transcript  Special Commission on State Institutions February 13, 2025

0:00

>> KATE: before we begin, we would like to let  everyone know that this Commission meeting must   follow the Open Meeting Law. Any votes taken  during the meeting will be done via roll call 

0:09

vote. We ask that Commission members please  mute themselves when they are not speaking,   andUse the raise hand feature if they would like to speak. Before speaking, please state your name 

0:19

so everyone knows who is talking.For any questions  posted from the audience in the Q&A for this 

0:25

meeting, CDDER will be reviewing the questions and holding them until the end of the meeting.Today's 

0:32

meeting is scheduled for two hours. We will have a break midway through the meeting, at about 4 

0:39

PM. To make sure everyone can participate; we ask the following: We have CART services supporting 

0:46

our meeting today. These are captions that help  people follow the discussion. If you need help 

0:52

turning on these captions, please let us know.We  ask that people speak at a non rushed pace and 

0:58

provide yourself with a brief pause for the CART  transcriber to write what you have said.We ask 

1:05

that you speak with as few acronyms as possible.  Doing so will help all participants to understand 

1:11

essential information that is shared here.We  will try to remind folks of these items I just 

1:16

mentioned, if needed, during this meeting and  to keep us on track.When we end this meeting, 

1:22

we will have notes made available based on what  we talk about today.This meeting is also being 

1:28

recorded, and the videos are available on the  Commission's Mass.gov page and on YouTube. Next 

1:35

slide please. We hope everyone has taken a moment to view the agenda. These are the 

1:45

items we will be discussing today. We have some announcements. CDDER will provide a recap of 

1:50

the last meeting. After we vote to approve last month's meeting minutes, we are going to start   talking about our work on recommendations. We will talk about the purpose of this Special Commission, 

2:02

the process for the report working group, the potential outcomes of the Special Commission, 

2:08

including some examples, and the impact that we would like to achieve before it ends, and then we 

2:16

will discuss any next steps and then wrap up the meeting with a vote to adjourn. Next slide please.  

2:25

First and foremost, we want to announce  the departure of one of the Commission members.   Mary Mahon McCauley, who has  served as a representative 

2:33

of the Mass. Office on Disability, She will be retiring at the end of this   month and will be stepping down from the Special  Commission.On behalf of the Special Commission, 

2:43

I would like to say thank you to Mary for her work  on the Commission. Another person from the office 

2:49

will take Mary's place sometime in the future. So, thank you very much, Mary. We've appreciated 

2:55

you. I don't know that you're on, but everyone else should hear how much we've appreciated   your presence at the meetings. And now we would like to ask Emily from CDDER to 

3:06

provide a high-level recap of our last meeting before we vote to approve the minutes. Emily.   >> EMILY: Thank you, Kate.This is Emily.At  the last meeting, the Commission talked about 

3:17

a need to make a plan to review the final report  that our group CDDER shared with the Commission, 

3:24

including identifying the questions the  commissioners have about the report, deciding 

3:29

how to create recommendations based off the  report, and how to write those recommendations.The 

3:37

commission also discussed a report working group  that would assist with this work, and how it would 

3:43

support the larger Commission.Commission talked  about the upcoming schedule of meetings and voted 

3:50

to approve a monthly meeting schedule through May  of 2025.CDDER talked about the report that they 

3:59

delivered to the Commission.They talked about  the report's main areas, its overall structure, 

4:06

and the opportunities for consideration  by the Commission that were identified in   the report.The Commission then discussed the  content of the report and their feedback, and 

4:17

they started a discussion about potential areas of  opportunities for recommendations and next steps.A 

4:24

discussion of these opportunities will continue  in today's February meeting.Thank you, Kate.  

4:30

>> KATE: Thank you, Emily. Before we dive into this afternoon's discussions, we have our vote 

4:37

on the minutes from the Commission's last meeting in January. Draft copies of the meeting minutes 

4:43

were emailed to members earlier this week. Do any members have any suggested changes 

4:49

to the minutes?Okay.I do not see any  hands.So we can proceed with the vote.As 

5:00

usual, we will be conducting a roll call vote, but before CDDER reads out everyone's   names, do we have a motion to approve the  minutes? And please remember to state your name 

5:09

before you speak.A motion to approve the minutes. >> ALEX: This is Alex.I'll make a motion 

5:17

to approve the minutes. >> KATE: Thank you.Do we have   a second to approve the minutes? >> This is Bill.I'll second it.  

5:24

>> Beat me too it, Bill. >> KATE: Excellent.And CDDER will read the list 

5:29

of the members' names for the roll call vote. >> Great. Thank you, Kate. This is Christine Roa 

5:34

from CDDER, and I will now read out members names in alphabetical order by your last 

5:40

names. When your name is called, please respond with Yes, no, Present or Abstain.  

5:48

So I will begin. Elise Aronne. Kate Benson. >> Yes.Sister Linda Bessom.Reggie Clark.  

6:15

>> Yes. >> Thank you, Reggie.   >> Yes.James Cooney. >> Yes.  

6:25

>> Samuel Edwards. >> Yes.   >> Anne Fracht.Alex Green. >> Yes.  

6:41

>> Bill Henning. >> Yes.   And I may be in and out of this meeting because  I have a current obligation in my office, too, 

6:49

in case you don't see me.Thank you. >> Andrew Levrault.  

6:56

>> Yes. >> Mary Mahon 

7:02

McCauley.Evelyn Mateo. >> Yes.   >> Lauri Mederios.Matt Millett.Vesper  Moore.Brenda Rankin.  

7:21

>> This is my second time being here. >> And are you voting yes or no on the meeting 

7:29

minutes?What do you think? >> Yes.   >> Yes?Okay.Thank you. >> Thank you, Brenda.Did I miss anyone?  

7:46

>> KATE: Okay.Thank you, everyone.The  minutes are approved.As a reminder, 

7:52

copies of the approved minutes and all the materials from our Commission meetings are   available on the Commission's webpage. Next slide, please. We'd like to continue our  

8:06

discussion from last month and our plans for the upcoming work of the Special Commission. I'd like 

8:11

to ask Alex Green to lead a discussion about the purpose for the Special Commission for State 

8:16

Institutions and provide an overview  of the process for the report   working group.Go ahead, Alex. >> ALEX: Thank you, Kate.Hi, 

8:30

everyone.When we were meeting in the report  working group earlier this month, it came up 

8:38

that it's been a long time since we started.It's  been an even longer time since we first passed the 

8:44

legislation that made this Commission, and we're  getting close, obviously, to the end of this phase 

8:50

of the work, and so everyone thought it would be a  good idea to kind of get a story of the beginning 

8:57

of how this all began because I think we all know  that some members have come and some members have 

9:02

gone, and we've had changeover in the Commission,  which is natural, but I can see why it's helpful 

9:11

to know how we started.When you think about what  kind of recommendations you want to make.We have 

9:17

this big report, and we have to do some stuff  with it and I'll talk about that in a few minutes,   but the biggest take away is we get to suggest  some things based on what we've seen.And how 

9:27

much to suggest and how to do it and what to say  is probably, it will feel more comfortable to know 

9:35

how to do that, I think, knowing how we all began  this.And since I've been at this work since the 

9:41

beginning of the legislation, I thought I would  just share for a few minutes, so what I'd like to   do is maybe take about no more than ten minutes  to go into the background of how we began all 

9:52

of this.And then spend another ten minutes or so  going through what it is that we're actually going 

9:57

to put together.What are we doing in the next  few months?And what's that going to look like?And 

10:02

hopefully that sets a nice stage for us to take up  for the rest of the meeting a conversation about 

10:08

what we'd like to start suggesting.And that's what  we're going to do for the months ahead.And I can   describe a little bit about that and take some  questions.So I might move faster.My goal is not 

10:18

to move slower than that.So the deep background on  the Commission, where this all began, was actually 

10:27

during the pandemic, there were at least two, it  seems like probably three former institutional 

10:34

sites in Massachusetts that were being used  for holiday light shows.They were being used to 

10:41

celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah, Kwanza, and have  people drive through and see all these buildings 

10:47

lit up with Christmas lights.And it was because  people couldn't get together and gather in places, 

10:56

and so it was a way to celebrate the holidays.But  for a lot of disabled folks around the state, when 

11:02

we learned about this, that seemed really wrong to  be doing, because these sites are places, as we've 

11:09

all talked about, where some good work was done,  but there's also a lot of really, really dark, 

11:15

bad history.And that's complex to deal with and  deserves to be wrestled with in a more sensitive 

11:22

way.A group of us, some of whom are members on  the Commission, protested the use of these holiday 

11:29

lights at one of the sites at the Fernald  School, and we had some impact, but I don't 

11:35

think that we had an impact in really getting the  community to stop what they were doing.In fact, 

11:41

much like we've talked about as a group with  buildings falling apart in the middle of it all, 

11:47

one of the buildings on the Fernald campus caught  on fire, and the city of Waltham blamed the   activists for this and it went back and forth and  it was really ugly and it just seemed like this 

11:57

was not the way to change people's minds and  let them know that this history is important, 

12:04

and that it relates to who we are today and  how people think about us today.Because it's 

12:10

not that far in the past.And so two legislators  reached out.One is the state senator, senator 

12:18

Mike Barrett, who's on the assistant majority  leader of the Mass Senate, and Sean Garballey, 

12:25

who is a house rep and a prominent disability  rights legislator.And they said we're really 

12:33

interested in this work and moved by it and want  to support disabled folks around the state, and it 

12:39

seems like one of the big problems here is that  people don't know this history.They don't know 

12:44

that there were big institutions everywhere.They  don't know what those institutions did.They   don't know that there's good and bad.And we'd be  curious if you've seen other issues.And I said, 

12:55

I have seen other issues.There are issues  with records.And whether family members,   let alone the general public knows about this  history, do family members know about it, 

13:05

can they get those records?Where are they?There's  these cemeteries all over the place.There are big 

13:11

issues at hand.And they said, okay, great.Let's  come up with some language to create a Commission 

13:17

to look into this.This is a big deal.It's going  to take a lot of work to kind of figure out.That   usually takes a lot of people.And this deserves  it.It's a big part of the history of Massachusetts 

13:28

because as the report shows, we're the first state  in the country to have state schools for people 

13:33

with intellectual disabilities and to have we were  one of the earliest and we've been one of the most 

13:40

influential with what were called state hospitals  but were asylums for folks with mental illness.So 

13:47

together we drafted some language, and they said  we don't really you tell us what the steps are to 

13:54

get there.What we know is that there needs to be  public awareness about this down the road.People 

14:00

need to know these stories.That means there  probably needs to be education, and there probably   needs to be some idea of something like a museum,  though what that means, who knows.Go for it.  

