0:00
>> [Live captioner standing by] >> Anne Fracht: Hi, everyone. We'd like to call the meeting of the Special Commission on State Institutions to order.
0:10
My name is Anne Fracht and I'm one of the Commission's two chairs. Kate Benson will
0:16
be leading the meeting with me today. As usual, before we begin, we'd like to
0:24
let everyone know that the Commission meeting must follow the Open Meeting Law. Any votes taken during the meeting will be done via roll call vote.
0:38
We ask that Commission members please mute themselves when they are not speaking and use the "raise hand" feature if they would like to speak.
0:49
Before speaking, please state your name so that everyone knows who's talking. For
0:56
any questions posted from the audience in the question and answer for this meeting,
1:03
CDDER will be reviewing the questions and holding them until the end of the meeting.
1:09
Today's meeting is scheduled for two hours. We will have a break midway through the meeting, at about 4 p.m.
1:18
Kate. >> Dr. Kate Benson: All right. Thank you Ann, this is Kate Benson, good afternoon, everyone. To make sure everyone can participate in the meeting,
1:26
we ask the following: We have CART services supporting our meeting today. These are captions
1:32
that help people follow the discussion. If you need help turning on these captions, please let us know. We ask that people speak at a non rushed pace and provide
1:43
yourself with a brief pause for the CART transcriber to write what you have said.
1:48
We ask that you speak with as few acronyms as possible. Doing so will help all participants
1:54
to understand essential information that is shared here. We will try to remind folks of these items
2:00
I just mentioned, if needed, during this meeting and to keep us on track. When we end this meeting
2:07
we will have notes made available based on what we talk about today. This meeting is also being
2:13
recorded and the videos are available on the Commission's mass.gov page and on YouTube.
2:20
Next slide, please. >> Anne Fracht: We hope everyone has had a chance to review the agenda. These are the topics we'll be discussing today.
2:35
We'll recap last meeting, vote to approve the meeting minutes, discuss remaining items,
2:43
next steps and to vote to adjourn the meeting. We're pleased to welcome some special guests,
2:50
so we'll be adjusting our usual order of business. We'll begin with our guests and hold the vote on
2:57
the minutes afterwards. Following that, CDDER will provide a recap of our last meeting. We
3:05
will then vote to approve the minutes from the meeting. Next we'll review the work of
3:11
the Special Commission and hold a final discussion on any remaining items. We'll conclude the meeting
3:18
with a vote to adjourn. Next slide, please. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Good afternoon. Again. This
3:27
is Kate Benson, it's a privilege to welcome two distinguished public servants whose vision and
3:33
dedication helped bring this Commission into being, senator Michael Barrett and Representative Sean Garballey. Senator Barrett has long been a thoughtful and determined
3:43
advocate for people with disabilities. His commitment to this work began decades ago,
3:49
when he mentored a young resident at Fernald State School. That personal experience left
3:54
a lasting impact and today his leadership continues to ensure that the Commonwealth
3:59
does not forget the lives and stories of those who lived in State Institutions.
4:05
Representative Garballey has been a steadfast champion for inclusion and disability rights throughout his legislative career. His passion for justice and equity is evident in his support for
4:16
this Commission and the people it aims to serve, both past and present. Thanks to their efforts,
4:23
we have this opportunity to examine a difficult chapter in our history with care, honesty, and
4:29
purpose. At this time I'd like to invite Senator Barrett and Representative Garballey to say a few
4:34
words. Please join me in welcoming them. >> Senator Barrett: Hi. How are you. Senator
4:42
Barrett here. Very pleased to be joining Representative Garballey and members of the
4:47
Commission. I just want to say how amazing your work has been. This is really a departure from the
4:57
kind of bodies the legislature typically creates and then subsequently here's from. We don't often
5:04
we too little hear from people who combine professional expertise like you all have with
5:10
lived experience in many cases. It's we tend to learn things oftentimes that are a little less
5:19
round and authentic and in the end a little less credible. You guys have gone in another direction.
5:26
You've combined you found individuals who are both expert and rooted in the experiences that
5:36
we seek to excavate the history of. So I'm just delighted to have been a part of creating this.
5:45
I notice Alex Green is with us. He is a constituent. I used to go into his bookstore
5:54
in on Moody Street in the old days. He has moved on to other, to live other lives, so to speak, but
6:05
he's remained a Waltham resident and I represent the city and surrounding towns. I spent regular
6:11
time myself as a college student, and that was a long time ago, we're talking about the 1960s,
6:17
I spent time as a college student as a big brother at the Fernald school, I still remember the little
6:23
boy who lived in the green blind unit and that's so named not because it was green,
6:29
but because a Dr. Green was associated with the school. I still remember that little boy and
6:36
taking the bus out to Waltham, which seemed to be in the country those days, that shows you how the
6:43
perceptions of the young person can change as the person ages, I realize now that Waltham is not out
6:49
of the country, but what did I know at the time. In any event, this has been a personal journey for
6:57
me because of my experience with Fernald. As it happens, my great grandmother spent 20 years at
7:08
the North Hampton State Hospital, she was the mother of 12 kids, the oldest of whom was my
7:15
grandfather. When her husband died, just before the 12th child was born she had an emotional
7:24
collapse and I don't need to tell you that in those days the system and the families didn't
7:32
know how to deal with these things, and in this particular case my great grandmother left an
7:38
orphaned family of 12 kids who then proceeded to raise each other without ever disclosing their
7:44
mother was not on the premises but was at North Hampton. The world new their father was dead but
7:52
the rest of it was a closely held family secret, again symptomatic of that era.
7:59
I now have family members, cousins of mine who have asked me quite independent of this state
8:05
commission whether I can find any of the details of my great grandmother's stay at North Hampton.
8:12
I can't so far. You can find pictures of her as a beautiful young woman on the Internet
8:17
because the Mormon church and others made all kinds of genealogical research available. But
8:25
what you can't find is any indication of that missing two decades of her life where she was
8:32
absent as a mother and had to leave her kids to their own devices in Worcester, Massachusetts.
8:43
So there are lots of ways in which family stories converge, don't they? And all of
8:50
it now comes to a head because of the amazing work that you folks have begun. We know that
8:57
your work is not over. This is really more of a launch than a conclusion. But the beginning
9:04
you've made is incredibly important to so many families, one of whom is mine.
9:13
So I want to thank you very much. And again, I want to thank Representative Garballey for
9:19
his collaboration and partnership. He's been an amazing friend to all of us, and I've been
9:26
delighted to work with him on this project. >> Representative Garballey: Good afternoon,
9:32
everybody. Thanks so much for welcoming me and Senator Barrett to this incredibly hard
9:42
working Commission meeting. As Senator Barrett just mentioned in the beginning
9:48
of his comments, you know, we don't always find that good work, hard work
9:53
comes from these Commissions. And part of the reason for that is because Commissions really
10:01
can only thrive if the members of each Commission are doing the work and pushing it forward.
10:09
And many times Commissions fall flat because that doesn't you know, it doesn't have that. This one,
10:17
as Senator Barrett just mentioned, is really a gold standard example. I think you could put it up
10:25
against many Commissions across the country that worked so hard in trying to advance statutorily
10:35
requirement that we were able to get in to the original bill to move these issues forward.
10:44
I first want to thank each member of this Commission, as Senator Barrett mentioned,
10:51
your work is not done. We're just so grateful. You know, service can you know,
11:00
when you serve the public a lot of sacrifice can happen. So, you know, you might have been
11:06
away from some personal issues, some family obligations, and for that I thank you.
11:13
I also want to thank my good friend, Senator Barrett, who's been so passionate, well, on so
11:19
many issues that we're able to partner together on; but on this issue specifically, he really is
11:27
passionate about individuals with disabilities. He talks about his family's experience. And I can
11:34
tell you, he talks about it in public, but also in private. He is so passionate on this issue,
11:42
but on so many bills and, you know, I want to thank the members of the Commission for
11:49
really supporting our public records bill. Senator Barrett and I have partnered on that
11:56
for many years now and because of his leadership, I think we're heading in the right direction of
12:05
getting this legislation passed and I'm really hopeful due to his hard work and everyone,
12:12
all the advocates on this call, that we're going to be able to get this passed. You know, everybody is motivated differently; right? For me, when I partnered with Senator
12:24
Barrett and worked closely with our good friend Alex Green Alex, congratulations on your book,
12:29
by the way you know, Senator Barrett really talked about his family and talked about families who've
12:39
been impacted across the Commonwealth when it comes to the history of State Institutions.
12:47
For me, I took a long walk around Metford, and I looked at the stones at Metford and all of them
13:00
had a C or P or dash and number. There was no name associated; right. There was no history of the
13:08
individual who had passed away. There was no sense of, you know, establishing any type of dignity
13:18
that that person should have had. And so for me, I have a personal mission to make sure that these
13:27
individuals and their stories of who they were as individuals was told and that this history,
13:36
no matter how difficult of a history it is, and it certainly is a hard history, that it
13:42
must be told; that it must be highlighted. And what I had envisioned has absolutely
13:55
been met by the work of this Commission and the work of each member of this Commission,
14:02
and I'm just, I'm really overwhelmed by the incredible work and dedication that
14:09
each of you have come to this Commission in doing. And so I'm really appreciative.
14:15
As Senator Barrett has mentioned, this is not the end of your work. I know there's
14:20
many recommendations with more work to be done in the future. But as Senator Barrett mentioned,
14:30
you know, we're proud to be partners in this work and that's not going to go away, and I'm really looking forward to continuing to roll up my sleeves and help in any way that I can
14:52
the mission of this Commission as a whole and the individual members of this Commission be realized. And any role that I can play in making that a reality I'm really looking forward to doing. So thank you all very, very much. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you both so
15:03
much for joining us. And I think I can speak for almost everyone on this Commission and say that we
15:09
are honored that you wanted to be our partners and that you have supported all of the amazing work that this Commission has done every single person on this commission putting their heart and
15:20
soul into this. We really this wouldn't have been possible without the two of you, so thank you.
15:29
And I'm going to hand it over to Anne. >> Anne Fracht: Now I'd like to invite
15:36
Emily from CDDER to provide a high level recap of our last meeting
15:41
before we vote to approve the minutes. >> Thank you, Anne. This is Emily. So in
15:49
the last meeting Kate shared that there would be a memorial on May 23rd at the bell Cher town
15:55
state school cemetery. She also shared there is news coverage of another fire at the old
16:02
Fernald State School and an arson investigation is being opened by the state fire marshal.
16:10
Alex shared that law makers and agencies gave good feedback about the Commission's work in
16:17
prior meetings and he suggested building a museum may be challenging because of some of the
16:24
money limits that are happening right now. Sam presented a recommendation about making
16:30
it easier for family members to get medical records of loved ones who have passed away.
16:36
The Commission talked about the laws related to this and then voted to approve the idea.
16:44
Kate shared five recommendations to help protect burial sites, watch over cemeteries better,
16:52
and create a fund to care for the cemeteries forever. The Commission voted to approve all five recommendations. Commission also voted to recommend ending
17:04
Chapter 113, which is a law that let uncleaned bodies of people who lived at institutions and
17:12
died there to be used for medical research. The recommendation also called for official
17:20
apologies and records from places that used those bodies. The Commission agreed on short term and
17:27
long term changes to prevent this practice in the future in their recommendation.
17:34
Alex shared three recommendations for the framework for remembrance. One,
17:39
to conduct disability study to build the Disability History Museum. Two, to get a formal
17:47
apology from the governor for the way people were treated in the institutions. And three,
17:53
to teach disability history in schools. The group said these were important for
17:58
learning and respect. The Commission voted to approve all three.
18:04
The Commission talked about ongoing and continuing work after the final report of
18:09
their recommendations. They talked about how this would likely require more funding and support
18:17
from lawmakers as well. There was agreement to talk more about the potential for continuing the
18:24
Commission during today's meeting. Thank you.
18:38
>> Anne Fracht: Thank you, Emily. Kate. >> Hi, this is Alex. Can I jump in for just a
18:52
second. Emily, thank you so much for that overview and I wonder if before we move forward into voting
19:00
on the meeting minutes and next steps, since we're fortunate enough to have Senator Barrett
19:07
and Representative Garballey with us at the moment and we just recapped some of the recommendations
19:12
that we're going to put forward, I'm wondering if it might be possible just in case folks have questions for the Representative Or the Senator just about process or how we go about doing some
19:23
of these things or open questions if folks, if we could open up the floor for that, if you
19:29
think it's all right to do, Kate and Anne. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Yes, absolutely. Anne,
19:35
any objection? >> Anne Fracht: No. >> Dr. Kate Benson: All right. So we will open the floor for questions for Senator Barrett or
19:44
Representative Garballey. Don't be shy. >> Alex:
20:10
The teacher in me will go first, if it breaks the ice.
20:16
>> Senator Barrett: Actually, Alex, I'll offer I'll ask a question of the group,
20:23
if folks don't have a question of myself and Sean. But I don't want to cut you off, I don't want to cut the boss off. >> Alex: No. You go for it, please, Senator.
20:31
>> Senator Barrett: One question you might well ask us is whether these
20:38
Commission reports have impact, and they do with the proper marketing, you might say.
20:45
They're not a machine that runs of itself. You don't launch it into the world and see it grow to
20:53
adulthood completely untended. But with some TLC from the Commission, your report can travel far.
21:03
But there is some marketing to be done. Your chief opponent here, I think, well, as we know there are
21:11
two potential sources of opposition. There are, of course, the elements of the disability community
21:20
that want privacy exalted above all and you know who in the community would be in that work. They
21:35
certainly carry outside authority and credibility, so it is important to the degree that positions
21:43
can be reconciled that they continue to be at least a part of the conversation, even if we need
21:48
to respectfully disagree with them in the end. But the larger source of opposition is just the
21:57
sheer press of business of all kinds. It never stops. And now a lot of it is emanating from Trump
22:07
and has to do with cuts that are going to be coming or threatening to MassHealth, to DMH. So
22:18
legislators can always legitimately put off action because there is so much on their plates,
22:24
and this is legit. Somehow breaking through the noise and the clutter becomes the real job. And
22:34
somehow it has to be done, I should say. A Commission report can often give a reform
22:43
the additional momentum that it needs to break through the noise. That's why the work you've done and by the way, you've done it on budget and on time. That's the other thing you should
22:54
be celebrating is that you folks pulled this off without asking for indefinite extensions
23:02
on the fundamental work budget. The life of the Commission needs to continue because
23:08
you've got a lot of work ahead of you, but to have pulled this first stage deliverable
23:15
into being on time is a big, big deal. So we want to thank you. But as I say,
23:22
I'm anticipating a question, so to speak, and what you need to do metaphorically is
23:29
to walk the Commission report around and draw people's attention to the Executive Summary,
23:37
with particular attention, obviously, to the Joint Committee on Children,
23:43
Families and Persons With Disabilities, let's say, as well as the disability caucuses that function,
23:49
the House and the Senate. You have constituents who will be more responsive than most and we
23:59
ought to be able to move this public records change, for example, with their help.
24:06
So granted your work is not over and I know your work can be wary, you have other things to attend
24:14
to in your professional lives and your personal lives, but what you've pulled off to date is
24:19
pretty amazing and it can add the needed impetus to the next legislative reforms that you all seek.
24:29
So be of good cheer, you've come a long way. >> Alex: You were out in front of my question
24:38
spot on. If I can ask a little bit more in that direction. How do we as a Commission continue to
24:48
exist in some form? And with that, I know that money is the last thing anybody wants to hear
24:55
anybody asking about right now, but a significant amount of the work that we're very proud of is
25:02
only here because we were able to be introduced to and then have the good fortune to work with
25:10
CDDER, from UMass, to really delve into these issues and be our constant presence
25:16
while we've had so many things in our lives to attend to. And that, of course, was possible
25:23
thanks to the gracious amount of funding that we were able to get to launch the Commission. And I'm wondering what you recommend for next steps in that regard because,
25:33
of course, accountability on the recommendations is a big deal to all of us and I think we are committed to making sure that that work is done,
25:42
but certainly need the scaffolding and supports there to make it possible. I wonder from both of
25:48
you what your thoughts might be about that. >> Senator Barrett: Well, I want to hear from Sean. But first of all, I want to thank CDDER myself and I should have mentioned
25:57
CDDER in my original remarks. What the senator has accomplished here in collaboration with you all
26:04
is pretty amazing stuff. Refresh my recollection now just to get down to brass tacks, what was the
26:11
original appropriation? I think I know, but I want to make sure my sense of the numbers confirm.
26:16
>> You are asking a writer about numbers, which is dangerous, so I'm going to turn to Emily she beat me to it, $145,000. >> That's what I recall, too. So
26:30
there's good news here. All good news needs to be qualified with hemming and qualification and
26:39
conditionality. But nevertheless, the good news is that it's not an unachievable amount to renew,
26:47
I mean, another 145,000, or thereabouts. What we now need is a business plan or a plan, a budget,
26:57
if you will, because I see you guys going in two different directions potentially.
27:03
One, you need to do a lot more record aggregation, a lot more data gathering, if you will, so that's
27:11
the substantive work. And then you might also need to do some advocacy work around the proposed
27:21
change to the public records law which has been lagging and which clearly needs help.
27:28
You do need to work up a budget, especially with respect to the continuing research effort. And
27:37
then going for the dough is not easy in these straightened times, but is possible. And we can
27:51
talk about ways to do that. But, for example, if, getting creative here, let's say you were able to
28:03
identify four legislators with an interest in the subject matter. It could be because
28:08
as you circulate the report and this is important for your members to keep in mind as you circulate
28:14
the report and you go into the offices of legislators, one thing you want to be alert to are
28:21
personal stories like my great grandmother's. By the way, I didn't know about my great grandmother
28:26
when I first became interested in this Commission. It was actually her story the story I got from my
28:33
mother was cleaned up, was not accurate, but I think it was the story that her dad, who was the
28:45
oldest of the 12 kids had told her. Remember there was a lot of shame and cover up in those days. It
28:51
was not until I talked to a cousin of mine that I learned she spent 20 years at North Hampton and I
28:58
only learned that last month. I'll tell you how it happened, he read about this Commission. And this
29:06
is a cousin, I should say it's my mother's first cousin. He's the son of the eleventh of twelve
29:13
kids, my mother was the daughter of the oldest of the twelve kids. Huge difference in ages.
29:21
My mother's first cousin but he's younger than me. And Nick Burns was in touch with me and said gee,
29:28
I just read that you were on this Commission. Did you know about our grandmother. He'd forgotten
29:34
that we actually are separated by a generation. He was talking about my mother's grandmother.
29:40
In any event, Nick Burns told me about her 20 years at North Hampton state hospital which I
29:54
both me and the senator that we will work with you and we will find whatever avenue possible to
30:02
get the money necessary to continue this really, really important work.
30:09
I agree with everything the Senator said in terms of earmarks. You know,
30:15
the only caveat to that is the menace in the White House right now, any action he does on tariffs,
30:24
any action he does on Medicaid, as the Senator mentioned earlier, that very much could hurt our
30:30
revenue flow. My second budget was in 2009, when we lost about $4 billion in revenue because of the
30:39
collapse of the banking industry federally. Now, I don't anticipate that to happen again,
30:45
but you never know with this guy in charge. And so if revenues you know,
30:50
back then we had no earmarks because we had a four year period where revenues were just gone.
30:58
Absent of that, and knock on wood, I think we as the Senator said very keenly, we should be
31:09
able to cobble the resources necessary to continue this Commission's great work.
31:16
To follow up on the Senator in terms of reaching out to Reps and Senators,
31:23
he couldn't be more right on this. This is around collaborating with lawmakers. You know,
31:33
in terms of people to, you know, to really go after; right. You will release the report and
31:40
you will send it to senators. You will send it to Reps and I'm sure you'll have Senators and Reps
31:45
reach out to you. Those are certainly people that you want to continue a relationship with because,
31:54
you know, they care about these issues. You know, I would certainly reach out to the
32:01
Reps and the Senators who represent areas where the State Institutions were or are located;
32:09
right. Senator Barrett cares deeply because he cares about people with disabilities,
32:15
but also he represents with Fernald was, right. Tom Stanley, John Lawn,
32:23
Steve Owens, Dave Rogers, right, and you could go across the Commonwealth at various areas.
32:31
I would also say anyone on this call, you know, I would really appreciate it if you would call
32:38
your Senator and Rep and ask them to sign on as a cosponsor to Senator Barrett and Rep Garballey's
32:45
bill on public records. That personal contact, that personal approach is really, really helpful
32:54
in terms of getting legislators onboard. You know, there are so many different things that
33:00
consume a legislator's time; right. It's not that they just don't care. It's because they're dealing
33:07
with education and climate change and, you know, economic development. There's so many issues. But
33:17
obviously, this is a critically important issue and I think you're going to find an audience that really cares about this. We just need to keep them involved and keep them interested in it.
33:30
You know, when I filed the public records bill on the House side, I immediately found folks
33:36
like Tom Stanley and Mindy Domm and and said this is important to me and as the senator
33:44
mentioned they started telling me stories about their own family. So we may not even know which
33:52
Reps or Senators, other ones, are impacted with personal stories because of this.
34:00
So we just need to continue the outreach and continue to try to build a very wide and strong
34:07
net. You know, we're not going to be able to get all these recommendations passed overnight;
34:16
right. This is going to be a lot of work in terms of moving forward. I look forward to helping in
34:26
all of these areas. My focus for right now really I think has to be the public records bill. One,
34:36
because we've invested a lot of time in being able to get it passed, but also because I think we
34:41
can get it passed. Once we get that passed, with your help, and Senator Barrett's work, you know,
34:50
I'll move on to the next thing. Right? And I really look forward to collaborating with all of
34:57
you on having the recommendations be realized. >> Thank you both so much. If I can ask one
35:08
follow on question and I'll get out of the way for other folks' questions.
35:14
This all sounds amazing and is incredibly helpful for the road map we all have ahead. I
35:21
think I have a reasonable understanding of the legislative cycle when it comes to the bill, the records bill. In terms of the type of funding approach that you're talking about,
35:30
what time frame should we be looking for to, when we go begin to reach out to folks and try to pull
35:38
together a coalition of people, what should we be looking at as a, per your calendar I guess
35:47
would be a way to describe it. >> I don't know, Alex. When do
35:53
you think the report is going to be completed and published or issued? >> It will be out before June 1st. >> First of all, congratulations for maintaining
36:03
that timeline. The budget process for the year beginning July 1st will be semi complete by then.
36:18
So we won't be able to get money into the regular budget, but for reasons that are too difficult to
36:26
explain, there will be three or four supplementary budgets over the course of the 12 months. A reason
36:34
I don't want to explain it to you is because I really don't understand it but I don't want you to know that. So let's just say that it's very hard to explain, even to my wife, even to myself.
36:46
But we have these supplemental budgets constantly I'm actually kidding a little bit because some
36:53
accounts run dry in the middle of the year. Other accounts are unknowable. For example,
36:59
you don't know how many clients are going to need X services, so you're constantly trying
37:05
to fine tune the budget over the course of 12 months so it actually meets the client needs,
37:10
something that's unknowable in advance. That's, in fact so the supplementary budgets which offer
37:18
these opportunities perhaps to slip in some of the dollar amounts, Alex, that we're talking about,
37:24
Sean is right, in extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic, earmarks go away. It's also the case
37:33
that in tough circumstances like the present, the governor basically the legislature that contrary
37:41
to the normal rule she might refuse to disburse monies in general, whether appropriate rated by an
37:52
earmark or by the regular appropriations process, in order to accommodate mid duration emergencies.
38:01
These are the so called nine C cuts that Governor Baker made during the pandemic
38:07
where contrary to all expectations our earmarks were not ever disbursed.
38:12
So, yes, we are entering a period, as Sean cautions us, of more than ordinary uncertainty.
38:22
But we should, barring those we should be looking for the appropriate supplemental budget,
38:27
one that touches on other human services or healthcare accounts. You wouldn't want to try
38:33
to add an earmark for this Commission to a sup the deals exclusively with something special,
38:44
like a shortfall in the account for public defendants, let's say. There has to be a kind
38:52
of rough match in terms of subject matter. So all this is fraught with some uncertainty,
39:01
but still we should try to figure we should try to assume that this is doable. I like Shawn's
39:11
emphasis and by the way, I'm going to have to excuse myself because I have to meet my wife in a few minutes but we should assume that passage of this bill having to do with public
39:23
records is a good short term priority that can continue even as we fight this bunking battle.
39:31
Let me ask you Alex, is there any money left over or did the entire 145,000 get expended
39:40
or will it be expended by June 30th? >> For that I will turn back to Emily
39:48
from CDDER. Emily, where are we at? >> We do expect to spend the money in
39:54
part because we were also under the impression if we did not spend it we would lose it. So,
40:00
you know, it would be possible for our center to support the Commission in a bridging phase
40:06
to help them argue for this money, make a plan, you know, that kind of thing so that it doesn't
40:13
need to you know, and that would be through June we'd be billing it through June 30th, which is when our interagency >> Senator Barrett: The reason I ask this,
40:23
legislators can relatively get monies carried over in a given fiscal year. Alex,
40:33
for four or five years running we managed to get a prior appropriation continued for the wealth and community farm. We got them a bunch of money and then it wasn't expendable,
40:44
wasn't spendable within the expected time frame for a whole bunch of reasons, some of it had to do with the mayor. So we managed to keep it going for five years. I'm not saying that's a
40:59
good news story, exactly, but I'm just mentioning to Emily that once we get you money, you shouldn't
41:07
feel that you have to get it all spent less you lose it, because it's relatively achievable.
