, she explained how it is a delicate balance to notify individuals privately while also allowing them to make the decision on their own behalf, the commission needs to be aware that there may be risk to those individuals who chose to speak.

 

Jennifer Levi stated that she would like to have questionnaires provided to everyone in the facility with multiple ways to return them, which the commission can further discuss how to provide a safe process. She added that this should be done in the county facilities as well which would be good for the final report. Chairperson Gaffney asked her to clarify what she meant by questionnaire.  Jennifer Levi replied that it could be like the questionnaire the commission used previously, possibly shorter, with multiple ways for individuals to return.

 

Sheriff Cahillane noted that he would support the questionnaire, but it needs to be validated. He suggested that maybe HLS can assist with its creation.
 

Michael Cox supported the idea of having HLS assist with the questionnaire, noting that the commission could ask at top of the questionnaire how the individual identifies so that the questionnaire can be processed quickly. He then suggested the possibility of providing a cost-free hotline for those who may have literacy issues.

 

Jennifer Levi stated that while the information provided may or may not be validated, it would still provide some form of information that would be of use to the commission. Sheriff Cahillane responded by saying perhaps there is a facility of 500 individuals, 200 respond with 150 identifying as LGBTQI. The issue then becomes how to quantify the responses into appropriate categories which can be skewed by groupings. He noted that this concern is where HLS could help filter the information. Chairperson Gaffney noted that placing surveys under doors may provide false info which will skew the data. Jennifer Levi responded by saying the commission is collecting information that cannot be validated due to various restrictions and the methods available. She explained that the commission needs to identify and work with whatever information they receive, and while it is frustrating to come up with a questionnaire that is not able to be distributed widely, the commission can note this frustration in the report.

 

Justice Mills stated that after speaking with the Superintendent about the problems created by utilizing the kiosks, it may not be the best way to go about collecting information. Chairperson Gaffney agreed that its possible only a few individuals saw it on the kiosk. However, she suggested that since inmates have their own tablets, an alternative method would be to put notice under doors stating the commission’s intention to collect questionnaires while providing an free, one time email where they could respond. This would allow the commission to track where the information came from.

 

Casey Lepisto added that at Suffolk county they were able to generate a high turnout with short notice. She explained that the turnout was due to the utilization of case workers, group work, behavior health staff, and possibly the Superintendent getting the word out. Michael Cox noted that Suffolk is a more progressive area which likely influenced the turnout, and this may not be the same result everywhere.

 

Chairperson Gaffney asked the commission about their thoughts on notification and utilizing email. Justice Mills replied saying it may be premature, adding that the commission should talk with HLS first to have a competent invitation to work with. He agreed that the idea of placing a questionnaire under the door sounded good, but the commission needed to discuss how to ensure that the process is safe for the individual. Casey Lepisto replied saying that doing nothing is the worst option. Justice Mills proposed utilizing the questionnaire at one institution as a trial with Jennifer Levi in agreement. Michael Cox agreed while inquiring about the content of the email, specifically if the response will be confidential or will trigger a response by the DOC. Jennifer Levi proposed that she work with Michael Cox as a subgroup to create the notice to be posted within the facility. Justice Mills volunteered to work with the subgroup and raised the question of which institution should be used as the pilot. Chairperson Gaffney suggested utilizing a facility that has not be visited by the commission yet as being the more productive option.

 

Sheriff Cahillane then suggested using his facility as the pilot. Jennifer Levi proposed the use of a questionnaire with alternative ways to return which should be voluntary. Additionally, the commission should offer the opportunity for anyone who wants to speak with commission the chance to use the email provided to give notice. Sheriff Cahillane agreed that it makes sense to do both, noting that the commission will have to identify how to return the questionnaires safely, maybe through the use of a case manager or librarian. Jennifer Levi then inquired if the responses would be subject to response or investigation by the DOC. Chairperson Gaffney responded by saying that if an allegation is made through the questionnaire, the DOC is required to investigate. Sheriff Cahillane agreed by explaining his obligation to report on any alleged abuse within the facility.

 

Jennifer Levi then suggested that the questionnaire should clearly notify inmates that any allegations may result in investigations. Michael Cox noted that investigations will discourage responses, suggesting that a solution may be to anonymize the responses. Jennifer proposed further discussion on this matter by the subgroup.

 

Worcester HOC Debrief

Michael Cox began the site review which was attended by himself, Sheriff Cahillane and Elizabeth Matos. He explained that they interviewed the staff in group format. Relevant takeaways from the interview was that no one requested HRT medication, the facility never had a transgender inmate, thousands of PREA complaints were found to be unfounded and the explanation by the staff was confusing. One interview consisted of an individual begging for HRT and there appeared to be a lot of mental health issues which could be connected to hormones. Afterwards the commissioners circled back to the administrative staff who said they would investigate it.