14:11

And so with that we worked on the language of  what you've probably all seen of what we're 

14:16

looking into, which is we have four kind of  big pillars of stuff that we've looked into, 

14:22

and those revolve around the history, what is  it, like, literally, what were these places, 

14:29

and could we tell that in a way where people  could know more?Where are records and what issues 

14:35

do people have getting them?What's the state of  the cemeteries that were at these institutions, 

14:40

and are there any other things about  human remains that we should know about,   or their bodies that might be buried elsewhere? Are  there bodies in collections at universities or in 

14:50

the government?And then based on this history,  whatever we find out, what do we recommend is a 

14:58

good way forward for people in Massachusetts to  know about this history.So you jump all the way 

15:04

forward, this went through all these processes and  committees and everything in the legislature, and   on the other end, the bill got turned into a part  of the state budget, and it got funding, which is 

15:14

why we've been able to hire CDDER, and with that  funding, thanks to Victor for making it actually 

15:20

work, we were able to sort of set this whole  Commission up and come together.And what's special 

15:26

about our group is that we are the first, as far  as I can tell, talking to people around the world, 

15:32

we are the first commission ever to be asked by a  government to look into the human rights history 

15:41

of these institutions where the members of that  commission are a majority disabled.More of us are 

15:47

disabled on this commission than are not.And where  the leaders are disabled.And that has not happened 

15:54

anywhere.It's very special.And so it gives us a  chance to look into this history.And over these 

16:01

last this last year and a half or two years,  whatever it's been, CDDER has been digging into   all of this and working with us to understand  the issues and all of these working groups and 

16:10

come back together.Our job, at the end of all  of this, which is what we're getting near to, 

16:15

is we have to go back to the legislature, go back  to the senator and the senate overall, go back to 

16:20

the house and the legislator, Garballey, and the  house overall, go back to the governor and deliver 

16:28

a report that says here's what we found and here's  what we think you should do based on what we 

16:34

found.So that's what we're kind of coming together  to do now.And I think it's a good time to say, A, 

16:45

commissions I think this is something to be really  proud of, especially as disabled folks, where 

16:51

a lot of the time we're told that we can't do  things as well as other people or as fast as other 

16:56

people.I have been told repeatedly by legislators  that we got off the ground as a commission faster 

17:02

than any commission they've ever seen, and we've  done more work than any commission they've ever   seen.We are doing great work and we're going to  be able to tell people in the Commonwealth that 

17:13

we've done great work, and ask them to do some  stuff based on what we've done.That's something 

17:19

to be really proud of, and I think a lot of  people, just as they have up to this point, 

17:25

taken very seriously the work that we want to  do and we've had some really good supporters   in this.I think we're going to have some good  supporters as we go forward and say these are 

17:34

our suggestions.So that's kind of a very, very  brief overview of where we're at.And we have a 

17:43

lot of options going ahead.We could ask them to  keep the Commission going if we think there are 

17:49

reasons that we should exist beyond the end of  this.We can ask for funding on things and support 

17:54

for things.We can ask for ideas to be taken up  and made into law or done by the governor.We 

18:01

can do a lot of things.We can't guarantee that  they'll do them, but we have a lot of power to 

18:08

say what we mean based on the amazing work that  CDDER has done.And so now our job is to kind of 

18:15

both say the very specific things that we saw that  were wrong that we want to see fixed, and also see   the big things that we want to see get done.So I  think that's a sort of all of it in a nutshell.I 

18:26

don't know if there are any questions.I'd be  happy to answer a few questions now, and if 

18:32

there are or if there aren't, the next step is I  wanted to tell you what it will actually look like   for us to tell the senate and tell the house and  tell the governor and tell really the people in 

18:44

Massachusetts what it is that we found.And there's  a whole process to that that's actually going to   make things easier for us.But if there are any  questions, I would answer any that you have.Sister 

19:05

Linda, go for it.Oops, did I lose  you?She raised her hand and then may 

19:13

have dropped off.Let's wait. >> KATE: She's muted.  

19:19

>> ALEX: Oh, she's muted.Okay. >> KATE: Actually, yeah, she's muted.   >> ALEX: Oh, there you go.Gotcha.Sorry.I  was down too far on the screen.  

19:28

>> Can you hear me now? >> ALEX: I absolutely can.How you doing?  

19:35

>> Thank God.Okay.Sorry! >> ALEX: Every day.I was   doing that earlier today. >> Look, I just have to say 

19:45

how much I have learned from being on this Special  Commission.I mean, I am astounded at all of these 

19:54

dimensions that have been brought up, and, you  know, if the State doesn't follow through with 

20:05

what we're saying, I just don't understand.You  know, because I have found that I mean, 

20:13

I work on legislative advocacy and other groups,  and so I know how critic al this report is and 

20:24

how critical it is that each representative and  each senator makes sure that there is follow up.So 

20:34

I am behind you 100 percent.I think a question  that I raised with, and I don't know who to go 

20:45

to with this question, but I feel it might be on  other people's minds and hearts.And the thing is, 

20:56

with these current executive offers that Trump is  throwing out left and right, how is this going to 

21:05

impact not only this Special Commission but the  state institutions within Massachusetts?And what 

21:15

do we or who is going to be prepared to deal  with that onslaught, or how can this group be 

21:27

very clear in I don't know, either in opposing  or affirming or but I just I have learned so 

21:37

much from this Commission.I am most, most grateful  to each one of you.Every day, I mean, I'm I have 

21:44

a sister at Hogan, so and I'm up there like at  least two times a week, at least, you know, so 

21:55

that's a burning question that I have, and maybe  that needs to be put on at the end, but I would 

22:06

hate to have all this work declared like null and  void because of the stupidity of a president who 

22:17

has no clue what these state institutions are  about, what they're doing and how they have in 

22:27

the past operated, and what they're doing in the  community, you know, that protects and defends 

22:36

the basic human rights of the people who right  now are in them.So that's a whole jumble, but 

22:44

I just don't know where to go with that question,  or if that could be put on a new as a new piece, 

22:51

but I just don't want to see this report just  pushed to the side and say, oh, we're not going 

22:58

to pay attention, because of the ignorance of the  leader in this country.And how these things are 

23:08

going down.That's my fear and deep concern. >> ALEX: Well, so there's a whole bunch of 

23:15

things here that I want to just take up  on what you said.First of all, thank you,   and I know we all feel that CDDER has  really done just a magnificent job.  

23:26

>> Yes. >> ALEX: It's amazing.Second of all, the   way you asked that, I just want everyone to  hear that, which is you don't have to have an 

23:33

answer and you don't have to know how something  is going to be done.This is the place where you   could absolutely wonder stuff out loud.And we may  not have all the answers but we're going to figure 

23:43

it out, and that's the whole point of having a  Commission is we're all here listening and we   all have different skills that we can bring  to this.I know that one thing that just goes 

23:51

to answer what you were saying right away, it's  the last slide on the other side of this when I   get to say what we report back, is that there are  other things we can do.One of the things I didn't 

24:00

put on there but is totally possible and we should  do, you've done a lot of legislative advocacy.One 

24:06

of the things that we can do where you said every  legislator should know about them, maybe we need a   team of people when it comes out who just go up to  the legislature and bring it to every legislator 

24:17

and really sit down, meeting by meeting, and make  sure that they look at it and they know what it   says and that they understand what's going on.And  that can be done one on one or in legislative 

24:26

briefings where you get a whole bunch of them  together in a room and you tell them, hey, this   is what we found and this is what we recommend.And  I think that's work that honors what's already 

24:37

been done, and would be really important to do.So  to your point about the broader kind of national 

24:44

climate, I don't know how any of us any of us with  our lives and work in disability are not afraid 

24:51

and concerned right now.And we have a state that  has enormous power and needs to know that it has 

24:58

the power to shape mindsets, that we got to where  we are, because people don't know these stories, 

25:06

and I think we can speak to our officials here in  Massachusetts based on our findings in a way that 

25:13

says here is what you need to do to step up on  our behalf.But I think some of this stuff is just, 

25:21

it's so hard to even make it clear that past  and present are related, and CDDER has helped 

25:26

us do that.That I think that saying that now  in really clear and powerful ways, this is why 

25:33

we see today what we did in the past is going  to be really important for us to get across.So 

25:39

I see Emily's hand and I will stop talking. >> If I just may respond, thank you so much, Alex, 

25:47

and definitely, I want to be a part of that. >> ALEX: Thank you.   >> And I'm really good at it because I've worked  from another systemic change organization, 

25:58

and every Monday when I volunteer, that's  basically what I do.I call each representative.I 

26:05

call each senator, and I ask them to do such  and such.So I would be very glad to be a part 

26:13

of that.And any hearing that you have, I'd  be glad to be present with that as well.And 

26:22

also do what I can.So put my name down. >> ALEX: You got it.Thank you so much.So 

26:29

much.Emily, did you want to go for it? >> EMILY: Thanks, Alex.Just very briefly.I 

26:36

think you all have an opportunity to capture  the important parts of history and the lessons 

26:43

from that history and I would encourage you  to state what is important to you and what 

26:48

is important in protecting the rights of  people with disabilities, and what may not   have been optimal about institutional models,  without taking current laws for granted.So 

26:59

even if you feel like it's already protected  in a law, like Olmstead or some of these ADA, 

27:04

state it again.And that is how I would  advise you going forward in the current 

27:09

time of uncertainty with the political climate. >> ALEX: Thank you so much.It's sobering right 

27:16

now, folks, and I think we probably saw this  starting a little earlier than other folks saw 

27:23

it and we have a chance to really step up now and  to gather some folks around us.So let me talk for 

27:30

a few minutes about how we're going to do that and  what the kind of core thing is, and from there,   again, please, like, as questions arise, let's go  through them and if something occurs to you later, 

27:41

just E mail, reach out, whatever it is, you know,  Kate and Matt and I can really dig in to stuff and 

27:47

no question no question is something you should  keep to yourself because you think, oh, I should 

27:54

already know this or whatever it is.We're working  in an area where literally nobody knew this at the   start.This is so deep.So saying I don't know is  kind of the method by which we got this done.So 

28:06

let's dive into the sort of how we're going to  do this.If we can go to the next slide, that   would be great.So on top of this very big report  from CDDER, we have a chance as a Commission to 

28:21

sum everything up.And that's important because  a lot of people will read the big report but a 

28:29

lot more will read the summary of what we have to  say on top. And that's just based on the time they 

28:35

have available and the kind of direction they're  going to go in.But basically, at the top of all of 

28:43

this we're going to write a summary and that  summary is going to be our useful way to say   the core things that we want to get across, the  key points.And that's going to go on top and go 

28:51

to all these people.It's going to tell them who  we are.They don't know any of the story that we   just went through, so it's going to say this is  who we are.This is why we came about.This is the 

29:01

work that we've done.This is what we found.This is  what we would recommend.And the next slide, if we 

29:09

can.Oh, can you jump to the next slide?Sorry.There  we go.That's the one.Sorry.Pattern recognition 

29:21

here.Don't go back.Sorry.So sorry.So who's this  for?Like I said, it's going to go you know, 

29:31

we deliver it kind of formally to I think  the senate president and the speaker of   the house.It goes into kind of their channels in  the legislature.But in reality, like we've talked 

29:41

about in earlier meetings, we're going to post it  online.We're going to send it out.People will see   it.It will be a public document.And we're going  to say things in this that help people understand 

29:55

what's going on.So some of this is just about  educating them.We're going to take what we found   in the CDDER report, what we saw in our work and  we're going to get really, really clear and short 

30:04

about it.So an example would be taking a lot of  pages of really detailed, profound work, and this 

30:10

is the hard part of doing this, but we would sum  it up by saying people have had a very hard time 

30:15

getting the state to give them records about their  relatives who lived in institutions.That would be 

30:20

a very simple thing to say.What we know is it took  a lot of work to understand what was going on and 

30:26

prove whether that statement is true or not.Now  we can say that with a little bit of confidence.We   know what's true.Next slide, please.There's a  crucial thing about this.What types of things 

30:41

can we say?The report is this detailed history  that is meant to share facts with people.If they 

30:49

want the kind of history book version of this,  where they go, is this true or not, they can go 

30:55

into the report.But our summary is actually not  supposed to be that.That's not what summaries are 

31:02

when you turn one of these in.Instead, what it is  is it's more of an opinion and it's an informed 

31:08

opinion.And what I mean by informed opinion  is the report from CDDER gave us information, 

31:16

and based on that information, we are now able  to have an opinion about certain things and say 

31:22

what we think should be done with the facts that  we discovered.So this is a really wordy example, 

31:30

and I actually picked an ugly, wordy one for a  reason that I'll come back to in a minute.But 

31:36

the example I have here is from a report in 1999,  where the federal government, the U.S. government, 

31:42

was looking into what happened to all of this gold  and artwork that people had before World War II 

31:48

that was taken by the Nazis.And it's a very wordy  description here.I mean, they used words like the 

31:55

cumulative facts and conclusions contained in this  report.That's big words.That's a little heavy.But 

32:02

then they say, basically, this report should  evoke a sense of injustice and determination 

32:08

to act.What they're saying is you're going to feel  moved by this.This should make you feel upset that 

32:15

something was done that was wrong, and that we  need to do something about it.And that's what 

32:20

I mean by saying an informed opinion.They're  not just saying that randomly.They're saying   that because they went out and looked for  a lot of stuff and then they're saying, 

32:28

based on this, you're going to be upset with what  you see and we're going to have to do some stuff   to act.So it's to say you can be bold here and we  can be bold here and we should be bold here with 

32:40

what we say.Next slide.So how it's going to come  together, we've kind of talked about but I just 

32:50

want to make sure it's all in one spot and if this  is ever confusing, just reach out.Happy to talk 

32:55

it through.But basically what's going on is we  are getting lots of information and then we have 

33:00

to kind of process that to get it down to these  small statements.That's a lot of the work that I   do anyway, so I find it fun, but I understand that  most people do not find it fun.What I like to do 

33:12

is take things and make them shorter, and so what  we're going to do is we'll take something like the   information CDDER sent to us and we're all talking  about it on the whole Commission.That's the next 

33:21

place it goes.And we make recommendations saying,  well, it seemed like people had a really hard time   getting records.So what are we going to do about  that?What are good recommendations?So it seems 

33:32

like these graves are not being taken care of.What  are some good ideas for taking care of the graves 

33:37

going forward that we could recommend?And when we  hear those in these bigger meetings, those of us 

33:42

in the working group are going to write them down  and we're going to bring them into the working   group and we're going to organize them so they're  not flying all over the place.We'll put them 

33:51

together and bring them back to everybody.And bit  by bit, we're going to pull them all together, and 

33:56

then we're going to share a draft with everybody  of everything that we heard and we'll say,   does it look like this?And the whole Commission  at that point should definitely not say, 

34:05

that's perfect.You should say, I think it's this  way instead or I'd like to change it that way.And 

34:11

we'll go through and change a lot of things.And at  the end of it all, once we've kind of gone through 

34:17

what we liked and what we don't like, we're going  to take a vote on whether or not we're at a place 

34:23

where we want to share that final summary.And  that's what we're going after for these next four 

34:28

months or so.So it's going to take a  lot of steps, but at the same time,   this is the good stuff that we get to do.All  right.Next slide.There are basically four kinds 

34:41

of things that we want to say on this.The first  is what we did.Because we did a lot.CDDER did a 

34:48

lot.So we're going to want to pull together  a list of things we think are important for 

34:53

people to know.One of the big ones is we got  the state to share some cemetery records.And 

34:58

that's great.Like, legislators can ask us about  that.People who work in government can say well,   how did you get them to share it?And how can we  share more?And is it limited what we can do?But 

35:09

right now, we can just say what we did.Very  simple thing to do.And that's good to do.  

35:14

We can say what we found and how we feel about  it.That's more of like we found people that have 

35:20

a hard time getting records and we're loved ones  and we feel that that's not right.We can say those 

35:25

sorts of things.We can say what we think people  need to know, what they need to do and who they 

35:33

are.So based on what we've seen, an example would  be we think schools should teach this history in 

35:39

Massachusetts.That's a good thing to be able to  tell people because when they read this story, 

35:45

some parts of it are going to make them excited  and some parts of it are going to make them   upset.And we want to be able to say, okay,  if you're excited, we want to do these things 

35:55

and if you're upset, we should do these things.In  this instance, we could teach more about this.And 

36:01

I think the big thing is that all of these things  are kind of connected.So you don't have to worry   when you throw out an idea that it has to be  perfectly said or perfectly phrased.We're going 

36:10

to find that there are all of these connections  and later on, Kate's going to share something that   I think shows how a lot of this is connected.And  we'll do a lot of that piecing together.But an 

36:19

example would be when you mash all this stuff  together, one example is people don't know about   this history so they don't know why it's such a  problem that other people can't get records and 

36:28

we could say they need to know more about that,  and that's a whole bunch of things mashed into   one statement.So we have kind of four big areas  that we're going through.Next slide.So examples 

36:42

of what else we'll do.We probably would want to  reach out to the senator and the representative 

36:48

who made this possible and say, hey, once you've  read the report, do you want to add a letter on   top of this whole thing that tells the people you  work with how you feel about what you found?And 

36:58

we might want to include that in things.We might  want to do a version of this that's very short 

37:03

where, when we release it and we send it to the  legislature, we say, hey, if you're a journalist, 

37:08

you should know these things about this and share  a little bit in what's called a press release, 

37:13

and what Sister Linda said.There are other things  we can do that if you think we should do it, 

37:19

bring it out and we'll take a vote on it and talk  about it and do whatever else we need.But maybe   we need to go up to the state house and talk to  people.Maybe we need to meet with leaders from 

37:27

DDS and DMH and health and Human Services and  just say hey, this is what we found.Here are 

37:33

some things you could do based on this.Right?We're  going to want to educate people and share in clear 

37:39

ways.So I have two things I'd love for us to  discuss about how to do that report.Before we 

37:50

do that, I know that was, again, a very fast  run through of things.Does anybody have any 

37:57

questions about kind of what the shape of this  would look like or what we're supposed to do?Or 

38:04

why we're doing it this way?Okay.If questions do  come up, feel free to ask them.I would like us 

38:15

to talk about two things that are going to really  help the report working group know how to do this 

38:21

best.Next slide, please.The first >> Reggie had a quick question.  

38:28

>> ALEX: Yes, Reggie, go for it.What's going on. >> [Audio indiscernible].  

38:34

>> ALEX: You and Anne.You  testified.You were the first two.  

38:42

>> Right. >> ALEX: Yes.   >> Okay. >> ALEX: Yes.   >> Just want you to know that. >> ALEX: Hey, there's not a day goes by that I 

38:50

don't know that.And that's what I meant before by  the fact that for all of you would have questions, 

38:57

there are members on this Commission  would have been here from the beginning,   right?There are people would have deep knowledge  about this.Reggie, you have some of the most, 

39:06

because you also experienced this and lived with  this, and I think when we talk later about what do 

39:12

people need to know and why, I would really like  your thoughts on that.I think it's important that 

39:19

we lead with what you think is the right thing to  say.I would like us to vote on a couple of very 

39:30

straightforward things that are very important  for how we come up with all of this.The first 

39:38

has to do with plain language.We've talked  a lot about plain language as a Commission,   which is to use simple words that are clear  and direct with people so that more people can 

39:49

understand what we're saying because big words can  get really confusing.They sound nice, but they can 

39:55

get confusing.I think that it would be in our best  interest to write the summary that we're putting 

40:05

together in plain language, because I think that  a lot more people would be able to read it.But 

40:12

I didn't want to jump in to that without asking  and taking a vote because there is one big down 

40:19

side I see to plain language, which is it's very  blunt.And Emily talked about this with writing the 

40:26

plain language with the team from CDDER for the  report, is you don't really, when you use very 

40:34

short words that are very direct, you don't have  a way to hide the things that are really hard to 

40:40

say in nice words.They come across as hard things  to hear and they're hard to say.And so it could 

40:48

be a harder thing for people to read emotionally  when they come across it.But maybe we could put a 

40:54

warning in there or something that says, hey, this  is going to feel a little bit hard to read.But 

40:59

I don't think we should assume as the report  crew that this is a given, and I wanted to open 

41:09

that up for discussion.So for that Kate, I have no  idea how process works.I would turn back to you.  

41:17

>> KATE: I think first and foremost, if there are  strong thoughts, recommendations, suggestions, 

41:31

anything that we missed in the reasons why we may  or may not want to do it, I'd like to get that 

41:38

out on the table first before we take a vote.So  are there questions, comments, concerns?Sam.  

41:47

>> I guess one thought I have, I'm definitely  pro having a plain language summary, but I also 

41:57

think that, like, there's some aspects of  recommendations we might want to think about   that are incredibly technical that have to  do with, like, you know, specific laws or, 

42:07

like, introducing specific laws.And I worry  that plain language could collapse that a 

42:14

little bit but I'm not suggesting we don't  have a plain language summary.Just maybe   have that in addition.It would be my thought. >> Okay.That's an interesting way to think about 

42:26

it.Bill, I see your hand. >> Yeah.   I would agree.I read in a draft of the report or  something the plain language first, and I think it 

42:37

made all the key points, but I think if you're  going out to the public that Alex mentioned, 

42:43

legislators, et cetera, there has to be this kind  of more depth.They will look at it, they will look 

42:52

for that kind of validation.That's the world in  which they live in, footnoting, things like that, 

42:59

sources.So I think to validate the report,  it needs something beyond the plain language, 

43:08

but I think having plain language represents who  we are as well, too.So it can't be either/or, 

43:17

it's gotta be both in my opinion.Thank you. >> KATE: All right.It sounds like we have both 

43:28

Bill and Samuel suggesting that plain language and  report language are both important and both serve 

43:38

a purpose.Are there any other thoughts? >> Yes.  

43:45

This is Mary Mahon McCauley.I'm  joining via audio today.   >> KATE: Hi, Mary. >> Sorry I was late.It was at the 9 

43:51

1 1 Commission before this.But anyway, I like the  idea of having things written in plain language 

44:02

and I do understand that it can sound quite maybe  a little more bold or abrupt or stronger due to 

44:10

the fact that you're not using a lot of terms to  kind of soften it.So I think that's critically 

44:20

important.And I'm you know, I'm I would like  to see it written in plain language.But I also 

44:27

agree, and, you know, that would be like a  summary of everything that we've done.And then, 

44:34

you know, what I think as very important as  well, as others have mentioned, you know, 

44:41

partially there's another summary that's written  at a different high level.And what I mean by that, 

44:47

in more of an academic legal kind of manner, that  uses other terms that, you know, legislators, 

44:55

educators, legal folks would use, but especially  on the recommendations.I think that, you know, 

45:03

could have a plain language document as well  of what we're recommending, but, you know, some 

45:09

of the recommendations may be, you know, are we  discussing line items?Are we discussing executive 

45:16

orders?Is there particular laws or things that  we want to look at, so, you know, it's important, 

45:25

especially for that recommendation piece, to be  in, you know, the plain language format, you know, 

45:32

as well in a way that, you know, we're discussing  the possibility of a new bill that's going to be 

45:39

presented to legislators.So I guess I'm agreeing  with both.It's almost like I see an advantage 

45:46

of both sides.Like I see an advantage of hybrid  meetings, you know, to meetings that we can go to, 

45:52

and meetings that we can be virtual.I like  kind of both sides of that.So I would put 

45:58

a plug in for both plain language, as well as  more technical terminology in another report.  

46:06

>> KATE: Thank you, Mary.Sister Linda. >> I would also want to include some of the 

46:16

stories, protecting identities of people, because  I know, in the work of legislative advocacy it is 

46:29

the real life stories that touch the hearts of  those legislators and say, well, we can change 

46:38

this.We can do something about it.It will go  along with whatever the recommendations that we 

46:45

have.That's going to be the fire, so to speak,  that will kindle in the state legislators, why 

46:57

we need to have these changes.And so that's my  recommendation, that we have at least some real 

47:08

stories protecting the identity of individuals.But  it's and I say that because I just got through on 

47:18

Monday sharing a story that really happened  with the state senators.And the response was 

47:26

I will vote for that as a result.You know?So  that to me is really key and it goes along 

47:36

with it.Supplements the hard work that this  report is trying to lay bare and that it has 

47:44

taken seriously the, you know, what we  were formed to do and why we did it in 

47:54

this way.So that's my recommendation.Thanks. >> KATE: Thank you so much, Sister Linda.Alex.   >> ALEX: Awesome.Thanks, everybody.So I don't  know what the language needs to be or if we 

48:05

even need a vote on it but it sounds like is there  a way to say, like, we should do plain language, 

48:13

where possible, it sounds like, is what  folks are saying.Wherever possible,   use it.There are going to be some instances  where there aren't.And the prioritize stories 

48:22

the way that Sister Linda is saying.I don't know  if we Kate, do we need to vote on it?Do we just 

48:29

need to know it and kind of go with it? >> KATE: I don't think I don't know that   we need to vote on it.I think at this point it  sounds like we definitely do want to go in the 

48:44

direction of using plain language where we can.I'm  wondering, though, after Bill and Samuel's point, 

48:51

as far as the way legislators are looking at this  report, that for the summary itself and only the 

48:59

summary, that we do both reporty type language and  plain language so that everybody gets the right 

49:10

feel for what we're presenting.So I don't know,  Emily or Jen, if you have any thoughts as well.  

49:23

>> EMILY: I think you can frame this as  instructions to the report working group on style, 

49:31

and then keep this in mind when you review  drafts and give continued feedback, knowing 

49:37

that there are some key pieces of information  that need to be accessible in plain language, 

49:42

and some that need to be written in a way that  legislators and other groups can specifically act 

49:48

on them.So I don't know that you need a vote  at this point.I would see this as, you know,   consideration you want that working group to  hold close to how it is supporting the larger 

49:58

commission in the drafting work that it is doing. >> KATE: I think that's a wonderful way to look 

50:04

at it and I think that will help us through  the process and make sure that the report   is as accessible as possible.All  right.Excellent.Thank you, Alex.  

50:14

>> ALEX: Thank you.Second thing may  not also need a vote, I don't know, 

50:20

but there's one more thing.Super important, super  simple and straightforward, but not so simple and 

50:26

straightforward.There are two ways to talk about  disabilities and people with disabilities.One way   is to say people with disabilities.The other  is disabled people.The report should do one 

50:37

or the other.They have a different meaning.The  people who use them usually mean something a   little bit different when they say it.It's  best to sum it up as I can when people say 

50:48

we are people with disabilities, the goal there  is to really say people first, like, we're human 

50:54

beings right in front of you.When people say we  are disabled people, disability first language, 

51:01

they're saying, look, my disability is part of  my identity, so much so that I'm going to it's 

51:06

going to be sort of confront you with that  fact as the opening thing because we're not   going to get around it.I just wanted to make  sure that when the report crew is meeting, 

51:17

that we're using a consistent language that people  feel comfortable with, and I wasn't sure what the 

51:24

best choice there might be, and I thought it  should come up somehow.Kate, it's all yours.  

51:32

>> KATE: Sure.From my own personal point of view,  I think that we make our point as a commission of 

51:41

individuals with disabilities better if we're  using people first language.It's a subtlety, 

51:50

but I think it's a subtlety that's important.And  then just making sure that we're recognizing that 

51:56

when we're providing the history, we  may not always use people first language 

52:03

because historically speaking it was not  necessarily people first.That's my thoughts.  

52:10

>> ALEX: Brilliant.Right.Right. >> This is Mary Mahon McCauley again from MOD, 

52:18

and I would absolutely want it to be people with  disabilities language, with the first first.But 

52:29

in some references as just mentioned, it may come  out a little differently but for the most part it 

52:38

should, in my opinion, be absolutely people with  disabilities, or individuals with disabilities.  

52:46

>> ALEX: Fabulous.Okay. >> This is Reggie.I think whatever works, 

52:53

the best way, the best language, but the most  important is to make sure to know where people 

53:00

know where the records are because people are  going to still ask about that and we need to   focus what happens in this state right here in  our backyard.We need to take care of our own.  

53:11

>> ALEX: Reggie, can I ask, and I agree  entirely, can I ask, when you use when 

53:17

you talk about disability, do you say people  with disabilities more often or do you say 

53:23

disabled people more often?Or do you not >> I say with disabilities.I say repeat because 

53:31

get to say what they're supposed to say.A lot  of times people [audio indiscernible] I think 

53:43

there's value in a lot of ways. >> We lost you for a second.Oh, 

53:50

there you go.You're back.Okay.Okay.Bill. >> I'm not going to I don't have a disability, 

53:59

but I will just note many people use them  interchangeably just to have a different 

54:05

construct grammatically and for space, and it's  just interesting to hear the slight difference, 

54:13

which I really hadn't thought of.Thank  you for bringing it forward.But I   abstain on this for the reason I said. >> ALEX: Totally.That makes sense.Thank 

54:21

you.Samuel? >> Yeah.   I maybe differ from other people a  little bit on this.I am disabled, 

54:27

and I prefer disability first language.I think  it's more bold.I think it claims disability 

54:33

as an identity rather than and kind of like a  political category as opposed to just saying, 

54:42

I don't know, it feels more like direct to me.And  I prefer directness.But that's just my opinion.  

54:52

>> ALEX: Can I gauge your sense on if we  ended up using people with disabilities, 

54:57

is that a cardinal sin for you, or is that >> It's not a cardinal sin for me, it's just   that's my preference personally.I don't think it's  bad, and I see why people feel differently.I just 

55:09

have a different political opinion about it. >> ALEX: Thank you so much.Linda.  

55:15

>> Yes. I just want to   say I really appreciate this discussion, K one  of the things that I just thought of that just 

55:27

popped into my mind is because this language has  not been used, that can also be the reason for so 

55:38

many human rights violations.You know?And I think  that needs to be stated.So at what point did the 

55:47

State of Massachusetts begin to look at things  differently?Because it's commodifying people with 

55:58

disabilities, you know, and I want to be very  respective of how do people on this Commission 

56:09

want that to be voiced and named in the document?I  think that those voices are the most important, 

56:20

but I just wanted to bring up to that point, I  said oh, you know, it's probably because we didn't 

56:27

use that language way back that people were just  written off, truly demoralized and pushed aside 

56:41

and not respected at all.I think it's that kind of  attitude that shows up also in the way we use our 

56:50

language.I just wanted to put that out there. >> ALEX: Absolutely.And it sticks with you 

56:56

when you get called, it sticks with you for the  rest of your life.So I hear you loud and clear, 

57:01

and I and I trust your wisdom  on this.What do you got?  

57:08

>> I'll go with the person first but  I really like to go with difference 

57:15

abilities instead of disabilities. >> ALEX: Oh, that raises a new term, 

57:23

folks.Can you say more why you >> So many people around with things that 

57:31

you can't see, with intellectual disabilities that  you can't even see.You don't even know that they 

57:38

have different abilities, but they do. >> Hi.If I could say something else.This 

57:50

is Mary again.I just want to add, you know, I'm  over 60.Let me just say that because that really 

57:58

is part of the whole people with disabilities  mindset.And some of that, when that was really 

58:06

such a major way to say things within the  community, and I think most of us agreed, 

58:14

you know, there was a lot of like let's say in  a medical setting, people would say, you know, 

58:23

the spinal cord injury in Room 10, or, you know,  the they're just you know, the schizophrenia, 

58:34

the schizophrenic in Room 8, or whatever, and it  seemed very disrespectful because they weren't 

58:40

even saying a person.They were just calling a  person a diagnosis, which was very disrespectful, 

58:48

and, you know, really harsh and not a nice way  to refer to a person.But, you know, I do agree, 

58:56

you know, disabled person, you know, I do also  identify strongly as a disabled person.So, you 

59:02

know, I have gone back and forth more so as far  as different terms being used, you know, I guess 

59:10

I just wanted to re state myself, and I think I  would be okay with that.I think we can kind of go 

59:18

back and forth and maybe somewhere in there we can  just weave in differently abled, but, you know, I 

59:24

think we do also have to say disability, actually,  so people know I think they understand that word 

59:31

as the legal sense of what is disability, like  the definition on the ADA or other places.  

59:38

>> KATE: Okay.So I think again just like  the other question about plain language, 

59:44

I think this is going to be how we direct  the report writing group to choose language 

59:51

that fits the piece that we're working on, and  ensures that everyone is comfortable with how 

59:59

the language is presented, so the reporting group  will definitely take that under advisement as the 

1:00:06

report gets assembled.So it's a little bit past  4.So if we could take a five minute break and 

1:00:15

come back around 9, 10 after. >> ALEX: Thanks, everybody.  

1:00:46

[Five minute break].  

1:02:23

[Human captioner standing by]. >> KATE: I know there's people 

1:06:52

still slowly coming back, but in the  interest of time, and a lively discussion, 

1:07:00

I'd like to have Alex share out some of the  notes from the report working group that met   earlier this week.So Alex.So we've put together  some examples of potential recommendations.Some 

1:07:16

of the steps that we'd need to put into  place in order to make those recommendations 

1:07:21

happen.So Alex, take it away for a moment. >> ALEX: I will take it away for a moment.So 

1:07:29

we had a really lively conversation.It was really  it was really good to start to think about how do   we make recommendations for this report, and  I just thought some of the notes from the what 

1:07:40

members raised were really important because we  ended up talking about why is this meaningful   today.A lot of this stuff is history.Some of  it is history where it meets people who are 

1:07:50

directly trying to get information, but it  seems like it has a bigger meaning today and 

1:07:56

try to connect that.And so this is a three bullet  points from the folks on the crew, but it shows 

1:08:03

that we're honoring the lives of those who came  before us to do this work.It shows that education 

1:08:10

is needed in many ways and it shows that people  need to know these things because we're repeating 

1:08:16

the past right now because we haven't been able  to get to share these stories up to this point.  

1:08:21

And I just thought those were really profound,  and then we spent, like Kate was saying, 

1:08:27

a lot of time talking about how it seems like  a lot of the steps that we might recommend are   kind of interlocking and one leads to the other  and it's helpful to kind of look at what those 

1:08:38

look like connected to each other so we can break  them down a little bit more, because it can get a   little overwhelming.That goes back to you, Kate. >> KATE: Okay.So next slide.And next slide.There 

1:08:55

we go.Perfect.So we did talk a little bit about  how some of these recommendations, as Alex said, 

1:09:03

work hand in hand, and we wanted to come up with  some road maps to think about where do we start, 

1:09:10

where what is our intended end point, and  ensure that we don't lose steps in the 

1:09:18

process.So in discussing museums directly,  one of the things that we talked about very 

1:09:25

deeply is that not necessarily creating museums  and stating that creating a museum is the thing, 

1:09:33

but creating opportunities for education, but  we know that starts with securing funding, 

1:09:38

and it goes to organizing and managing  collections.There are a lot of important 

1:09:44

items out there that people should have access  to.Then collaborating with stakeholders, and 

1:09:52

decision makers so that we have the opportunity to  connect with the agencies and either figure out if 

1:09:59

we're building an actual museum, are we building a  virtual online museum?Are we building an education 

1:10:08

network?And then the final product of what does  that look like and what does it mean, and how do 

1:10:14

we share it with the public.Next slide, please. And Samuel is going to talk a little bit 

1:10:23

about the road map for access to records. >> Hi.So a lot of this was informed by my work as 

1:10:32

a reference archivist, so I'm dealing with a lot  of folks probably on a weekly basis who are asking 

1:10:40

about access to these records, and these were some  of the suggestions I came up with after talking to 

1:10:46

some of my colleagues and kind of thinking about  how we might respond to these issues.Some of them, 

1:10:57

I know some folks in the working group expressed  concern about privacy, and that's something that 

1:11:04

we take really seriously at the archives, too,  which is kind of why one of my recommendations 

1:11:10

was to have records access for these records  to be more like prison record access, which is, 

1:11:18

you know, typically they're restricted until the  death of the person.A person who's requesting it, 

1:11:25

you know, usually gives us a reason why they need  to see the record like, you know, I'm a family   member of this person, I'm doing my genealogical  research, I'm doing historical research on, 

1:11:34

you know, this type of crime, and then we release  it to them with redactions as appropriate, 

1:11:41

kind of determined by archives usually redacting  things like, you know, things that are sensitive 

1:11:48

medical information, things that are, you know,  names of other people who might be victims 

1:11:55

of a crime, stuff like that.So that's kind of one  of the things that I'm thinking about with records 

1:12:01

access is kind of to take a middle road that  keeps in mind the privacy concerns of these but, 

1:12:08

you know, is not like, you know, totally public on  family search, that type of thing, which would not 

1:12:14

be appropriate for these records.So that is some  of what I am suggesting with the Mass general law 

1:12:23

changes.Another thing would be to kind of iron out  a clear work flow with DMH and DDS.One barrier to 

1:12:35

access for these records has been that we can't  confirm or deny whether Mass Archives has a record 

1:12:44

and that can be I have had some instances where  people, you know, have gone through the court 

1:12:52

order process, have done all the proper channels  and then it turns out that, in fact, we don't 

1:12:58

have a record, and no one knows where that record  is.So that can be really challenging for people.  

1:13:05

The idea of proxies is kind of one possible way to  get around some of these thorny issues around the 

1:13:19

laws at the moment and kind of allowing archives  to have a little more control over the records 

1:13:26

that are in our holdings.So specifically that  are in our archival collections that have been 

1:13:33

deemed historical rather than active records. The other part that I was thinking about as well 

1:13:41

is another way to do this would be to potentially  have an embedded archivist.So, for example, the 

1:13:52

courts and the military have their own archivist  that's in house at Mass Archives that's, you know, 

1:13:59

hired by that agency that kind of stewards  their records, gets them to Mass Archives, 

1:14:07

kind of acts as a middle person between these  two agencies, so that would be another way to 

1:14:13

kind of resolve some of these questions.So  sorry, that's a lot to say.That's just some 

1:14:20

of my thoughts based on my positionality.I  obviously welcome feedback, but that's an 

1:14:27

example of some suggestions we might have. >> KATE: Excellent.Thank you, Samuel.That 

1:14:32

was a great encapsulation, and this is one of  our bigger, heavier hitting sections.Andrew, 

1:14:39

I see your hand. >> Yes.   Thank you for that, Samuel.I just had  a quick follow up on your proposals.For 

1:14:49

the prison records, you said that access is  immediate after the death of the individual.>> 

1:14:55

So the patron would reach out to  us.They would need the name of a person, 

1:15:01

and then they have to present a death record  and obituary, some proof of death of the person, 

1:15:09

and then we can usually we scan that record  and then make a lot of redactions as necessary, 

1:15:17

you know, in compliance with other laws.But yes,  they are open after the death of the person.  

1:15:26

>> Okay.My only >> In a sense.Not totally open,   but, like, you couldn't go into Mass Archives and  get a whole box and look through a whole box of 

1:15:33

prison records unless it's like, you know, from,  you know, many, many hundreds of years ago.But, 

1:15:39

you know, if it was someone who was like say in  the 1920s, that would be how we would look at it.  

1:15:45

>> I guess my only question, and I don't  want to side track us too much, would you   bump up into any HIPAA restrictions who have  it because there's a 50 year requirement there 

1:15:56

and because DDS and DDH are covered entities? >> So my understanding, and this is not my area 

1:16:04

of expertise, but my understanding is that  HIPAA pertains to active medical records and 

1:16:12

not to inactive medical records.So things  in the archives have been deemed inactive 

1:16:18

have been deemed historical, but that's my  understanding.I could be wrong about that.There's   more research to do there. >> All right.Thank you.  

1:16:27

>> KATE: Thank you, Andrew.Next slide, please.And  our other category that will be part of the report 

1:16:38

is talking about cemetery work and cemetery  restoration.We created this road map thinking 

1:16:46

about first putting up cemetery signage so folks  know that cemeteries are there and they exist, and 

1:16:53

give them some historical information about the  institution and then sharing of best practices, 

1:16:58

what happens when you learn that you may be  the caretaker of an unmarked cemetery.How do 

1:17:04

cities and towns connect with resources and the  agencies and the archives.Providing consultation 

1:17:11

as a commission to cities and towns about  how you restore these cemeteries.And again, 

1:17:19

stakeholder collaboration and support, having  everyone working together to support cemetery   restoration as opposed to hoping grassroots  efforts will step in.Next slide, please.And I'm 

1:17:37

going to ask Alex to continue the conversation and  talk about the impact of our work on tomorrow.  

1:17:49

>> ALEX: So a lot of this is brainstorming from  here.You know, the last stuff we were just looking   at just shows that there's connected stuff that  each of these things, we can sort of break them 

1:18:00

down.If you have a big idea, we can sort of  look at it and take it apart, and some of them   are really complex, but we can get there.And then  bringing them back, we can raise other questions, 

1:18:11

like the last question is really good of like  where does HIPAA, which is medical privacy law,   come into all of this because some things are  really protected for good reason and, you know, 

1:18:20

we have the time to figure this out in the coming  months.So I think we're all talking about for the 

1:18:26

records for the work group to kind of know how to  start to structure some of these things, to just 

1:18:34

hear out from everybody here, especially those of  you who aren't doing the records working group, 

1:18:40

to really chime in now of what you'd like  to see us accomplish.What do we want to get   done before this phase of our work is done?Is  there anything that you want us to be saying 

1:18:50

that's really top of mind sort of like what Sister  Linda was saying about both how we do what we do, 

1:18:57

like maybe we need to add a step to this where  we go talk to legislators, and also what we say 

1:19:03

with what we do.Hey, words matter here and they're  really powerful.And they set up mindsets for how 

1:19:09

we think about disabled people.Those kinds  of things.Sorry.Tipped my hand.I often use 

1:19:15

disability first language, but yeah, anything  and everything, just a chance for us all to 

1:19:23

keep talking I think the way we were before but  really around what do we want to see get done.  

1:19:34

>> This is Mary again.And, you know, being on the  records working group, I've learned a lot.And, 

1:19:52

you know, thank you so much to CDDER to everyone  on this commission.But the you know, I think a 

1:20:01

better, consistent process in getting records,  it seems that, you know, some individuals' 

1:20:13

family members are trying to get records for one  person, one thing is happening, and another person 

1:20:20

something else is happening, possibly because  they were in a different institution, or it's 

1:20:26

another decade, or so, you know, I believe the  consistency would be helpful.And I have a family 

1:20:36

member that was in Medfield State Hospital, and  although I was going to do this a few months ago, 

1:20:42

I haven't.And they were there off and on in the  1950s and '60s with a lot of electroconvulsive 

1:20:49

therapy of quote unquote shock therapy, which  it was referred to more often then, but, 

1:20:55

you know, I'd at some point, I'd like to get those  records, and I can prove they're a family member, 

1:21:02

and I was actually the executrix of the estate and  I have that paperwork.So, you know, and I mean, 

1:21:12

I think that since this person died in 2003,  that I was the executrix, and that I could 

1:21:20

prove those things, I think I would get the  records, everything but the medical records, 

1:21:26

possibly, but, you know, so consistency across  the board with getting records and family members 

1:21:33

not having to wait extensive lengths of time,  you know, maybe the 75 years might make sense, 

1:21:40

and certain circumstances, but, you know, I don't  really understand why a family member couldn't get 

1:21:46

something sooner.So I guess that's it. >> ALEX: That's just so, you know, 

1:21:53

you fight for months to try to find the right  words for something, and that's really I love how 

1:21:58

straightforward that is, a better, consistent  process.It's not lengthy.And you're right.As 

1:22:04

someone who's trying to get records right now, who  I know is nearing the end of the probate process   with the court, and the judge randomly asked for a  two page letter of why he wants the records about 

1:22:15

his deceased relative.And it's just he called  and says it's cruel, like why should I have to   justify that?It's arbitrary.It came out of the  blue.And yet he can't get it unless he writes 

1:22:26

that letter because the judge won't approve  it.And that's not fair or right.And so  

1:22:31

>> No.It should be the same  from one person or another.Yep.   >> ALEX: Yeah. Equality in this.For 

1:22:38

family it's one track, like you're saying, and  then for other folks, one that may be different 

1:22:44

but is organized.So thank you.Sister Linda. >> I have a question that I thought of.As 

1:22:56

a result of this report, who is going to oversee  the recommendations will be implemented, and if 

1:23:06

not why, how will this be held accountable?That's  always my question when it comes to issuing a 

1:23:16

report so that the report ends up on somebody's  shelf and forgotten about, you know, like what 

1:23:24

are the ongoing provisions to make sure that the  implementation is carried through.I don't know if 

1:23:36

you understand my question, but I think it brings  this Commission really full circle, you know, 

1:23:47

and how serious we took the mandate.Well,  if it's going to stop and, you know, 

1:23:56

what good of all the work that we  have done.So that's my question, 

1:24:02

I guess, onion going accountability on how these  recommendations will be put forth, or whatever.  

1:24:12

>> ALEX: It's a profound question we're  going to have to all talk about and take up, 

1:24:18

because just as an example for everyone, because  it comes from this history, in the 1990s, 

1:24:24

some of you know this, some of you may not, but in  the 1990s it came out that the Fernald School and 

1:24:30

the Radtown State School had many years earlier in  the 1950s used radioactive material on the people 

1:24:40

on the kids living in the institution.And they  didn't tell them that.They told them they were   going to be part of something called the Science  Club and later on in the 1990s it came out that 

1:24:50

this was done.It was done by Harvard and MIT and  Quaker Oats and the State Government, Federal 

1:24:56

Government.And all kinds of people got involved  and there was a commission just like ours and   they made all types of recommendations.And this  got the president to act.President Bill Clinton 

1:25:06

got up and apologized for what the government had  done using radiation for people.But I went looking 

1:25:12

a few months ago and the governor of Massachusetts  never apologized.The state never followed through 

1:25:19

on the recommendations.Nothing was done.We have  some examples of how you can avoid that happening 

1:25:26

and make sure that things are done.And I think the  very simple one, but it's one we should consider, 

1:25:33

is whether or not the commission needs to keep  going in some form afterward, empowered to do 

1:25:38

some kind of accountability, and to say hey,  who's getting stuff done and have you gotten 

1:25:43

it done.And I think we could ask CDDER to look  into ideas or recommendations for what we might do 

1:25:50

to get accountability, and also we could probably  check with the senator and the representative who 

1:25:56

supported this and say what do you think are good  ideas for accountability.Because I think you're 

1:26:03

right.It's one thing to put a report out.People  put it on the shelf.It's another thing to really   make sure that the work is getting done.And some  of these things have a lot of steps to get done.So 

1:26:14

I really value that.But I think a very serious  thing we need to consider is there a second phase 

1:26:19

of this Commission that exists down the road?And  not everybody has to stay on that Commission, 

1:26:25

but like something for accountability. >> Drew.Andrew, you there?  

1:26:34

>> Yeah. Sorry.I was looking   for my unmute.Andrew Levrault, that was sort of  the road I was heading down is what Sister Linda 

1:26:41

mentioned and maybe we look at a model, I'm  on the permanent commission on the Status of 

1:26:47

Persons With Disabilities maybe we look at that  as a model where we have one executive director   who's a state employee in a larger commission with  working groups but we have somebody there who can 

1:26:56

apply for grants to look at some of these issues  or additional funding or things like that.So 

1:27:02

something to consider as a recommendation. >> ALEX: And maybe one of the things we should do, 

1:27:08

I mean, that commission, that's kind of an awesome  model, is maybe along with sharing what that does 

1:27:13

in a meeting, maybe next month's meeting or  something, would be also just to hear from 

1:27:19

part of the point of having all these members on  this commission was to get everybody together so   that we could hear from folks, is if that sounds  like a good to the DDS and DMH folks on this call, 

1:27:31

like I understand that to implement some of  the things we're going to ask for, to do them,   and get them done, there's going to be need to be  money and/or time from the state.And we want to 

1:27:43

be sure that we're advocating for that in a way  where it makes it possible for them to do the   changes that we're asking for, not just saying the  phrase for those of you who may not be familiar 

1:27:54

with it, the phrase unfunded mandate is a  really ugly phrase in politics because it 

1:27:59

means you told someone to do something, but  you didn't give them any money or resources 

1:28:04

or time to actually get it done, and that's  not usually a good way to make friends or to 

1:28:10

make change.And so I think we should probably  talk very seriously about that and maybe the 

1:28:17

records or the report group can come up with  some stuff and CDDER can come up with some   stuff to think it through. >> Great.Thank you.  

1:28:26

>> Bill. >> Yeah.   I think anything we decide to do needs to be  very focused on something that's doable.Part 

1:28:36

of that may be continuing this to give a platform  for the many things that might be recommended, or 

1:28:44

would be ideal, but I think really want to focus  on some concrete outcomes.We do throw it around, 

1:28:51

you mentioned the radiation study.My bookcase  behind me has lots of studies on disability 

1:29:00

issues, raised all the right issues and they're  20, 30 years old, and they still exist.You know, 

1:29:08

one or two doable things.The last one might be  continue the commission to look at those things we   couldn't address but something concrete to move  what we decide are the one or two things most 

1:29:20

critical and doable.That will give us the oxygen,  too, to keep going, in my opinion and experience.  

1:29:27

>> Bill, can I ask just a follow up  question?Do you have a sense of what   one or two of those things might be?I'm  not holding you to it, but something 

1:29:36

specific and concrete that we need to do? >> I would defer to the group since I've only 

1:29:46

been on the Commission the last, you know, six  months.So looking through the report and stuff, 

1:29:53

what is the heart and soul?There's records.There's  cemeteries.And then there's, to me, the sense of, 

1:30:03

you know, I don't know how to put it into concrete  terms, so I've discussed it with you.How do we 

1:30:08

keep that history alive so we don't repeat  it.And it's not just for getting records.It's 

1:30:14

about dehumanizing people and all of this, and I  think, as was stated by the sister at the start, 

1:30:24

we could be on the brink of those kind of dissents  again.So to me, how do you make this a living 

1:30:31

activity that history living contemporary is the  mission.If it's just about getting records and 

1:30:38

I'm not saying records aren't important.That's  so vital to people but it will get dismissed as 

1:30:43

some kind of clerk of the courts type of thing,  you know, nobody votes for clerk of the courts 

1:30:50

unless or register of deeds, why do we vote for  that, you know, you don't deal with them unless 

1:30:56

you're selling your house or something.But we  know what's important.But it's not.And it's a 

1:31:01

means to raise this issue of dehumanization  of people with disabilities.That was such 

1:31:07

an intrinsic part of the American society,  still is in some ways, and could be again.  

1:31:13

>> Thank you. >> You know, that's a   mouthful.How you achieve that, maybe that's where  we sit down and think of some of that.And ideally 

1:31:22

we get in a concrete accomplishment that does  that.It will take some thinking, I believe.  

1:31:29

>> ALEX: But it's a great specific like it's a  way to get specific.People don't know something,   people need to know it.If they don't know it,  they're going to do the same things that were bad 

1:31:39

in the past all over again and then the question  for us becomes how do we get people to know what 

1:31:44

they don't know, and there are lots of options for  that so I think getting specific about that folks, 

1:31:49

thoughts today, here, now, that's good to throw  out there.Like it should be in the public schools, 

1:31:55

or there should be money for speakers, or  there's whatever it is, I don't know.But Samuel,   go for it. >> Yeah.  

1:32:01

I think one way to keep that piece from being  dismissed is what you said, Bill, kind of a clerk 

1:32:10

of the courts problem is I think tying it back  to, you know, if we don't understand this history, 

1:32:18

which the records are the only way to factually  understand history, right, because that's, 

1:32:23

you know, what we have is the historical  record.I think that can be like, you know, 

1:32:31

a powerful way to kind of tie that record access  piece in to, like, that is, you know, one of 

1:32:38

the main ways besides, you know, conversations  with folks who experience these institutions to 

1:32:47

understand this history, and especially when we're  talking about, you know, history where the people   from those institutions are now long deceased and  cannot tell their stories to us.So I think records 

1:32:59

access is key for that, for understanding  that dehumanization and understanding, 

1:33:04

you know, the ableism that happened. >> ALEX: For folks who haven't spoken or 

1:33:18

shared anything, do you want to share anything in  about what you think we should be doing or how we 

1:33:25

what kind of thing we should be saying in  the report that we need to do to educate   people or to let them know this story?Records  point is a big one Evelyn, yeah, go for it.  

1:33:47

>> Well, I've learned a lot from the Commission  but me, myself personally, I didn't even know I 

1:33:55

could look at my records until two years ago, and  I grew up in state custody, and I went through 

1:34:01

residential foster home, therapeutic foster home,  in and out of hospital and I didn't even know that 

1:34:09

as an adult I had access to information that  was not given to me because my family was my 

1:34:17

parents weren't around and I didn't know until I  started working for DMH as an intern that I even 

1:34:25

had a file under my name, my maiden name, and I  learned bits and pieces about my life.I didn't 

1:34:34

read it all because it was too traumatic.I just  read, you know, my education, where I was located, 

1:34:44

and what my diagnosis was because I didn't even  know that.I just knew it as an adult.So for me, 

1:34:50

it's really important that we're able to  access information when we grew up DMH and DCF, 

1:34:58

state custody back in the early '80s, '90s.So  I've learned tremendously about with this whole 

1:35:07

Commission and how to ask permission to get some  of my records.Even my hospital records.I don't 

1:35:17

have none of that.And how to navigate it.They  just have bits and pieces even as an adult, 

1:35:24

finding out stuff about my health when I  was a child that I didn't even know I had,   and it's big puzzle, making pieces, puzzles to  your life and how to access it and who do I go to, 

1:35:40

because my parents aren't around.My mom passed  away and I just met my dad two years ago.So do 

1:35:48

I ask DCF?Do they have all my records from,  you know, my '90s and DMH, their piece.  

1:35:59

So I'm living it right now.So this is really  helpful for me.I know I'm very quiet.I'm 

1:36:08

listening, and I observe and I explain.But it is  challenging even now.If it was challenging back 

1:36:17

then, we're still going through it right now  in the present.And there's nobody to answer, 

1:36:23

just requesting and asking a little  bit about your life to put it all 

1:36:30

together.That's all I have to share. >> First of all, thank you for 

1:36:35

sharing that.And if I can ask a couple of  questions, I hope it's not too much to ask, 

1:36:42

but if I can throw out some ideas, we can  make the recommendations so this doesn't 

1:36:51

happen to people.So one thing I wondered was  like it sounds like one of the things you're 

1:36:58

saying is you have to go from place to  place to place.You go to DCF, and DMH,   you don't know where all the things are because  how would anyone know with all the different 

1:37:05

agencies.So would it help if there was one person  who everyone went to whose job like one point, 

1:37:14

and they knew they know where all the agencies  are, but you don't have to know that when you go, 

1:37:20

would that be something worth recommending? >> It would be a lot easier for families,   and just from the history, you know, the past  that even now the present, I work at I work 

1:37:33

with employment options.I'm a member of ([)]  and I see it every day with members who are, 

1:37:42

you know, still getting services from live  in group homes and whatnot, and they're   adults.They're in their 50s, 60s and 70s and they  want to know about their life.They want to know 

1:37:53

how to you know, so I see it every day.I see  it every day.Just by interacting with people, 

1:38:02

you know, well, how can we figure it out in  the steps, because people don't know.People 

1:38:10

really don't know.I didn't know until, you know,  the Commission that I had access to all this.  

1:38:18

>> ALEX: Yeah. Yeah.   It's so hard, and one other question that I have  related to this that I've often wondered about is 

1:38:28

in my mind, I think okay, well, also, if this were  possible, if we came up with a way where people 

1:38:34

could much more easily find these things out about  themselves, then they also have to know that that 

1:38:40

exists, right?And so they have a right to know  that that service is there.And so I thought, 

1:38:46

okay, maybe the state can mail a letter to all  the people who used to get these supports or these   services, or were in DCF.But then I thought, but  some people probably don't want to hear out of the 

1:38:58

blue from the state.Like you said, it's traumatic  to go through some of these things.It's hard.And 

1:39:05

like a letter just coming out of the blue could  be really bad for somebody.That could scare them, 

1:39:10

make them feel badly.And I wonder if you have any  suggestions or thoughts of is there a good way to 

1:39:17

go about it or do you just say >> Well, for me personally, 

1:39:25

the trauma piece, the memory just came, and how  do you work with them.So for me was I want to know 

1:39:35

about my life.I want to know what happened to me  and why it happened.And then just remembering bits 

1:39:44

and pieces.And then I went back to the towns.I  didn't know where to start in the beginning until 

1:39:54

obviously the Commission and working an intern  at DMH, and it just opened my eyes for another 

1:40:05

person, I think I would educate them not to do  it alone like I did.I just asked permission if 

1:40:12

I could see my file, and I did it, but I would  rather have like if whoever needs that access 

1:40:24

to have another person with them as they're  going through their file.It was really, 

1:40:32

really hard for me.And I didn't even go  through the whole file.I only went through 

1:40:37

the first ten pages and then I couldn't do  it anymore.My goal is in the future, maybe, 

1:40:45

you know, the end of this year, I request them  and do it with a support my support team.And 

1:40:54

how to navigate it, it's really important.And I'm  not the only one with this issue.I know there's a 

1:41:02

lot a lot more people who were raised in the '80s,  '90s, '70s.For me personally, I wouldn't go I will 

1:41:15

never do that again by myself. >> ALEX: Yeah.   Yeah. Evelyn, thank you so much.My God, 

1:41:24

that's the core of what we gotta do. >> Yeah.   >> ALEX: Do right by this.Thank you. >> You're welcome.  

1:41:36

>> ALEX: Are there other folks?I  hear someone there on the phone?  

1:41:43

>> Yeah. This is Mary again.Evelyn, thank you so much for   that personal disclosure.And, you know, what I had  said earlier, you know, it's a consistent process 

1:41:58

to be able to get your records or your family's  record is, you know, I think very, very important, 

1:42:07

as I said, but the point just made is also  critical, that not necessarily, and I know what 

1:42:15

you mean, Alex, as far as just sending everyone a  letter, but that could be a little kind of a shock   and some folks might not even remember.Maybe they  was too young or whatever the case might be.But to 

1:42:27

have the knowledge, I mean, you know, knowledge  is power, and having the information that you, 

1:42:35

as a person, have the right, you know, it's one  of your rights as a person with a disability, 

1:42:44

as a disabled person, as an individual, that you  can get your records.After you're a certain age, 

1:42:49

you can sign, you know, a document, a legal  document, and you can request as if you know, 

1:42:57

a four year request and be able to get records.You  know, and, you know, not enough people realize 

1:43:05

that, so having the knowledge that you know you  can do it and then having a consistent way to 

1:43:11

do it, and the other thing that I want to say,  which jumps to the burial grounds and folks that 

1:43:19

are buried, and I don't mean to be speaking so  much, but this I'm retiring the 20th of February 

1:43:26

and this is my last meeting here so I just wanted  to add, you know, one thing that we've discussed 

1:43:33

within this Commission that's been so critical  and that I've shared with people as I've told 

1:43:40

them about this Commission, whether they're  colleagues of mine that work and deal with   disabilities or friends that don't at all work  in this field, that part of what we're doing is 

1:43:52

giving dignity to individuals that actually died  in institutions that have unmarked graves.K  

1:44:00

>> And I think that's a strong, bold statement to  say right at the beginning when we're working on 

1:44:06

the plain language summary.And then to continue  it by expanding upon the fact that, you know, 

1:44:15

some of these graves may say C or P for Catholic  or Protestant or might have a number on it but not 

1:44:23

even the dignity of a name and even some go beyond  that that they may not even have a marker.It might 

1:44:30

be under a park somewhere.You know, those are  things that are going to, you know, average 

1:44:38

person is going to feel touched, as they should,  by that, and a bit outraged, as they should, 

1:44:44

by that.And that's part of what I think we need  to do in the summary of this, is, you know, not 

1:44:51

hold back.Say the things that are so critically  important and, you know, talk about people being 

1:44:57

treated as subhuman, you know, that's a big part  of what the summary and the report's going to be 

1:45:05

about.So thank you for your time.For the time. >> That's just wonderful.Thank you, Mary.That's 

1:45:14

profound.Jim, go for it. >> Yes.  

1:45:21

Evelyn, thank you.You spoke very well about  something that really you shouldn't have to 

1:45:32

go through alone.I'm wondering, as part of kind  of recommendations about looking to impact some 

1:45:50

of the agency practices and agency resources, or  certainly within DMH, there's a lot of attention 

1:45:59

to human rights, and general practice, and in  kind of this gets I'm wondering about ways to 

1:46:12

kind of connect the respect and the history and  trying to help employees of the different agencies 

1:46:23

become more aware of the history and folks'  experiences, and looking to the agencies is 

1:46:32

having staff who identify who see it as part of  their roles is to helping both current folks and 

1:46:44

the historical records are a different issue, but  families that are looking for historical records 

1:46:53

also need to be responded to.And agency staff  should, whatever mechanisms are decided upon, 

1:47:02

agency staff should understand what those  mechanisms are, and have it be defined as 

1:47:08

part of their roles as to point people,  family members and others that it might 

1:47:15

in the direction of advocacy.So I'm  wondering, you know, that those might   be some concrete steps of recommendations. >> ALEX: That's wonderful and that goes to 

1:47:27

Evelyn used the word navigation and it goes to  that idea.Thank you.I think we have time for one 

1:47:38

more.Reggie.Where are you at?What do you got? >> I'm going to say it is difficult but I want 

1:47:43

to say that I've been with you from day one  also, so I want to thank you for all you do 

1:47:55

with everything and I hope we can continue.And  furthermore, I would like to see Mary stay in 

1:48:04

touch with each one of us.[Audio indiscernible]. >> ALEX: Reggie, we lost you there at the end for 

1:48:17

a sec.Are you back? >> Yes.  

1:48:24

>> ALEX: Oh, there you go.Okay.I  lost you there at the end for a sec.   >> Okay.I'm saying that I want to thank  you for all you do with the Commission 

1:48:37

and everything.This is good for us, you know,  because I think it's important for people.[Audio 

1:48:55

indiscernible].We could stay in touch with me  because I enjoy being I enjoy being able to 

1:49:06

have my own [audio indiscernible].Thank you. >> Thank you so much, man.Look, we've been to your 

1:49:14

point earlier, we've been three years along this  road and we're getting somewhere really good now, 

1:49:19

and I think your you know, you said early on,  I hear a lot, and Evelyn, what you're saying, 

1:49:28

Reggie also said early on of like I you know, you  said the whole thing about you and your records, 

1:49:33

and not getting them and not knowing them, and  it's just crucial that we get to be able to do 

1:49:39

this.It's really we get to do this, like this is a  state commission.That's pretty amazing.So thanks, 

1:49:47

everybody.I'm going to I know time is coming  up short.Lots of notes we'll pull together.Lots 

1:49:53

of work to do in the best way  possible.I'll kick it back over to   Kate.But this is what a great meeting.Thank you. >> KATE: I think Reggie's share and Evelyn shared 

1:50:06

the perfect way to close out this meeting.And  leave us with a lot to think about.So we're 

1:50:12

looking forward to seeing everyone at the next  meeting in March.CDDER is going to follow up 

1:50:18

with the meeting information for everyone to  review.And does that work for everyone?And 

1:50:25

obviously the records group was going to meet in  between time, or not the records group, the report 

1:50:31

writing group is going to meet in the meantime  and discuss more of our recommendations.If any 

1:50:39

members have any questions before then, feel  free to contact the Commission through the 

1:50:44

Commission E mail.All right.If there are no other  items to discuss, then we can vote to adjourn.Do 

1:50:53

I have a motion to adjourn?And please remember  to state your name and let us know who you are.  

1:51:00

>> Bill Henning moves to adjourn. >> KATE: Excellent.Thank you,   Bill.Do I have a second for that? >> Anne Fracht, second.  

1:51:08

>> KATE: Thanks, Anne.It's always the most  enthusiastic motion of the meeting.And CDDER 

1:51:15

is going to read out the roll call vote.So  please unmute yourselves and say yes or no.  

1:51:21

>> All righty.Thank you, Kate.This is Christine  from CDDER.Just please remember to say yes, no, 

1:51:27

present or abstain.Anyway, we'll begin  with Elise Aronne.All right.Kate Benson.  

1:51:37

>> Yes. >> Stir Linda Bessom.   >> Yes. And thank you so much.  

1:51:44

>> You're welcome.Reggie Clark.James Cooney. >> Unfortunately I've lost Reggie.  

1:51:54

>> No worries, Kate.Thank you.James Cooney. >> Yes.  

1:51:59

>> Samuel Edwards. >> Yes.   And thanks, everyone, for sharing  your stories.It was very impactful.  

1:52:06

>> Anne Fracht.Alex Green. >> Yes.  

1:52:14

And Mary don't be a stranger! >> Thanks.   >> Big Henning. >> Yes.  

1:52:22

And I'll see you tomorrow,  Mary, at your retirement gig.   >> Awesome. >> Andrew Levrault.  

1:52:30

>> Yes. >> Mary Mahon   McCauley. >> Yes.  

1:52:36

And if anyone's around Boston tomorrow between  1 and 4, my retirement party's on the 21st 

1:52:42

floor of Ash Burton Place. >> For a fantastic career, 

1:52:48

thanks for all you've done. >> Thank you very much.   >> Thank you, Mary, and thanks for  sharing that information.Evelyn Mateo.  

1:52:57

>> ([)] Is taking my place, and she  should still be on the call, I believe.   >> Who is? >> Camile counselor one from 

1:53:07

Mass Office on disability.Yep. >> Evelyn Mateo?  

1:53:14

>> Yes. >> Lauri Mederios?Matt   Millett.Vesper Moore.Brenda Rankin. Did I miss anyone?I think that's it.  

1:53:32

>> KATE: All right.Thank you very much, everyone, and we are adjourned. We'll see you in March.