41:14
>> Emily: Thank you. >> Senator Barrett: I have to go. I'm looking forward to continue our work. Thank you, Representative Garballey and thanks to
41:25
the shrine center, wonderful work product here. >> Rep Garballey: Thank you, Senator. You know,
41:39
I would just reiterate, right, we're going to work with the Commission to try to gain
41:47
access to these funds, that could be through subbudgets, through the regular budgets.
41:52
We'll try to find a way to make this happen. I think the work is way too important to let just
41:59
kind of go off into the sunset, if you will. So we really look forward to partnering with you.
42:07
And if each of you could please call your Rep and ask them to sign on to the public records bill,
42:12
that would make a huge difference. You know, I think we're going I think we're
42:17
going to get there, but all the help that you could provide would be very helpful.
42:29
>> Alex: Thank you so much. This is amazingly helpful in detail. I really appreciate it. I will put the links to the bill in the House version and Senate version in the chat,
42:38
folks, so you can see where it is. >> Rep Garballey: Thank you, everybody. Bye bye. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you. Now we have a new to do list.
42:47
>> Bye, Sean. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you, everyone. That was so fantastic to hear everything that they had to say and we have some things
42:58
to get cracking on; right, Alex and Anne? So before we dive into our actual discussions
43:06
for today, we do need to vote on the minutes from last meeting. And at 4:00
43:12
we would like to take a break. It wasn't in the original schedule, but we're running a
43:17
little bit behind but for a very good reason. So draft copies of the minutes were circulated to
43:23
members via e mail earlier this week. Does anyone have any proposed changes to the minutes? Okay. If
43:36
there's no changes, we can proceed with the vote. As usual, we will be conducting a roll call vote,
43:42
but before CDDER reads out everyone's names, do we have a motion to approve the minutes, and please
43:47
remember to state your name before you speak? >> This is Andrew Levrault, I make a motion
43:55
to approve the minutes. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you, Andrew. Do we have a second. >> This is Lauri Mederios, I second that motion.
44:02
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you so much, Lori. And now CDDER is going to read the list of names for the roll call vote. >> Thank you, Kate. This is Christine from
44:12
CDDER. So I will now read out members' names in alphabetical order by your last names. When
44:17
your name is called please respond with yes, no, present or abstain. Elise Aronne. Kate Benson.
44:27
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Yes. >> Sister Linda Bessom. Reggie Clark.
44:37
>> Yes. >> Thank you, Reggie. James Cooney. >> Yes. >> Samuel Edwards.
44:45
>> Yes. >> Anne Fracht. >> Anne Fracht: Yes. >> Alex Green.
44:51
>> Yes. >> Bill Henning. Camille Karabaich.
44:57
>> Yes. >> Andrew Levrault. >> Yes. >> Evelyn Mateo.
45:04
>> Yes. >> Lauri Mederios. >> Yes. >> Vesper Moore.
45:11
>> Yes. >> And Brenda Rankin. Did I
45:16
miss anyone? All right. I think we're all set. >> Anne Fracht: Thanks, everyone. The minutes
45:27
are approved. As a reminder, copies of the approved minutes and all the
45:34
materials from our Commission meetings are available on the Commission's website.
45:41
Next slide, please. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Before we dive into this next set of slides, if we can take a quick break. I know
45:49
it's not actually 4:00, but if we can take a five minute break, return at about five before and we can dive into the remainder of our material for today.
45:58
[Five minute break] >> Dr. Kate Benson:
46:17
It's 3:55, if folks want to start coming back. And this is going to be the fun part of the evening
46:46
where we get to give ourselves a little pat on the back. I would like to share a summary of the work
46:52
that we've done over the past two years, and I'm honored to be able to be the one to share these
46:57
with you. This is work that has centered around truth, dignity and historical accountability.