 

Sheriff Cahillane concurred with the review, adding that the facility transfers some of the LGBTQI community to Suffolk because they have a solid program in place.

 

Chairperson Gaffney asked if anyone verified that the inmate requesting HRT was receiving the proper medication. Michael Cox said no, the commissioners relayed the feedback to the administrative staff who said they would follow up. Sheriff Cahillane proposed contacting the Superintendent for more information.

 

Chairperson Gaffney then asked if there were any other concerns by the commissioners, and if the facility only had one inmate who identified as LGBTQI due to the transfers to Suffolk. Sheriff Cahillane replied that only long-term inmates were transferred and that many short-term individuals do not want to be identified. Casey Lepisto asked if only identified individuals were being transferred since the individuals the commission spoke with at Suffolk were transferred based upon requests or some other complaints. Sheriff Cahillane explained that sometimes requests are based on available programs, adding that he can ask how this specific process is handled with his understanding being that transferred individuals were long-term inmates.

 

Michael Cox added that he did not hear the part about transfers, noting that when he was personally at Worcester it was hostile with a substantial number of LGBTQI individuals in PC. He found it strange that there was only one person, and that no one had requested HRT.

 

Casey Lepisto asked if only officers or medical personnel were interviewed. Michael Cox replied that the commissioners only briefly spoke with medical personnel who did not appear to be very interested. Casey Lepisto responded saying that information surprised her based upon her past experiences with Worcester and suggested that the commission followed up on these concerns.

 

Suffolk HOC Debrief

Michael Cox presented the site review which was attended by himself, Sheriff Cahillane, Chairperson Pamela Klein, and Casey Lepisto. He stated that he thought Suffolk had a good system in place. He noted the short notice given about a week before, with several staff members including the Superintendent providing a lot of information on the LGBTQI individuals. He explained that the facility hoped to restart the group work which was suspended to the pandemic. The commissioners spoke with administrative staff and mental health specialists who work as a group to resolve issues with inmates.  Michael explained how the staff was working on how to allow for a smoother gender transition process. He noted that about nine people were interviewed at about ten minutes each. The interviews provided interesting information on other facilities compared to Suffolk, and the facility may be a good place to return for a review of their updated processes. Michael concluded by saying Suffolk stood out and was probably the top of list so far. Their process for transitioning transgender women was through gradual introduction, looking for a unit that was a good match. He added that Suffolk has an advantage due to units being next to each other, although he had concerns of PREA being weaponized.

 

Chairperson Gaffney inquired about when Suffolk introduced transgender women into the women’s side if there were security reviews attached or if he had knowledge on the process. Michael Cox said there was a review process however, they did not give specifics. He noted that Suffolk had transgender men who transferred to the male side as well. Jennifer Levi asked if the commission could get follow-up data on that the process for transferring. Michael replied that the administrative staff may have best practices.

 

Casey Lepisto added that due to the time crunch everyone could not be interviewed, therefore it would be good to return for a follow-up. Michael added that several people recommend condoms and stated it would be good to address real ongoing issues such as STDs, actual assaults, and people being caught having consensual sex. Sheriff Cahillane suggested that he could contact the Superintendent for any follow-up inquiries.

 

Public Comment

No comments offered by the public.

 

Additional Discussion by Commission

Michael Cox proposed discussing the high number of PREA claims against transgender women at Framingham to agenda next meeting. Additionally, he suggested discussing “solitary confinement” further as there are lots of misconceptions among inmates about transgender individuals and there are concerns about facilities trying to get rid of transgender individuals through the PREA process.

 

Chairperson Gaffney responded by saying the commission could discuss the concerns further. However, open investigations were not subject to discussion. She explained that when PREA allegations are made the DOC is obligated to investigate, and false allegations result in disciplinary reports. She added that there is no restrictive housing in Framingham and hasn’t been for some time. Michael Cox asked if PUA is being used as a de facto punishment.  Chairperson Gaffney said she was not familiar with that particular acronym, adding that the commission can have a presentation on program tracks but that may be going outside the statutory scope of the commission.

 

Jennifer Levi agreed that the concerns should be put on the agenda as it is disturbing and she wants to verify the accuracy of the claims. She added that it sounds like the concern is that transgender women are being moved to Framingham with claims that they are then being isolated. Chairperson Gaffney replied that the concern can be on the next agenda and offered to present to the commission on the available processes utilized by the DOC.

 

Adjourn

Justice David Mills made a motion to adjourn and Michael Cox seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:57PM.

 

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Suffolk Interviews Debrief

3. Worcester Interviews Debrief

4. Harvard Law School Discussion

5. Public Comment

6. Adjourn

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback