Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Good morning, everyone. My name is Timothy Whooley. I am Regulations Counsel with the Massachusetts Department of Correction. Welcome, thank you for being here today. We are here for the virtual Public Hearing for 103 CMR 483 – Visiting Procedures. I’d just briefly like to introduce those present on your screen, other than me. Miss Brianna Arruda, she’s the Director of the Department of Correction’s Policy Development and Compliance Unit, or PDCU for short. As an oversight- uh- just as an overview, PDCU oversees Department policies, regulations, and procedures; including 103 CMR 483 – Visiting Procedures, as well as institution specific visiting procedures. PDCU is responsible for ensuring that the Department’s policies, regulations, and procedures comply with applicable statutes and national accreditation standards, such as the American Correctional Association Standards. Director Arruda has held her current position since February of 2024. Before becoming Director of PDCU, she held the position of Deputy Director of PDCU, from October of 2022 to February of 2024; before that she held other positions within DOC, including Auditor and Correctional Program Officer. Director Arruda is the reviewing authority for 103 CMR 483 – Visiting Procedures. It is her responsibility to conduct annual reviews and monitor the application of the visiting procedures regulation; to assess its effectiveness, and to determine whether the regulation is meeting its purpose. Director Arruda will listen to all comments and report to Commissioner of Correction Shawn Jenkins. Also present on today’s call but not on the screen is Michele Dupuis-Clarke, Program Coordinator III and Regulations Paralegal for the Department of Correction. Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will be serving as the administrator of today’s hearing and will be assisting me in conducting the virtual public hearing. Now for a bit of background on the purpose as to why we are here. For those of you who may not be aware, in Massachusetts we have The Administrative Procedures Act and pursuant to that Act, whenever an agency promulgates or changes- or makes changes to an existing regulation, the agency is required to first submit the regulation with proposed changes to a public comment period. That’s why we are here today, to receive public comments on proposed amendments to 103 CMR 483 – Visiting Procedures. And as a bit of background as to the specific procedure or regulation itself, the Department is amending the regulation to properly reflect existing Department visiting practices and standards, as well as to address concerns raised by incarcerated individuals, visitors, advocates, and other external stakeholders. The proposed amendments include, but are not limited to, the following subject matters: advanced scheduling of visits, visiting room seating arrangements, visitor screening, visitor processing, visitor exclusion, and video communications services. The amended regulation also revises certain language to more clearly articulate the Department’s visiting practices and procedures to incarcerated individuals, prospective visitors, and Department staff. The regulation was last updated in 2018. As far as today’s process goes; how the hearing itself is going to work- first, before the hearing, we have received several- we have received many written comments and solicited and received written comments. We began accepting public written comments on Thursday, May 7th, 2026. And to ensure that all who wish to comment may do so, the Department will continue to accept any written comments that you may wish to submit until 5 p.m. today, June 11th, 2026. Instructions for submitting comments are on the Notice of Public Hearing issued by the Department. Now today, we will also be hearing oral comments. We will be accepting oral comments from those who wish to offer them and now I’ll just give you a bit of background on how we’re going to proceed with those oral comments. For those wishing to speak, please pay close attention to this portion so that we can attempt to have the hearing run as smoothly as possible today. All of your audio is muted if you are not a panelist. The administrator, Ms. Dupuis-Clarke, has muted all audio for everyone attending the public hearing. Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will unmute individuals when it is their time to offer comments. When it is your turn to speak, you should receive a pop-up notification on your screen that you have been promoted to panelist. Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will then unmute your microphone. This process will take approximately 5-10 seconds. We ask that you be patient and that you wait to speak until you see that your microphone has been unmuted. Additionally, the video is off for all attendees. Only individuals identified as panelists and the list of people wishing to provide comments will appear on screen during the public hearing, when it is there time to speak. As for the video feed, as attendees, you will not be seen on video and you will not have the ability to mute or unmute your audio, or to share your screen. If you wish to speak as an attendee, please raise your digital hand, and Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will activate your video and audio when you are called to speak. This will allow everyone attending to see and hear you. Once you have finished speaking, you will be returned to the attendee status and will no longer be visible or audible to others. Please note presentation of any inappropriate material will result in your video privileges being terminated. Now you will see on your screen a list of speakers - these are the individuals who have pre-registered prior to the hearing to speak. If you raise your digital hand during the hearing, you will be added to that list of speakers. That list will remain on screen throughout the hearing and you- and it will represent the order in which we are going to call individuals. That order will be as follows: first we’re going to hear from pre-registered speakers. Again, as I mentioned, these are individuals who registered to speak prior to the hearing. Additionally, in an effort to accommodate the busy schedules of many our state legislatures who wish to speak today, we will be calling them out of order as needed. After we have gone through the pre-registered speakers, any attendees who did not pre-register but have raised their digital hand using the Raise Your Hand feature on the Zoom; that’s at the bottom of your screen if you’re watching on a computer, or it’s in the More tab if you are viewing on your cell phone – you will be added to the speaker list. Once we have gotten through all video speakers that are not pre-registered, we will then move on to any call-in, audio-only speakers who wish to speak today. Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will unmute all audio callers and we will ask all audio only participants to verbally express their interest in speaking by stating their name. All callers indicating a desire to speak will be added to that list that you see on your screen, of speakers. Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will then mute all audio callers once again and she will unmute those wishing to speak in order of the list, allowing them to provide comment. If you do speak today, we do ask you to limit your comments to 5 minutes so that all who wish to speak may be heard and may have an opportunity to speak. I will let you know as we approach that 5-minute timeline if you are still speaking within that timeframe. If for any reason, if you have any issues with the Zoom call today; any technical difficulties, anything along those lines, please call- please contact the call-in number at the top of the speaker list on your screen, and we will attempt to assist you. That call-in number is 857-377-1109, again, 857-377-1109. As far as Director Arruda’s presence at today’s hearing goes, she is virtually present to listen to your oral statements and will read and accept whatever written submissions you may submit or that you may provide, and she will take your comments back to the Commissioner of Correction. As far as Department representatives go, myself and Miss Arruda, we will not be answering questions today. We are here to listen to your comments and take them into consideration as far as the regulation is concerned. As I previously mentioned, any additional comments may be submitted through 5 o’clock today, as outlined in the Notice of Public Hearing.
And once all the speakers are done today, I’ll be back on to kind of- discuss where the process goes following the public hearing and to give you an overview of that. But for now, at this time, we will begin taking speaker comments beginning with the pre-registered speakers first. I believe that Senator Miranda requested to speak at 10:30, I do not see her on the call at this time, so we will then proceed with- Melissa Dalton will be our first speaker, just wait for Ms. Dupuis-Clarke to promote you to panelist and see that your mic has been unmuted and then you may begin speaking.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Ms. Dalton, you’ve been unmuted and can offer your comments when you’re ready.
Melissa Dalton:
[Inaudible]…doe all of this. So, as you know, my name is Melissa Dalton and I’m here to speak for the families and the men connected to NCCI in Gardner, MA. So, the Department often speaks about rehabilitation, mental health, family connection, and successful reentry, and those goals matter to all of us; but there is still a very painful gap between policy and what families actually experience. So, families are limited to scheduling in-person visits only 3 days a week, while facing strict dress code enforcement and constant scrutiny. So many of us now walk into visits feeling tense, wondering if holding a hand or hugging somebody goodbye a few seconds too long, suddenly becomes a issue, depending on the officer of the day. Policies should not depend on personal interpretation or shifting standards from one visit to the next. The current regulation allows what it calls, “commonly accepted public displays of affection” including “one hug and one closed-mouth kiss” at the begging and end of each visit. But who decides what is “commonly accepted” when families are already separated by the prison walls and carrying a pain that most people will never understand? So, words like, “brief”, “appropriate”, and “excessive” have never been clearly defined; one officer may see comfort, and another may see a violation and families should not be left guessing where that line is. Before COVID, visits felt more human - Families could sit beside each other, hold hands, and comfort one another; yet nearly 6 years later our families are still living with this distance. If somebody breaks down crying during those few hours, why should we have to wait until the end of the visit to comfort, or reassure, or put an arm around each other? So, I travel from Florida and I only get to see my loved one, maybe, every 6 months. So, after those months of waiting, those few hours mean everything. Being warned over a hug lasting a few seconds too long doesn’t feel like rehabilitation, it feels dehumanizing. And human emotion doesn’t happen on a schedule. So, research consistently shows that strong family support improves behavior inside the facilities, and the mental health, and long-term success after release. And security matters- families understand that; we go through so much just to spend a few hours with our loved ones – and we’re not criminals for loving somebody who’s incarcerated and we shouldn’t be treated like we are. Even video visits with no physical contact are heavily monitored with strict dress code enforcement. If there’s no physical interaction at all, then what are we really trying to accomplish? Are families’ clothes really a security threat or are people simply being overregulated for trying to maintain relationships? There are also basic issues that we deal with during visits. During one special out of state visit, my 4-year-old grandson sat in the visiting room for 4 hours with nothing to drink because the vending machines weren’t working, and I was told to contact the vendor myself. The issue is not safety, the issue is the emotional damage caused by unnecessary restrictions, inconsistent enforcement, and loss of connection. These men are still fathers, sons, husbands and humans, and our families carry this time with us every single day on the outside. At the end of the day, the DOC stands for Department of Correction. So where is the correction if policies continue stripping people of everything it’s supposed to stand for? How can rehabilitation or mental health improve, if comfort, love, and support are being treated like threats instead of basic human needs? Breaking people down does not create safer facilities or communities. Hope, accountability, mental stability, and strong family connections do. At a time when Massachusetts is facing serious questions about prison suicide, isolation, and mental healthcare, we should be strengthening family relationships, not creating a distance. Prison already removes the freedom; it should not remove the humanity too. And thank you again for letting me speak today.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Thank you, Ms. Dalton.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
I am going to return you to attendee status at this time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Okay, I think we will now- if Senator Miranda is not on the list yet, we will move to those attendees who have their hands raised. Looks like Louise has their hand raised. At this time, Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will promote you to panelist. Please wait a few seconds until you’re promoted and see that your microphone has been unmuted.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Louise- I’m not seeing a Louise on the list at this time, so while we look for Louise’s last name I’m going to go to the next speaker. One moment please. [Pause]
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Okay, we were able to locate Louise on the list. We’re promoting you to panelist now and you may begin your comments when you’re ready.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Louise, can you hear me?
Louise:
I can hear you. Can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes ma’am. You may begin your comments.
Louise:
I’m sorry?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Begin your comments when you’re ready.
Louise:
Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Good morning. I want to thank Melissa Dalton for her comments that really surround things that I’ve been thinking of as well; but where I would like to focus is on the children. When the children go to the facility, they go there specifically to see their parent, and when they see their parent hugging them when they first arrive, is um- is great. But the time that they spend- the hours that they spend with them- the physical touch is really important for the well-being of the child. I can’t imagine telling a child they have to sit across from their parent and not be able to touch, except when they first arrive. So, I think that’s really detrimental to their mental health. They don’t understand and so I think that changing that process and allowing them to play games and having some emotional bond development there is really critical for the well-being of the child. And also, for the incarcerated because, they did what they did, but they have to, you know, maintain that bond so that way their physical- and their mental well-being is, you know, taken care of, their child is taken care of, and being on the Zoom call or video call is just not enough. And so, I know that- from experience, the 6-year-old great-grandson that I have, he cries when he leaves, so that time is very precious to him. So, I just wanted to know, as we change these procedures, if there’s been any consultation with child psychologists to understand the impact it’s going to have on the children? So, that- those are my comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Thank you Loise, you’ll be returned to attendee status at this time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
G.N. you’ll be promoted to panelist.
G.N.:
Good morning, can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
You may begin your comments.
G.N.:
Awesome, thank you good morning everybody. And I would also like to also say, Melissa Dalton, thank you for her speech. It really kinda spoke in the name of all of us. But I’m going to speak on my- on the name of my fiancé um- voice [Incarcerated Individual’s Name Removed], and he was arrested twenty years ago, and the prison environment was considerably different than in-is currently happening – many regular visits from mothers, siblings, myself, and his small children; which are now adults. And it was- it’s a profound impact on rehabilitation, that it was largely due to the close interaction with the visitors, especially with his children. And we are a very religious family who we became accustomed to holding hands, shutting our eyes, while, you know, we were praying and- having that closer visits; um- bonding, um- for true and lasting rehabilitation in his side. Um- with the passage of the time and all this has changed, it- the visiting- you know, the smuggling of the drugs and- and everything else, you know, we feel like the people that should be um- accused or imprisoned, or- it should be the one- it should be the ones that are the one who are bringing all this in and not the ones that are there doing the right thing at all times – they shouldn’t be prosecuted for that- they shouldn’t be bonded on that. Right now, [inaudible] sitting across each other, is really hard when his mom comes in and wants to hold him, and wants to pray with him, and- here’s an officer come saying, “You can’t do that.” You know- there’s a mom that only can see him now only three times a year. So, when she comes in to see her son that she hasn’t had that bond for over twenty-eight years, it’s really hard. Come to see his grandkids that he hasn’t seen and been able to you know- been said that he can’t touch him or he can’t hold him, it is really hard, just like Melissa said. It’s really hard trying to- for them to rehab, for them to have that change, when we’re still bounding them to whatever mistake they ever made in life. A lot of them have changed in there. But as we- you know- they look forward to that visit. They look forward to that bonding; for their family, their mother, their- their- you know fathers, their children. You know, some of them have been in prison so long that they haven’t seen their children grow, and when they get that visit, that’s what they share most. That’s what they take back. And taking- and us taking that away from them is- what are we saying to them? Um- and he- he wanted us to bring that voice out for him. You know, the implementation of the proposal change will produce nothing but negative consequences for him and the family. And I’m sure it will likewise- it would affect others. Like he said- I have children, grandchildren- and doing away with children’s section also it will mean that I won’t be able to demonstrate the love and the affection with my grandchildren [inaudible] show my children. It’s a fact that drugs are not being brought in prison by visitors, nor by mails. Quality of drugs entering um- and the fact that it’s easily verifiable by numbers of inmates who get high and increase in prisoners who commit suicide. Last time like I said, his mother went to pray, and it- it was hard for them to be interrupted on their prayer. So, initially I was- he was upset and um- and he says- we seized and thought it’s just an employee who has to enforce regulations, and if it might be something he does not agree, nor in his heart want to do, we say goodbye and my family members depart. My big question is, why DOC trying to implement even more stringent regulations that will result even less meaningful family togetherness. Would it not make more sense to revert back to the way visits were conducted when I was initially incarcerated? It should be on making sure officers are doing their job as they are working in the visiting room and promoting family ties; which absolutely promotes true rehabilitation. The old age of lets punish the majority for the infractions of the minority, never has and never will result in rehabilitation. Thank you for allowing me to speak.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
At this time, Tabitha you’re going to be promoted to panelist. [Pause] We’re having technical difficulties, please bear with me one moment. Okay, Tabitha I just promoted you to panelist.
Tabitha:
Hi, can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Tabitha:
Hi, my name is Tabitha. As the mother of a seven-year-old daughter and a two-year-old son who have an incarcerated parent, I want to speak about the impacted these decisions have on families, especially children. Unless you have personally raised a child with an incarcerated parent, it can be difficult to fully understand what these children experience. They already live with a level of loss, confusion, sadness, and separation that many people will never have to navigate. For these children, visitation is not simply a scheduled event, it is one of the few opportunities they have to maintain a connection with their parent. They count down the days until visits. They want to tell their parents about school, sports, birthdays, accomplishments, and everyday moments. Limiting interaction between parents and their children during these visits does not just affect the incarcerated individual, it affects the children who are trying to maintain a relationship with someone they love. Children often feel abandoned even when they know their parent loves them. Reducing opportunities for communication and connection can unintentionally reinforce those feelings. It can leave children feeling rejected, unimportant, or punished for consequences that are completely outside of their control. I would also like- I would also ask the facility- I would also ask that the facility consider the role family relationships play in rehabilitation. Many incarcerated parents are motivated by their children. The children are often the reason they participate in programs, work toward self-improvement, and focus on successfully returning to society. Maintaining strong family bonds supports rehabilitation and strengthens the likelihood of successful reintegration. I would also like to address concerns regarding consistency during visitation. Families frequently encounter situations where different correctional officers enforce different rules. What is permitted during one visit, may be prohibited during another. This inconsistency creates confusion, frustration, and anxiety for families who are already navigating a difficult process. It would be beneficial if procedures were communicated and enforced consistently so families know what to expect and can focus on spending meaningful time together, rather than being worried that their shirt is not going to qualify for the visit today. Additionally, there is already very limited physical interaction permitted during visits. Most facilities have strict rules regarding physical contact and families generally understand and respect those boundaries. Because opportunities for affection and connection are already so limited, any additional restrictions on interaction can feel especially harmful to children, who simply want to feel close to their parent. I respectfully ask that any changes to visitation procedures may be validated not only through the lens of operations and security, but also through the lens of child wellbeing, family preservation, and rehabilitation. These children did not commit a crime, yet they often bear many of the consequences. Policies that preserve meaningful parent/child relationships benefit not only families, but also the long terms of rehabilitation and successful reentry. Thank you.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Thank you. You’ll be returned to attendee status.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments. We will next hear from Senator Miranda. [Pause] Okay, it appears that Senator Miranda is not appearing on our attendee list, she may not have joined quite yet; in which case, we’ll move to the next speaker on the list.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Kaisha Tejada, you’ll be promoted to panelist. [Pause]
Kaisha Tejada:
Good morning. Can everybody hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes.
Kaisha Tejada:
I’d like to thank everybody that has spoken before me. Um- everybody definitely has some very valid points. It’s not only heartbreaking to hear everybody speak, but to actually experience it myself. Um- I’m the mother to autistic children, whom I take on two-hour drives to go see their father. Um- I want to speak on a topic that’s very important to not only me, but probably to a few other mothers that are gonna talk here. My sons are nonverbal. Thing like sensory touch, smell, sight- very important. Being able to come in after the drive- that two-hour drive, after being searched, and waiting in line, being in the heat, um- it’s all overstimulating for my kids, for myself, I’m sure for everybody involved. Um- it’s very important for them to be able to decompress. They look forward to coming to see their father and- I just wanna just- really ask for everybody to reconsider their decisions on children’s areas specifically. As a mother, I already am raising my kids alone. This is the only time I actually um- get to sit and enjoy time with their father and see him actually become, you know, a better person; see the bright side of him, be able to see him you know, smile when he sees the kids walking around; see how happy my kids are. You know, have that extra hour or two to have that extra chance. Um- it’s very important that everybody reconsider and that’s really all I have to say right now.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments. [Pause] Just actually want to assure everyone, Director Arruda is still on the call; we’ve lost her video feed, but she is on the call and listening to everyone’s comments. We just wanna- want to confirm that with you. [Pause] Um- next we’re going to hear from Representative Tyler.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Representative Tyler many not have been prepared since they were at the end of the list.
Rep Chynah Tyler:
Hi, yes- um- I’m here. I just was- wasn’t sure if you guys were [Inaudible]. Are you going to take me out of turn?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we certainly can.
Rep Chynah Tyler:
Oh, wonderful, okay. Well, with that- um- thank you so much for hosting today’s meeting um- and- first I wanted to say thank you to everyone who’s shown up and thank you to the Department for making sure that we stay in tune with the regulations are asking for, which is, I understand the purpose of today’s hearing. I just got a quick comment. Um- and it was just around- just the visitation with the children um- um- and we work really hard to be able to make sure that we keep families connected. Um- and a lot of what you’ll probably here today in the commentary is going to be around, you know- how families may be deterred from being connected with their loved ones who are, unfortunately, incarcerated and so um- I wanted to just invite you all to have a meeting with the Legislature- to hear more commentary. I know that having one hearing may not be able to cover more thought processes and all commentary from families and their experiences. But I wanted to invite you all to have a conversation with um- legislatures to kind of further this discussion um- and also to really make sure that we do our best to be able to ensure that children aren’t- children and families aren’t as affected as they have been in the past, and so- we’re here to be supportive. Um- and I just wanted to come on and hear the commentary, also to be a support to this conversation, so thank you so much and um- I will continue to be on as a [Inaudible] listening.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you Representative Tyler.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
At this time, I’ll be promoting Jackie Johnson to panelist. [Pause]
Jackie Johnson:
Hi, can you guys hear me?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Can you hear us? Ms. Johnson- Ms. Johnson, you may offer your comments when you’re ready.
Jackie Johnson:
Okay. I’m sorry, I wasn’t sure if you could hear me or not.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Jackie Johnson:
Okay. So, I would just like to share that um- my fiancé has been incarcerated for um- about eight months, so I recently was able to join your Family Church Day; I believe about two months ago. Um- it was really beautiful. I was really surprised to see that the majority of the people um- hosting the event were um- prisoners, um- and during that event we were able to hold hands, we were able to sit next to each other, were able to put our arms around each other- um- so I was just wondering what the security difference was from that event, compared to visitations, as obviously IPS is still watching from the cameras, there were still correctional officers, um- we were still searched and everything else. Um- so that was- that was really surprising. Um- and it was a really good feeling being able to hold um- my partner’s hand and just see the connection between everyone and I haven’t had that feeling since I left that Family Church event. Another thing I wanted to bring up is the variation in rules that other people have mentioned today. Um- I also come to your facilities sometimes and other facilities as a social worker for Department of Children and Families. Um- and there’s even um- like variations with that. One of the variations um- that I notice is when I bring my child, who is ten years old; sometimes we’re able to sit in the children’s room and sometimes we’re not. And the biggest difference honestly with sitting in the children’s room was being able to play games. I don’t understand why card games are only for families with children, or families who are under six or seven years old. I’m not sure exactly what the cut-off age is to sit in the visitors’ room because it varies each time during our visitation. Another thing I wanted to mention is the concern about families touching due to drugs coming in- and you guys do have posters all around your facility. Um- and I’ve been to a few different facilities, and um- NCCI is the only facility where I see that correctional officers is actually crossed off regarding who’s- may be potentially bringing in K2, um- and that’s- that’s very concerning as well. And another thing I wanted to bring up was, we’re supposed to get like three hours, but by the time all the processing goes through, um- we’re not actually getting three hours. Um- there are correctional officers also who delay calling down the inmates to- to the visitor’s room. Me and my um- fiancés mother actually sat in the visitors’ room this past Saturday and the Saturday before that for forty minutes, simply because no one ever called him down; and we were actually on the recorded line the whole time as he was waiting for the visit together, stating like, “Hey, I know my mom’s here- like- why- why am I not being called down?” So, one- one of my requests would be that- why- we should be able to start these visits and get everyone checked in in enough time to have those three-hour visits. Now I understand if people come later they’re not gonna get that; but we’re- we’re checked in and entered in right at that three-hour time and these- these visits are scheduled ahead of time, so I don’t understand why some- why they can’t be prepared. They’re prepared for count, they’re prepared for other things, but they can’t be prepared for the visit until someone calls them down, and even if they are prepared, they can’t go down until they’re called. So, I think there should be a better um- set-up regarding getting us into the visit and allowing us to actually have that three-hour time, when a lot of us are actually showing up an hour before the visit actually starts just to ensure that we can get in, because we know how slow the process is. And prior to us coming in, I don’t believe like those officers are tied up doing anything else that would prohibit them from checking us and allowing us to have a three-hour visit. That’s all. Thank you.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Thank you. [Pause] At this time, Michael Jacoby Brown- I’m promoting you to panelist. [Pause] Bear with me a moment, please. Having a technical glitch for a moment. Mr. Brown you’ll be promoted to panelist momentarily. You should be receiving that notification. [Pause] Mr. Jacoby Brown can you hear me?
Michael Jacoby Brown:
[Inaudible] unmute [Inaudible].
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Very good.
Michael Jacoby Brown:
Can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Michael Jacoby Brown:
Oh okay, then you very much. Uh- my name again is Michael Jacoby Brown. I live in Arlington, Massachusetts. Um- the changes in the visiting policy, as far as I can tell, have not been articulated by the Department of Corrections for this hearing. I have been visiting an inmate at MCI-Norfolk weekly for over two years. During that time, I’ve seen how visiting has been made more difficult. I now have to call MCI-Norfolk to schedule a visit – I did not have to do that uh- years ago. The line for that visit is often busy, and we are told in the voicemail not to leave a message, but to call back later. This is often not possible or easy to do; I have work, like most people. I have heard from the person I visit that the Department of Corrections wants to change the policy for children visiting. This is just what I’ve heard, I have not seen anything in writing. I have often been there- I visit weekly. When children come visit and they are eager to run up to their loved one- generally, their fathers- and now, in the visiting room at MCI-Norfolk, they have room to run around. Many are young and need that space to be free in a difficult situation. Please do not change this. The kids need space to be normal kids; even when their father is in prison. I’ve also heard that loved ones will not be able to sit next to each other. This is cruel and unnecessary. All visitors are thoroughly searched before entering the visiting room. It’s cruel enough that the man I visit is married and cannot have conjugal visits, which are allowed in other states. This is bad enough but not letting him to sit next to his wife has no place if the Department of Correction is interested in correction, instead of punishment. Visits should be made easier, not harder. Visits have been shown to help prisoners and enhance reentry. I hope the Department of Corrections will make visits easier, not more comfortable- not more difficult. That’s what I have to say. Again, my name’s Michael Jacoby Brown and I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments Mr. Jacoby Brown.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
At this time, LAI will be promoted to panelist. [Pause]
LAI:
Hi. Can you guys hear me?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
LAI:
Alright, well thank you for letting me speak today. Um- I understand the importance of maintaining safety and enforcing rules within the facility. However, I’d just ask you guys to consider the impact that eliminating contact visits would have on many of the families and incarcerated individuals who follow the rules and rely on these visits to maintain meaningful relationships. I’ve seen firsthand the positive effect that the contact visits have had on my child’s father while he’s been incarcerated. Being able to hold, see, and spend time with his son has given him a sense of purpose and motivation that simply can’t be replicated through a phone call or a video visit. Those visits remind him that he is still a father and he’s still needed and that there is a future waiting on him behind- beyond incarceration. Um- from what I’ve personally witnessed, these visits encourage him to stay focused on making better choices, staying out of trouble, and working toward being the kind of man and father that he wants to be when he returns home. And I think that having that connection to his child gives him something real to fight for during a difficult period of time. Um- especially even behind bars you know- he wants to keep his head straight and um- have a positive behavior while he’s there, so um- I just- I believe that it’s important to recognize that the actions of a small number of individuals should not result in the loss of contact visits for everyone. Many of us follow every rule and use these visits exactly as they’re intended to- um- to strengthen the bonds, support rehabilitation, and maintain healthy parent and child relationships. Removing contact visits across the board would punish families and children who have done nothing wrong. These visits are not simply a privilege for many families; they are also an important tool for maintaining hope and accountability. I respectfully ask that you consider the positive impact that they have on incarcerated parents and their children and their successful reintegration into society before making a decision that would affect so many families. Thank you so much for letting me speak.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments. We will now hear from Senator Miranda. Senator Miranda, Ms. Dupuis-Clarke will now promote you to panelist and then we’ll unmute your microphone. [Pause]
Senator Miranda:
Good morning.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Good morning.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Good morning.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
You may begin your comments at any time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Senator Miranda, can you hear us?
Senator Miranda:
…some background noise that isn’t me and so I’m just wondering if someone else is unmuted or am I good to go?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
You’re- you’re good to go.
Senator Miranda:
Thank you. Not only as a legislature that has focused on the criminal legal system here in the Commonwealth for the last eight years while a state representative and senator; but as a daughter, a sister, a friend, and someone who has visited over- I think well over, four hundred to four-hundred-fifty incarcerated individuals over the last eight years, um- not only as a legislature. And I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today and be taken out of turn on the proposed amendments for the visitation policy changes in the Department of Correction. Our office has heard from many constituents and incarcerated people regarding the current challenges that exist with visitation. So, I welcome this opportunity to discuss something that I think is a critical issue. In 2018, uh- the DOC, in my opinion, began to tighten restrictions on visitation. Since then, visitation to Massachusetts prisons has declined to just one-third of the 2018 levels; from one hundred and twenty-five thousand visits in 2018, to nineteen thousand in the first half of 2025, from the data we’ve received. This is a breathtaking drop in the number of visits, and I think it’s caused by the barriers that we may have put in place, unintentionally, between incarcerated people and their families and the communities um- that they are impacted by. These barriers that were introduced in 2018 include capping the number of visits someone can have, um- increasing the level of scrutiny visitors are subject to. We’ve also heard stories from constituents who, for example, travel all the way from Boston to central Massachusetts, only to be turned away for having the wrong kind of dress. We know incarcerated people who have eight brothers and sisters; I am one of eleven children and hitting the eight-person cap before even getting to parents, friends, aunts, uncles, or mentors, or community folks is really difficult. We know incarcerated people whose family live out of state; travel hundreds of miles to visit them, are unsure they will be able to pass the ever-changing scrutiny. At the same time, the purported- proposed reason behind the stricter visitation rules, reducing the flow of drugs and contraband into prisons, remains unsolved and has perhaps worsened, since 2018. This past year, there were a record number of suicides by individuals in the custody of DOC, which reported that one of the primary causes of this increase was increased drug use. This is a serious issue that deserves a serious response, but there is no evidence that making stricter visitation regulations have actually decreased the flow of contraband into our prisons. Today we’re reviewing a new set of proposed visitation policies put forward by the DOC. Some of these policies are improvements and I want to say thank you. For example, the cap is being raised on the number of visitors that can be in a person’s list, from eight to twelve, at maximum and medium security prisons. However, I think there’s still a question whether a cap is actually necessary at all. Many people have tight-knit families that are larger than twelve people; and does it really serve anyone to force incarcerated people to pick and choose among those closest family members and friends? Other changes, I think, move us in the wrong direction. One of these would allow, on a case by case basis, supervising correctional officers to prohibit a mother or father from holding their child on their lap. Under these regulations, a child holding their child would be treated as an exception rather than the rule. The change raises questions, is the concern that the child will have contraband stored in them? Has there been a pattern of lap sitting as a serious concern? I think these are valid questions. I filed a bill um on visitation policy this session called An Act to Build Restorative Family and Community Connection. The bill started from the simple and studied premise, that if you maintain family and community ties, it becomes one of the most important factors in a successful rehabilitation and reentry. At a broad level, the bill seeks to remove what I believe is unnecessary barriers to visitation, expands opportunity for meaningful between incarcerated people and their loved ones, and increases transparency and accountability around visitation policies. Some of the key provisions of this bill include at least twenty hours of visitation per week; at least six weekend visitation hours each week; a minimum of four hours for visits; requiring facilities to maximize visitation opportunities, rather than restrict them; a formal appeals process for denied visits; and assuring that transportation, distance, and cost are not barriers to continue connecting with your loved one. In conclusion, I believe that people are more likely to succeed when they remain connected to the communities that they will ultimately return to. And that’s incredibly important, because eighty-five percent of our current state’s population comes home at some point. And the communities that are more incarcerated; which include my neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, and J.P., Hyde Park are some of those communities that are getting, each year, dozens and dozens of community members returning home. Family connection is not just a privilege that should be restricted whenever possible. It is critical. I think it’s a critical component of rehabilitation of what I consider to be public safety and human dignity. I appreciate the Department’s willingness to hold this hearing and actually consider public input; not only from legislatures like me, but from community members and family members. While some of the proposed changes, I believe, represent progress, I urge us, and the Department to continue moving forward toward policies that prioritize family and community connection, removing unnecessary barriers to visitation, and ensure that incarcerated individuals can maintain the relationships that are so essential to their well-being and successful reentry. I want to thank you all for your time and for your consideration.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you Senator Miranda.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
At this time, Mary Sprogell, I’m going to promote you to panelist. [Pause]
Mary Sprogell:
Okay. [Pause]
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Mary, you can begin your comments at any time.
Mary Sprogell:
Okay, thank you. Um- my name is Mary Sprogell. Thank you for uh- listening and thank you to all the previous speakers and the compelling work that uh- Senator Miranda is doing. I visit an incarcerated man at MCI-Norfolk- have been doing so for over two years. Um- I’d like to speak to the restrictions on physical touch. My- uh- the man I visit, his mother died in May. She had suffered from cancer for years and she became extremely frail; making uh- visits rare because of her condition. She had great difficulty being approved for a visit because of the medical device that she needed to wear after her um- treatment for cancer. After months of communicating with the administration, she was finally able to visit with her daughter, who accompanied her everywhere. They were limited in embracing according to the rules, which you know very well. Which is heartbreaking. And because only two visitors are allowed at a time, I was not able to join his mother and sister. When I was finally able to visit after her death, it broke my heart that we were not able to sit by him side by side, or touch during our visit, and I asked, “Does this level of restriction promote rehabilitation?” Obviously it does not, in fact, it does just the opposite. My second point is that I have befriended a man who is incarcerated in the same facility and we communicate via Corrlinks, but we have never been allowed to visit, because I’m only allowed to visit one incarcerated person in the entire DOC of Massachusetts. Again, this does nothing to promote rehabilitation, in fact, it does just the opposite. So, rather than having a connection with two people, and befriending them, and helping them, and- uh- making loving connection with them, I am limited to just one person. And again, this is just- the- obviously, to me, unjust and um- does nothing to promote rehabilitation and reentry, in fact, it- it- it does the opposite. So, I thank you for listening.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. [Pause]
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Okay, we can call out of turn- I call Chairman Yae and Janaya. [Pause]
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
You may-
Chairman Yae & Janaya:
[Inaudible] Can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can hear you.
Chairman Yae & Janaya:
Okay, so I’m commenting on the causes of severe visitor stress. Um- when I have to prepare myself and I know other women as well- they have to constantly go through your closet to figure out if can you wear the correct outfit. Um- you have to bring multiple outfits with you just in case you’re unable to get in with an outfit that you might have worn two weeks ago and were able to get in on that visit. Um- I have nails and it’s my actual nails that are long; I don’t have fake nails, and I was told you can’t have glitter in your nail polish and I don’t understand why- that would be a reason not to be able to wear glitter in my nail polish or- you can’t wear makeup, you can’t have lip gloss on. Um- I know like, maybe those long eyelashes- kinda crazy but, even so, women like to dress and look nice for their loved ones, and I don’t understand how that’s a security risk because if you have long eyelashes on and it falls off; then okay, yeah- you can tell that something’s different, but that- it just doesn’t make sense. Even with children, my son; he’s eleven years old, he’s probably almost five feet, but he’s still a child and he can’t wear children’s clothing. I have to make sure he has on slacks, and he’s dressed as a man and he’s not a man. Or, for myself, I can’t wear jeans; I have to make sure it’s either white, khaki, or a different color- and I clearly look different than the inmates that are in prison, so I don’t understand why it’s a change now. Because years ago, women were able to wear jeans; blue, black, it- it didn’t matter the color. It was just the individuals like- men who were coming to the prison couldn’t wear the same kind of clothing as the inmates, so I don’t understand that. Also, when calling up to the prison to make an appointment to come and see your loved one, there are many women and men who are unable to get through on the phones to make their call to- or make the appointment. So, they are spending all day, if not two days, trying to make an appointment to be seen or to visit their loved one, and that’s just not fair and I know, years ago, you didn’t have to make an appointment to come see an individual. You can just go up, as long as you was on the visitor list, you can visit with your loved one. And that was very easy, breezy and not as stressful. And that’s all I have to say.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Mike Walsh, you’re being promoted to panelist at this time. [Pause] Mr. Walsh, can you hear us?
Mike Walsh:
Okay, yeah- can you hear me now?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
We can.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
You can offer your comments.
Mike Walsh:
Okay, finally I got the right button. Um- yeah- my name is Mike Walsh. I have a son who’s incarcerated at Old Colony Correctional Center. Um- Let me see- I- actually- I’m gonna focus on just the um- you know the proposed amendments to your- you know- 103 CMR 483. There are a lot of things about visitation we can talk about, but I’d like to focus on just a few of the aspects that you’re amending. Um- let me see – people who are- we know- I think it’s pretty widely understood that people are more likely to succeed after incarceration, knowing they main- maintain relationships with supportive family members; uh- with- with mentors and friends and other positive influences. Strong family and community connections are critical. And that’s even uh- you know um- that’s acknowledged by the Department. So, just going to proposed alterations to the CMR- I’d first like to address the issue of limits um- visitation list limits. It just- it seems arbitrary um- and unnecessary it- it- let me see- I’m sorry, I’m just uh- lost my thought here. Anyone seeking to visit an incarcerated individual or loved one that they- they must already submit an application, undergo vetting, receive approval from the Department of Correction. Because every visitor has already been screened, uh- limiting the number of approved visitors it- it doesn’t improve safety. The Department has not established why that would improve safety- by limiting the number of people on a visitation list. It really needlessly harms the incarcerated individual and their um- efforts to um- reform or to uh- yeah, to improve. My son is fortunate to have many um- yeah- many friends and uh- family and other supportive people who want to stay connected with him through visits. Unfortunately, the restriction- uh- visiting uh- visitor list policy, he has to choose among those people. As a result, many friends, relatives, lifelong mentors have been unable to visit my son or to maintain those important relationships. Over time, he’s losing those vital connections and- it’s just- unfathomable to me why the Department would want to do that. It’s just- it’s unknown as to what does the Department gain by placing this restriction of having uh- you know- a list that- a limited list- and I know that you’re increasing the number, on the- the list- the visitation list, from eight to twelve, um- but it’s just- it’s still a limitation. My son, he would have thirty people on his list if he could, and- since people are already vetted, it doesn’t make sense uh- to have a limiting list. Um- yeah- next I would like to just address the- and it’s really problematic the uh- twenty-four-hour advanced scheduling. Again, that just seems arbitrary and unnecessary. I’m not sure if the Department has collected data as to how this advanced scheduling has improved security or how it’s improved safety. Because it just doesn’t seem- yeah- that anything is- is- being improved on that end. What it is- it’s a hardship for people who um- you know, maybe if they- if something happens on a weekend and they wanna visit on a Monday to visit their loved one, they’re not able to do that- they’re not able to address that- and it- that- that’s wrong, that’s just not- not helpful at all. Let me see- uh- well- just, in conclusion, we’ve had a lot of problems with the advanced notice scheduling- we’ve had- we’ve scheduled and then had it um- not communicated to the front desk, so I showed up and my name wasn’t on the list, even though I scheduled it. If I didn’t have to do the scheduling, I could just show up and- and I would have been able to make that visit. And that- that’s a real detriment. In conclusion, I guess I just wanna say that I strongly urge the Department not to amend this regulation- to conform, really- your current practices, to- to make it unrestrictive, less restrictive- this should- the Department should uh- really revise its current practices, not revise the regulation. Yeah- I guess that’s uh- all I have to say.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Speaker number twelve, identified as F TL, you’ll be promoted to panelist. [Pause]
Mike Walsh:
Hello?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
You may begin your comments at any time.
Mike Walsh:
Did I get cut off? Or-
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Can you hear us?
Mike Walsh:
Um- I do right now. Did you hear anything I said? Or-
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Once you were promoted to panelist and I unmuted your microphone, yes. Thank you. You may begin your comments at any time.
Mike Walsh:
Well, how far did I get?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
We have not heard any of your comments thus-
Mike Walsh:
Wow.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Oh, no.-
Mike Walsh:
Excuse me.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
I’m sorry.
Mike Walsh:
Excuse me. You’re talking to Michael Walsh.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for clarifying.
Mike Walsh:
You’re speaking to Michael Walsh.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you. Mr. Walsh we heard your full- we heard your full comments, Mr. Walsh. I apologize.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
That was a technical glitch. I take responsibility for that. Speaker number twelve F TL, you may begin your comments at any time.
Fran Laporte:
Thank you very much, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning. My name is Fran Laporte. I live on Cape Cod. I began working with incarcerated individuals in the 1980’s at the Worcester County House of Correction. I’ve also served as a volunteer at the Barnstable County House of Correction and Plymouth County as well. Currently, I’m a volunteer at the Marion Correctional Institute, which is part of the State of Florida Department of Corrections. Earlier, I listened to the really well-communicated concerns from Melissa Dalton. She spoke well to some of the changes since COVID that have not been loosened, but remain in effect and in some cases, become even more restrictive. Since we are no longer under COVID, these should be released, not made more strict. I have witnessed the successful implementation of increased contact and less regulation in the State of Florida. It is my personal experience, over the past ten years and three different MCI facilities, that the enforcement of the current regulations remain solely at the discretion of the C.O. on duty. I have had both positive and negative experiences to that effect. It is my opinion that increasing the restrictions, especially with reference to physical touch, would be going in the wrong direction, as opposed to allowing parents and children to embrace their loved ones or hold hands, or any other type of common contact one would expect in a public setting. Understanding the concerns of having contraband smuggled into the camps, it’s- if the current regulations are enforced unilaterally, one would hope this issue would be ameliorated. As a father, I long for the opportunity to embrace my son. For a few scant seconds, I am allowed to physically communicate my love and affection, twice during my visit, as I did yesterday. Moving to greater restrictions is not the answer. I appreciate this opportunity, thank you again.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Ashley Garceau, you’re going to be promoted to panelist. [Pause] Ashley, you may begin your comments at any time.
Ashley Garceau:
Good morning. Can you hear me okay? [Pause] Are you able to hear me?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can hear you.
Ashley Garceau:
Okay. Um- Good morning, my name is Ashely Garceau. I have a loved one who is currently incarcerated at MCI-Norfolk. Um- I would like to thank and echo the sentiments of those who have gone before me today regarding the changes- the changes in the visiting policies. On many occasions, I have had the unfortunate obligation to deliver bad news um- to my loved one. Um- and not being able to hold his hand through tears is the most inhumane, and honestly, unnecessary feeling that you can imagine. There’s really no reason to eliminate this closeness in an already incredibly difficult situation. The changes in the seating arrangement have been in effect for over a year now and yet, the K2 epidemic has not improved; and possibly, has only gotten worse. It is clear that the visitors are not- um- the- the part of- the big part of this problem. Um- people that are there visiting their family members and following these ever-changing rules, are not contributing to that problem. To specifically address the family area changes, I will say that for several years, I have been bringing my own children, as well as his nieces, nephews, and elderly father for regular visits. The highlight of their day is being able sit with him, read together, and play with him. Furthermore, expecting young children to sit still and not touch their fathers, uncles, brothers, etcetera is incredibly unreasonable. For an institution that prides itself on family connections, reunification, and decreased recidivism, it is absolutely crucial that these relationships have an opportunity to flourish and the barriers to do so are already so strict, I truly- I truly hope that you reconsider the negative mental health effects a change like that will cause for these children as well as these inmates. Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to speak today.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Nicole Scapicchio, you will be promoted to panelist.
Nicole Scapicchio:
Hello can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Nicole Scapicchio:
Hi, good morning. My name is Nicole Scapicchio. I am a defense attorney, and I work with a lot of incarcerated individuals. Family contact is what keeps most of our clients going. It is a reminder that they are human and not just a number. It is a way for them to connect on a personal level that doesn’t happen uh- in an institutional setting when they are referred to as numbers. Sometimes, an in-person visit is the only way that they can get to counsel their children and participate in family decisions, without the DOC’s massive oversight. It is so important for our clients. Thank you for your time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Katryna, you’ll be promoted to panelist. [Pause] Katryna, your audio’s been unmuted and you can offer your comments at any time.
Katryna:
Okay. Hi, my name is Katryna. I hadn’t expected to uh- say- speak today, so- I’m really- I have a loved one at MCI-Norfolk- life without parole. Um- and I really wanted to speak I guess to- the fact that these are all supposed to be restrictions to uh- create more security; and what they in fact feel like is more of a discouragement- to discourage people from um- from visiting. It’s clear, the restrictions have- the visitor numbers have dropped dramatically because of the difficulties of scheduling, just- the whole process, and- so many of them- I mean, it’s clear that it hasn’t reduced drugs. And if that’s- you know, I- I- I feel like the Department has to really acknowledge that- Are- are these restrictions just to make life more difficult for families and- and prisoners? Or are these for true security? And I- I honestly don’t believe that most of them are enhancing security. The twenty-four hour uh- need to schedule- again, that’s something- you know, these are vetted people- um- we’ve been vetted- um- if we want to sit around and wait our turn and take the ticket the way we used to, we should be allowed to do that. It doesn’t affect security in any way. Um- also, I agree with what everybody has said, just- about- there shouldn’t be a- a number. If people are vetted, whether it’s eight, twelve, thirty- you know, to have somebody on the list who can only visit once, you know- my- my loved one has a- a cousin who lives in Washington State; he might come once a year. Is gonna use one of his spots? You know, it becomes this- this hierarchy and- you know, also, one thing people haven’t mentioned, is that people- that they can only change who is on that list, three times a year, and- which just- first of all, if you took away the numbers, it wouldn’t be a problem; but the fact that you have to say, okay- in two months, I’ll get to put you on the list and I’m going to kick so and so off. You know, there’s no benefit. If it had a security benefit, yes; but this is just an arbitrary- somebody used the word arbitrary and it really struck me. Um- I think also, the whole- you know- the seating arrangements, I mean- being able to sit side by side whether- whether you’re a child, or a friend, or a mother, um- first of all, you can hear. You know, the way it’s structured, at least at- Norfolk, you know, you’re practically reaching over to- to hear the other person, and then you’re worried they’re gonna say you’re too close. And- the- so again, it’s like- thinking, what’s the humane way to create a situation that helps people be united, that helps people stay less stressed. Clearly, having visits is essential um- for keeping just the tone of the um- the prison in better state. Um- so I would just encourage you really to look at why- why each of these regulations is actually being used, and is it in fact, creating security, or is it actually just feeling punitive to both the incarcerated individual and their families and friends. So, thank you for letting me speak today.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Linda Perry, you’ll be promoted to panelist. [Pause] Ms. Perry, you can begin your comments at any time.
Linda Perry:
Hi, my name’s Linda Perry. I have been a volunteer at MCI-Norfolk for ten years. In that time, I have counseled up to five hundred of those individuals as fathers. I facilitate a fathers’ group. Um- the difference between a visit and an event has always been something that- we are very proud of at Norfolk. Men who have uh- reconciliation attempts with their families don’t often get the credit that they’re due, and um- as they sometimes point out to me, that during the uh- COVID lockdown, when there were no visits, drugs still found their way into the prison. So, I echo what some of the other visitors have said, uh- that- you know, it’s not always visitors bringing drugs in. But the actions of several um- individuals in- if they behave inappropriately, to have everyone else have to have increased uh- restrictions and uh- losing connection with their kids, is to blame the whole for the actions of a part. Um- I echo what everyone else has said, um- I’ve sat in that gatehouse waiting to go in for my appointment and I see that there are many times, people who have been in there week after week after week on the same day for their visits, dressed the same way every week, suddenly presented with, today, you don’t match the policy; today, you’ve gotta run down the street and get something else to wear. So, I don’t believe that the dress code is the problem, I think that the um- subjective way that uh- a C.O. can decide that you’re not adhering to the policy- if the policy was strictly enforced, you don’t have to change the policy, you just enforce the existing policy. I have worn the same outfit every Wednesday; they even make fun of me at work – Oh, it must be prison day, she’s got that same outfit on. Even so, I’ve been turned away because, oh that’s not- that’s not appropriate for a volunteer. And just so people know, there are different rules for visitors versus volunteers versus staff. So, each one of those policies needs to be uh- routinely followed and not make it subjective. But I agree that any loss of physical contact with your children um- is detrimental to the inmate. I have watched grown men cry over getting a visit that they have waited three years for. It matters to them and it matters to many of them who are in there for life, that came into prison when their children were tiny and now those children are adults. It’s so important to the continuity of the family, the legacy, and it only increases their chance for rehabilitation and their success on the outside. As I think uh- the legislature mentioned earlier, eighty-five percent of our population is coming home, and with that I pass. Thank you for letting me speak.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Jen Grella, you’ll be promoted to panelist momentarily. [Pause] Jen, you can offer your comments at any time.
Jen Grella:
Thank you. Thank for allowing me to speak today. I wasn’t planning to participate, but it’s clear that the community needs to speak up. Excuse me, apologies if my remarks are scattered. My name is Jennifer Grella. As a volunteer, I have been visiting an incarcerated person regularly since 2018. [Cough] I’m sorry. First, at MCI-Concord, then at MCI-Gardner, and now at MCI-Norfolk. In between visits, we exchange paper letters, email via Corrlinks, and schedule phone and video calls. We are not family, but we have developed a strong bond, and I believe our connection truly helps this man get through every day of his life sentence. I want to echo the plea that visitation procedures be made easier, not more difficult. I have observed the slow and steady restrictions on the ability of incarcerated persons to connect with their friends and family members. I have witnessed the cap- capricious enforcement of rules between facilities and corrections officers. My heart has been broken watching small children and senior citizens try to connect with their incarcerated loved ones, while desperately navigating the many and unpredictable restrictions imposed on visitors. I have been turned away more than once due to wardrobe malfunctions. Now, I also have a prison outfit that I wear every time I visit; and still, bring a bag of extra clothes, just in case. I am fully aware of the intended purpose of the visitation rules. If contraband is getting into the prisons, I submit that DOC needs to look inward, instead of punishing the people in their care and their visitors. From my perspective, the visitation rules are already cruel and designed to dehumanize incarcerated persons; visitors are dehumanized along the way as well. I do not believe that tightening the restrictions will enhance prison security; they will only serve to make incarcerated persons and their loved ones anxious and angry – that, seems like a security risk to me. Thank you.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Attorney James Pingeon, you’ve been promoted to panelist.
James Pingeon:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the proposed changes to the regulation. My name is James Pingeon. I am the Litigation Director at Prisoners’ Legal Services. Um- I’m going to later submit detailed written comments, so I’ll just focus on a- on a few points that I think are most important. Now, um- first, last year, Commissioner Jenkins made a statement that I think is worth giving serious attention to and what he said was this, quote, “Maintaining and fostering connections between folks who are in our care and their loved ones on the outside is probably the most important rehabilitative factor for a successful reentry.” And I think it’s- it’s worth giving some thought to why that is true. And- and I think, why is it that visits are so meaningful to people who are incarcerated and from what I have heard from so many people that are incarcerated over so many years, is that they feel that they live in a world where they are not looked at as a human being. And what happens when they have visitors is that, that changes; that they are in touch with people who care about them, people who know about them, who think of them as- as a person who is more than the crime they committed; but a person who has the ability to love, and be sympathetic, and to create positive things in the world, and that- that feeling is vital for people who want to change their lives, who hope to someday be released to the community and to contribute to society. Now the- the- the problem with these proposed regulations is that they reflect what I think of as the opposite of a genuine commitment to visitation. Rather, their principal purpose, as I think you’ve stated, appears to be to codify the existing barriers to visitation that have created a needlessly hostile visitation environment and one that has driven the number of visits to historic lows. As others have said, before the 2018 regulations went into effect, in that year there were a hundred and twenty-five thousand visits, um- in 2025, there were forty-two thousand. That is a drop of two-thirds. We today have only one-third as many visitors as we did a few years ago, and when we think that- that- that’s- you know, something to- we- think about why. This dramatic decline demands a fundamentally different approach. An approach that’s focused on reducing barriers to visitation and one that tries to restore and enhance family and community connections. So, I just wanted to talk briefly about a few of the specific provisions: and one is the preapproval process itself. Uh- recently the State of Virginia eliminated preapprovals and visitation caps, and they did it because they realized that uh- they needed to make visitation easier and- and- and more effective; and that this whole preapproval process was actually counterproductive and- and unnecessary. The State of New York, which has one of the largest prison systems in the country, also, does not have a preapproval process. Several other states don’t as well. So, we- we would encourage the Department to reconsider the whole structure and to go back to the days in- in which uh- people could be approved as they arrived at the facility. We do recognize though that that’s not likely to happen and that you are committed to a pre-approval process; given that, we think that the application process should be redesigned to make it um- more effective; that uh- will reduce delays at the institution; and- and not impose unreasonable and- and burdensome requirements on- on people that discourages them from even trying to apply. So, one of the things that I think is um- is- is good- one of the few things that I think are good about these uh- proposed revisions is the idea that there may be an online application process, and I think that that would help, uh- because one of the concerns that people have is that they submit very personal information on paper and who knows what will happen to it. So that- putting it online gives people a sense of- you know that- it’s perhaps more secure. It also might make it more clear; what’s expected, and the process could be sort of streamlined. And um- and- and- ruled on more quickly. But I would suggest that the kinds of questions that are asked of prospective visitors um- be limited to what’s truly necessary, and we’ve looked at similar application processes in- in other states and they do not ask for as much personal information as what DOC asks, and we would encourage you to look at some of those other states; you know, Maine might be an example, Oregon- that- that have an online application process and that- that asks for a more limited type of questions. The- the other thing that’s come up often is the- the cap on the number of visits. Uh- raising the cap from eight to twelve and from ten to fifteen in minimum securities is an improvement, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Caps punish people that have maintained robust community connections that are vital to rehabilitation and bar numerous people who would like to visit, without any good reason. They force people who are incarcerated to pick and choose which friends or relatives they want to put on the list, and that- that’s hard to do. That creates tension. That creates stress. That creates uh- hurt feelings and it’s totally unnecessary. Even with the proposed increase, Massachusetts will continue to be one of the most restrictive states in the country, with respect to caps. Many states have no caps at all; California, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and others. These- all kinds of different states have- have realized that a cap is unnecessary and counterproductive- and other states which do have caps, have caps that are much larger than Massachusetts; in Pennsylvania, for example, the cap is fifty; in new Hampshire, it’s twenty, plus, unlimited numbers of family members, in other states also-
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Attorney Pingeon, I apologize for interrupting; just to give you- just to give you an update on the time, you’re about to- eight minutes into speaking now. To the extent that you’re able to limit your comments so that others may speak, we do appreciate it. Certainly not um- limiting your comments or asking you to stop speaking, but to the extent that you’re able to…
James Pingeon:
I- I- I-
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
…limit your comments so that others can speak.
James Pingeon:
I kind of realized I was probably going over so I will try to um- kind of wind down and- and…
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you.
James Pingeon:
…focus on a- just a couple more points. Even- even more significant perhaps than- than the cap, is the- the limitation on how often a visiting list can be updated. Um- three times a year is better than two times a year, but what it means in practice uh- is that someone may literally have to wait about five months before they can um- see a- a- incarcerated person after they’ve uh- uh- submitted an application, and that’s not just because there’s- you might have to wait because four months to submit the application; but because these new regulations give DOC twenty business days, in other words, another month uh- before they can decide to approve the application, and so- the- the only justification that I’ve ever heard for uh- this limitation on updating the list is it would be too much work administratively um- burdensome and I would submit that um- that is not a legitimate reason to prevent people from visiting. The- the Department has- you know, a difficult job of uh- trying to balance visitation against other needs, but uh- administrative concerns are way down on the list, and I- and I think it would be perfectly possible to do what most other states do, which is to allow people to update their list anytime they want to. Um- I will stop there and rely on our written submissions for our other comments. Than you.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments Attorney Pingeon.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Okay, we’ll promote the iPhone user to speak. iPhone user?
iPhone: Yes.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Very good, you can offer your comments at this time.
Myra Montanez:
Hi, my name is Myra Montanez, and I have a loved one in MCI-Norfolk. And um- my reasoning for joining in this morning is because uh- he is serving a life sentence and he has a hearing impairment, in which um- he’s in a special unit uh- because of that. And uh- because now the seating arrangement is having to sit across from one another, you kinda have to yell for him to- to hear you and it’s very difficult for him to hear you; and then you get you know the looks- and the other inmates um- a little bothered by the fact that they can’t hear their conversations with their loved one because you’re having to yell your conversation to- to your loved one. I had submitted a request to see if they would grant us to sit side by side so that that wouldn’t have to be the case, but it was denied. Uh- he has no longer any family members alive. I am the only person that visits him and I have not been able to visit him for over a year and a half because of this issue, of being um- hearing impaired, and to not cause any further- you know, any altercation if so- um- with any other inmate or visitor because I am having to yell to him, um- our conversations and vice versa. So, I would like for that to be taken into consideration for people that have disabilities like hearing impairments, um- and allow for us to sit again- next to each other, because I don’t think- and you- it shows that drugs are not coming in through visitors. The problem still exists with all these changes- the problem is still existing- suicide is still going on, unfortunately, and we shouldn’t be punished for something that we are not doing. Thank you for hearing my comments and God bless.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Josie, you may offer your comments when you’re ready. [Pause] Josie?
Atty. Timothy Whooley: Josie, are you able to hear us? [Pause] Okay, um- we’ll leave Josie on the list, but we’ll move to the next speaker in line, who is Kelly.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Kelly, are you able to hear us?
Kelly:
I am, thank you for your time.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
You may offer your comments when you’re ready.
Kelly:
Thank you very much. I just wanted to address two specific shifts that are proposed within the policy, uh- the first is the language change that is moving from uh- the facilities unable to guarantee specific periods or the duration of visitation time as published and scheduled. It has been my experience that visitation rarely begins within the hours; often delays of an hour or more are common, and my concern around changing the language that visitation- I believe it’s the- 483 1-7-1-8 but it could be- I could have that mis-transcribed; my concern is that it shifts responsibility from the facility’s management to sort of the ownness on family responsibility for tolerating shifts and limitation in visit time. If we remove the ability to have guaranteed visitation hours, uh- within either the two or four hour period, it removes recourse and ability for families to offer feedback or complaint that there were excessive delays, and it opens a window for having both institutional flexibility; which is either mismanagement from officers managing visitation processing, moving all the way towards, I can hold the tension between the unpredictability of prisons and the need to have flexibility within windows of visitation. My concern is that it reduces the ability to have a constraint on how much that reduction transcribes over time. The second piece that I am curious about, just in general, as the trend of reducing visitation, seating arrangements, and reducing visitation contact has been a trend continuing for- over the past decade or more. I’m unable to find any meaningful or publicly available data that demonstrates that the reduction in visitation contact has a direct correlation to the reduction in contraband in facilities. Anecdotal evidence would provide an understanding that contraband remains, if not increasing- consistent, despite the visitation reduction, and I am curious if, from a policy perspective, that information will be shared in addition to the justification for the reductions. Thank you for your time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Josie, are you able to offer your comments at this time?
Josie:
Oh yes, yeah- good morning- can you hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Josie:
Oh hello, I hope everyone’s okay and well. You know we’ve touched on quite a few um- points and I just want to add a few of my own opinions um- on it as well. My husband’s currently incarcerated at MCI-Shirley, and we have faced so many issues when it comes to visiting procedures, um- and unfortunately, most of it has been at the hands of the correctional officers that have been on duty. Um- and I think, personally you know- my husband, he’s been to various facilities. We’ve had in-person visits, non-contact visits, video visits, and there always seems to be the same issue – there is no consistency with the regulations. We adhere to all the regulations and I feel like the officers that are on duty at the time; whether it’s on a video visit, a non-contact visit, or contact visit – they kind of, will make up their own rules, whether they want to adhere to the rules that are the visiting procedures or um- they want to kind of- you know, be difficult that day, and I feel like it- it’s- it’s just not okay um- that they keep doing that. Um- and I just personally think it needs to be consistent throughout, um- and as I said, I’ve visited in various facilities. Um- some regulations which are not always adhered to by the correction officers- but as visitors and as the inmate, you know- they adhere to them um- when an issue’s been raised. Um- and in regards to- you know, the outfit um- you know regulations- ninety-nine percent of visitors adhere to them, um- and I don’t really understand why on the days at the discretion of the officer, um- whether they are accepted or not, um- especially when you have visitors who are traveling from different states, or even countries like myself, as you can hear you know- I’m not from the United States; I travel form the United Kingdom to visit my husband and I have been turned away. Um- and you know I- I feel like- you know- people who visit loved ones are fully aware of what to do and what not to do during a visit; but I don’t think it’s okay for officers on duty to change the rules on that day, or even change um- what visit it is, whether it’s contact or non-contact, there’s been times where- you know, I’ve traveled all the way from the United Kingdom to see my husband on our wedding anniversary, and on the day, it was changed to a non-contact visit with no- absolutely no reasoning at all. It was at the discretion of the officer, and I just think that’s just completely unacceptable, personally. Um- and you know- I feel that if the visits have been scheduled in advance, which you know, um- most visits are now, and due to regulation- they should go ahead without issue, uh- but unfortunately the officers ruin this by implementing their own rules and regulations on the day, and I just feel like it’s not fair. Um- another thing I would like to touch on is video visits. Especially for myself and people that live out of state, if we can’t you know- regularly be available to go and visit our partners or loved ones, and video visits are you know- a massive part of communication, and I just feel like there is, unfortunately, a lot of officers, at their own discretion, that terminate these visits, that kind of- do what they want on these visits- and there’s always some sort of implication that happens on these visits, and I think that that’s something that definitely needs to be looked into. Um- it’s happened to me numerous times, um- I actually got banned for three months um- from a video visit, due to the officer not liking something; um- and nothing actually happened on that visit, and when I did you know- eventually speak to um- the superintendent of the facility, they just kind of didn’t even investigate it, they didn’t even look into what happened; and nothing did happen, and that- you know- specific visiting officer, used to do this on like a regular- like her- she consistently used to do it, and I think that’s something that needs to be looked into um- as well. And you know- lastly, you know, unfortunately, I feel like most officers are completely emotionally immune to visitors and inmates, um- during visiting times; whether its’s video visits, non-contact, and contact visits, I just feel like they just don’t care. At the end of the day, we are all human beings. You know, as much as the inmate doesn’t want to be in the facility, we don’t want to be in the facility seeing them, and I just feel like there needs to be some sort of compassion – and I think they need to look at these regulations, because I personally don’t think- you know- you coming in with some trousers that, potentially, might be a little bit too tight, should- you know, deter whether you’re having a visit or not. Um- yeah- that’s all my comments. Apologies if it’s a little bit scatty but that’s all I’ve got to say, so I thank you so much for your time and giving me the opportunity to speak.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Nicole Green, please be prepared to offer your comments. [Pause] Nicole, can you hear me?
Nicole Green:
Yes.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Very good. You can offer your comments whenever you’re ready.
Nicole Green:
Okay, thank you. Good morning and thank you uh- for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Nicole Green and I am um- a wife of- of an incarcerated husband within the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. We have married for one year and have been together for three. I am here today because visitations is one of the most important ways we maintain our marriage. Yet the current visitation process often makes it- that- um- makes it difficult. I work full-time and regularly travel about two hours after work to visit my husband. Every visit requires planning visits, times, and sacrifice; but I make that trip because our relationship matters. Unfortunately, the limited time that- that we have is often reduced even further because of institutional disruptions - example, on Tuesday, May 12th, a shakedown disrupted visitations from approximately 6 pm, when the visitations start at night, until 7:15. The same week on that Saturday, May 16th, visitations were interrupted twice that day; approximately 5:30 to 6:15, and then uh- fifteen minutes later, there was another shakedown from 6:30 to 7:20. On both days, after traveling two hours, I was only able to visit my husband from about 7:30 to 8:20 – we didn’t even get the full visit until 8:30 pm. They cut the visits off by 8 / 8:20 so that we’re all out of the facility. Um- on the thing it’s 5:30 to 8:30 and we don’t even get like- those full- like three hours that night. The night visitations are always interrupted and have less time, um- and the day gets from 1 to 4:30. I understand that safety and security are important; however, for families, these interruptions have a real emotional impact. When you’ve worked all day, driven two hours to see your spouse, and then lose most of your time, it feels like your time and commitment don’t matter. These are important moments um- that we’re never gonna get back. Another challenge is the lack of physical connection. My husband and I must sit across from each other and cannot hold hands. We are husband and wife; something as simple as holding hands provides comfort, support and reassurance. Being denied even that- that basic connection we are allowed- um- we- we were allowed before, um- it makes maintaining a marriage during incarceration more- more difficult. The seating now, sometimes it’s hard to hear your loved one, with conversations around you and kids playing with their fathers, so- so you lean in a little bit to- um- to talk and then a C.O. comes over right away, or- or yells across the room, so that everyone can hear, “Lean back!” It- it- it’s so embarrassing because it makes you feel like you did something wrong. Uh- family relationships are not a security risk, they are a source of stability, hope, and um- rehabilitation. Strong family connections help incarcerated individuals maintain positive mental health and prepares success- reentry into society.
I also respectfully ask that the Department of Corrections to consider possible- um- policies that support meaningful family contact, reduce unnecessary visitation interruptions, and recognize the importance of um-marriages and family relationships. Thank you for listening to my experience and for considering the voices of families who are directly affected by all these policies. Thank you.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments. At this time, I’m going to ask Ms. Dupuis-Clarke to unmute the audio only users um- in the uh- on the Zoom hearing and ask if those users have any comments that they would like to make.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Audio caller do you have any comments that you’d like to make? [Pause] Audio caller do you have any comments that you’d like to make? [Pause] Audio caller do you have any comments that you’d like to make? [Pause] And one more - Audio caller do you have any comments that you’d like to make? [Pause] Nothing appears-
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
It does not appear that any of the audio callers will be making any comments. I’ll make one final call, if any other participants would like to make comments, please raise your virtual hand. There is one.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Lakevia, you may offer your comments at this time.
Lakevia:
My name is Lakevia [Inaudible] and I’m calling um- for- my- my- loved one- inmate is incarcerated through an alleged instance, currently in MCI-Norfolk. Um- I’ve been actually currently visiting um- multiple facilities for the last ten and a half years- my son is sixteen years old; when we started um- coming to MCI- when we started coming to the prison, my some was- eighteen months, and throughout that process- it has been a lot of changes to the point where- we too, do have a visit unifor- a visit uniform I call it, because um- you never know, and I also have a bag of things that I do bring. I also had a couple of recordings that I won’t play right now; but I do have recordings, that I’ve been trying to schedule- on May 17th and May 18th, I tried to schedule a visit where I had to sit on the phone, both days, um- from the duration of 9 am to 3 pm – still no recourse to get through. That’s a lot when my son expects to be at the visit. We go up to the visit once a week on Wednesdays. Um- do to his sports and his- him just growing up as a young teenager, you know- that changes, so that switches from now a Wednesday visits to now a Sunday visit. Um- again, if you can’t get through on Friday afternoon, that means I can’t get a visit on Sunday, because I couldn’t get through. Um- it’s been multiple times that I’ve called, and I’ve scheduled a visit, and we get there, and we’re- either my son’s not on the visit, or his mother’s not on the visiting list- and I know I scheduled myself, her, and my son each time. I just think the contact portion of the visit as well would be very detrimental to my son and my son’s father because- once a week is the only time that they get to touch each other, hug each other, laugh, joke. Yes, he is sixteen, but they do still play chess together, they do still have- they still read together, they still do a lot of things that require him as a dad. Thank you for your time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Speaker number twenty-six, R lo- can you hear me?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Speaker R lo, can you hear us?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
R lo, you appear to be on mute. R lo, if you can hear us you can offer your comments at any time.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
It does appear that you’re muted R lo, so if you’re trying to speak we are unable to hear you and we would need you to unmute your microphone please.
Nicole Green:
Um- this is Nicole Green. You guys clicked on me, so I think you clicked on the wrong person. I already- I already just spoke.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Okay, thank you for letting us know. We’re- the Zoom is showing that R lo has permissions to speak. It appears- we’ll try this one more time.
R lo:
Hello?
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
We can hear you now R lo.
R lo:
Sorry, um- it had disconnected, I’m so sorry. But um-
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
No, not a problem at all. You can make your comments when you’re ready please.
R lo: Hi everyone, my name is Rise-ah [Phonetic]. My loved one has been incarcerated for maybe eight months now. Um- we started at the max but now we’re at MCI-Norfolk. I just wanted to kinda add to what everyone was saying- I have a three year old um- when her- we visit her dad, and I think you know like- the visiting area is very important because, before he went in, we was with each other every single day- that’s her dad you know, she loves- she knows her dad, they have a great relationship, and I feel like these visits are helping like- you know, keep that relationship- keep that bond; so like, removing it would be- it would be weird for her, you know? Like that’s her dad, she gets to- it’s gonna be weird for her to transition from being able to speak to her dad, touch her dad, hug her dad, like- it’s gonna be a weird transition for her um- And then, you know, for him to come home, we wanna maintain that relationship, we want them to- we want her to know and love her dad, you know? And I feel like also- another thing is like, depending on who’s working on a certain day, that determines how the vibe of the visit is. Um- some days, you know, she’s free to express herself with her dad, you know, some days it’s like, “Oh, can you watch her a little more? Can you really be on top of her?” – My daughter is three years old. She has a lot of energy. When she sees her dad, everyone knows she’s there to see her dad cause she announces it like- and, I just feel like, removing that part of the visit would be- it wouldn’t serve a good purpose in their relationship, in their bond, and- yeah, I’ve had a guard say, you know, like, “I don’t care about your relationship with the parent, what I care about is just your relationship with the daughter.” That’s another thing; he didn’t go in there as a single parent- he didn’t go in there just as a parent. He went in there as my partner and also her father and- I feel like our relationship should matter as well. There shouldn’t be a reason why we can’t hold hands. We’re heavily searched before we go in, so we should be able to hold hands. We should be able to- just- have- you know, like- just, hold hands. Like, um- removing all of that seems kind of unnecessary and, wouldn’t be good for- I feel like- anyone’s mental health; like- the visitors, the incarcerated individuals, like- yeah- and then also, again, depending on who’s working on what day, even getting into the visiting room- I’ve had uh- an issue with- one time I didn’t call um- when I first started going to Norfolk, and the lady just- you know, she was- coming down my throat like, “Oh, well you need to schedule.” And it was just like, this big thing- and kinda talking to me like maybe she would talk to an inmate, and it’s like- you shouldn’t speak to anyone like that, but- this attitude and stuff like that towards us, when we’re just trying to get in to see our loved one, shouldn’t be a thing. Everything should be kinda just straightforward – treat us like we’re humans, treat them like they’re humans- it’s just- it’s a lot, and that’s all I have to say for now.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Monique Bryant?
Monique Bryant:
Hi, can you guys hear me?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
We can. You may offer your comments at any time.
Monique Bryant:
Okay, thank you. I would like to [Inaudible] like everybody um- provided like very good points. I have a- I basically have someone who’s incarcerated, and I have a two-year old, and to be able to tell a two-year old, who’s still learning English, that they can’t touch someone or they can’t be in contact- can’t have too much contact- I think that’s a little bit difficult. I really do hope you guys do not remove that. My two-year old loves to sit in people’s laps, you know, talk, engage, basically like- say, “Eyes, nose, …” whatever the case may be. I hope that you guys don’t remove the contact visits. I hope um- you don’t restrict it too much either. Also, um- as far as scheduling visits, like- having to call in; that is a bit of a hassle. I think that um- I’m actually kind of against the whole visiting list- I don’t think there should be a list. I think it should be- anyone should be able to visit the person, unless the person who’s incarcerated does not want to visit the person. I think that should be um- opened up a little bit. But I don’t [Inaudible] kids and I have a cousin who’s- who’s incarcerated and they were allowed to be able to engage through him and- talk to him but thank you for your time.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Thank you.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
We have two iPhone users here. iPhone user, have you requested to speak? [Pause] iPhone user, have you requested to speak? [Pause] iPhone user, have you requested to offer comments?
Myra Montanez:
This is Myra Montanez; I already offered my comments. Thank you.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you. If there was an iPhone user that did want to speak, you still have an opportunity to raise your hand. Please just re- re-raise your hand virtually. Um- for now, we’ll just move on to the next speaker on the list.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Kathy, can you hear me? [Pause] Kathy, you may offer your comments at this time.
Kathy:
Okay, and you can hear me okay?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
We can.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Kathy:
Okay, thank you. I wanted to echo what everyone else has said and then I wanted to add that, I think that something that would be very beneficial would be if the C.O.s um- as well as the DOC administration at all the facilities, would receive trauma informed training as well as well as interpersonal communication training; that there really is really no research that supports punitive, dehumanizing, and stigmatizing interactions among both the incarcerated individuals as well as their families, friends, and loved ones. I think that could go a long way in so many of the interactions that are happening. And I also would like to add that, the research shows, as some people did mention, that- connection and effective communication is the way for our loved ones to continue their rehabilitation and their planning on returning to um- society outside the walls. And so, my hope is- is that the DOC would take some time to reflect on their intentions as well. That’s all I have to say. Thank you very much.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Okay, I think that iPhone user may have raised their hand inadvertently; but if it was intentional, please raise it again and you’ll be returned to the list. At this time, we’re going to move forward uh- with Denise… and Denise, when you can hear me, you may offer your comments at any time.
Denise Sinatra Barbosa:
Can you guys her me okay?
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
Yes.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Yes, we can.
Denise Sinatra Barbosa:
Okay, um- I just wanna say, everyone has made very valid points, and I agree with most of it- um- and I also just wanted to- um- touch- point on the incarcerated individuals, how they feel like a burden to their families and loved ones. Um- my husband- I travel from five hours away and, a lot of the time, because it is such a hassle, even though it is pre-scheduled, and- you know, you took forever to get on the visiting list- it shouldn’t be such a hassle, but it is anxiety ridden, um- that it would get to the point where he was like, “Don’t even come visit.” Because it’s just- he gets disappointed if like- my anniversary for instance, I came all the way there and I turned away because I forgot to schedule a visit; um- I asked to speak to someone – the guy would not allow me to, he was actually very nasty. So I then um- wrote into the prison; I made a complaint, and then, he retaliated against me; every time, I always had an issue with my clothing; even though I always had the same clothing, um- so, it makes you not even want to say anything because you’re scared that they’re gonna retaliate against your loved one or yourself, every time you go visit- and I go once a month, and it’s just- it’s a burden for them too because they have their hopes up, they have them waiting for over an hour and a half- even if you get there an hour early- even though you scheduled- twenty-four hours to- um- my husband actually currently at MCI-Shirley; so you could schedule within the seven days, so they’re more than prepared yet, like- the um- I forgot who said it; sorry, I apologize but- once you get there, you’re still waiting- so much time, and you’re just seeing the officers sitting around and you’re not understanding what’s going on, and so that’s frustrating for our loved ones as well as us. And even, um- visitors of loved ones with elderly; the way that they make these poor elderly people go through the same stuff- and even like- there’s no compassion, um- there’s no compassion at all and that’s what the system is lacking. Um- our incarcerated loved ones are humans, and it shouldn’t be this anxiety ridden experience just to connect with your loved ones. And that’s all I have to say.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments.
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
At this time, I don’t see an iPhone user with a hand raised, uh- so unless you want to raise your hand iPhone user-
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
And I’ll make another final call: If anyone else would like to offer comments, please raise your hand at this time; raise your digital hand that is. [Pause]
Michele Dupuis-Clarke:
I see a hand raised. One moment, let’s see who that individual is. [Pause] Pamela, you can offer your comments at any time.
Pamela:
Yes, thank you for allowing me speak and I apologize; I was one of the iPhone users, uh- but I signed back in under Pamela. Um- I do have a- a loved one, my brother, who is at MCI-Norfolk, and I just want to offer my comments and reiterate some of the comments that have already been made. Um I too, and my sister, and my mom are on my brother’s visiting list, and we all come a hundred plus miles away to visit him. Um- we’re in two different states and it is a lot to change the um- visiting um- you know- the basically policies, um- that come and go and change over time. It is hard for us to pack a suitcase just to visit, and then to be turned away; which I have not been, um- and I don’t think either my mother or sister have been, but we have seen people that have been turned away, and been advised by other visitors, because they have a similar issue, that there’s a store down the street; you know- you go down there and get another outfit. Which is very inconvenient, cause you have to leave, go get something, come back- hopefully, that is the right outfit. Also, I want to touch on the fact that the um- policy of having loved ones not being able to touch one another, I think that is a sad policy to raise, because again, you’re punishing the inmate and the family members; especially when it’s considering um- if you have a mom who is seventy-seven years old and who is handicapped, uses a walker, goes through all the trouble to go a hundred plus miles to visit her son, and be told she cannot embrace him. Um- and- and that is also hard for younger children, as I heard several comments made- because the younger the child when their loved one is incarcerated, there’s a bond that needs to be created and that bond can be affected if you’re not able to touch your young children. I have seen that in another family member, and I went out of my way to take that young child to visit that incarcerated family member, and it helped over the years, so that when he did come home, that bond was still there. She knew who he was. So again, um- I just want to thank you for allowing me the time to speak, and the last thing I do want to say if these policies are being changed because of um- uh- drugs or any other um- you know- items are getting into the prisons, I think we need to look elsewhere, because evidently, if there’s a policy on how we are screened and checked in the visiting room uh- before we get to the visiting room, it’s not coming from the visitors – I just want to reiterate that and thank you again for allowing me to speak.
Atty. Timothy Whooley:
Thank you for your comments. Again, I’ll make a final call: If anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand virtually. [Pause] No one else has raised their hand. Um- I’d like to thank each of you for um- attending today’s virtual public hearing and taking the time to do so, and thanks to those to um- opted to speak and offer comment during today’s public hearing. I know that people have busy schedules and other obligations, and we do appreciate you taking the time to do that. Um- this period- this public comment period is really integral um- to the establishment of effective regulations. Um- after this process, and after this hearing is concluded, uh- the Department will take your comments, as well as the other written- as well as the written comments received uh- into consideration; we’ll take those back to the Commissioner of Correction, Shawn Jenkins. After considering those comments, the Department will make any further revisions to the regulation as necessary. Once those final revisions are made, um- the Department will publish the final version of the regulation into the Massachusetts Register, where it will be promulgated and it will become effective. Thank you again for your time. I hope you all have a nice day. And comments will also be posted um- to the Department of Correction’s website um- as well as a transcript of today’s hearing. Thank you.
END