47:05
Our mission over the past two years has been to examine the legacy of State Institutions in
47:10
Massachusetts, particularly around recordkeeping, burial practices and how we remember and honor
47:17
those who lived and died in these facilities. We talked with descendants who wanted access to
47:24
relatives records. We drafted a letter to Governor Maura Healey and Secretary Walsh regarding the
47:30
Fernald State School highlighting concerns and laying the foundation for further investigation.
47:37
When we received a response to our inquiry we carefully reviewed it and drafted a formal reply
47:42
to Secretary Walsh continuing the conversation at the state level. We designed legal research
47:49
scenarios for Harvard law students which they used to explore the legal questions surrounding privacy and access to institutional records. A major part of our work focused on improving
48:00
transparency around records. We contributed to the development of a data collection tool to
48:06
identify records not currently held by the Massachusetts State Archives.
48:11
We also provided guidance on a gap analysis tool designed to assess the condition of institutional cemeteries. Next slide. I think. Yes. I can't see it, so.
48:25
We learned from five organizations across the country who have restored institutional cemeteries and found meaningful ways to honor former residents and patients.
48:35
We undertook extensive efforts to identify individuals buried in institutional cemeteries,
48:41
many of whom had previously been undocumented. We compiled names of people buried in nine
48:47
different institutional cemeteries using publicly available sources. We used archival records to
48:54
identify state hospital patients buried on site at Bridgewater State Hospital or whose
48:59
remains were donated to medical schools. We secured permission from the Department of Mental Health to access records from Foxboro State Hospital to reconstruct burial lists.
49:10
These conversations deeply influenced our recommendations for how Massachusetts should move forward. Overall, the Special Commission on State Institutions accomplished a lot during its
49:22
two years of work. It made history by becoming the first disability led, disability majority
49:28
human rights commission of its kind anywhere in the world. The Commission held 16 meetings
49:35
and created smaller working groups to focus on key goals, including topics like a Letter of Inquiry,
49:41
access to records, burial sites, remembrance efforts, and recommendations for the future.
49:48
All of this work led to a nearly 400 page report, one of the most detailed reports
49:54
of its kind ever done in the United States. And best of all, the Commission finished everything
49:59
on time and stayed within budget. Next slide, please. In total,
50:07
we developed 24 recommendations across three key areas. The first was memorialization,
50:15
three recommendations, in this category. The first was to issue a public apology for the
50:20
historic mistreatment of individuals in State Institutions. The second was for the state to
50:26
conduct a feasibility study for a Disability History Museum. And finally, the recommendation
50:31
that we incorporate disability history into Massachusetts' K 12 social studies curriculum.
50:38
For burial practices, we made four recommendations. The first is to improve maintenance and care of institutional cemeteries. Locate and identify unmarked graves,
50:48
especially in some of the lost cemeteries such as North Hampton and the Westboro Reform School.
50:54
Repeal Chapter 113, which governs anatomical donations and is still on the books. And finally,
51:02
to create a public registry of individuals whose remains were donated to medical schools
51:07
and may not have been buried properly. As far as records access and reform,
51:14
we had a number of recommendations, including strengthening the rules around records management,
51:20
preservation and access. Recommending legal reforms to expand public and family access
51:26
to institutional records. Supporting former residents, their families, and researchers in
51:33
accessing relevant records. And creating clear pathways for transferring important historical
51:38
records to the Massachusetts archives. We worked closely with staff from DMH and DDS, historians,
51:46
legal experts and family members, self advocates and former patients to ensure that our process has
51:52
been ethical, inclusive and historically accurate. Our work has been rooted in a commitment to truth,
52:00
justice, and remembrance. We hope these recommendations will lay the groundwork for lasting change and meaningful acknowledgment of this part of our state's history.
52:10
And I'll turn it over to Anne. >> Anne Fracht: As we're discussing
52:20
the remaining items, we have the next slide. As we're wrapping up the final meeting on the Special
52:32
Commission, let's take a moment to go over the few last outstanding items that still need to be
52:39
addressed. It's important that we have everything in order before we close out this session.
52:49
The vote on publishing the report. Awaiting the response from Secretary Walsh to the
52:56
Special Commission's letter. The potential continuation of the Special Commission.
53:02
Publicizing the Special Commission's report and recommendations. Oversight and advocacy on the
53:10
implementation of the Special Commission's recommendations. And mapping of DMH Foxboro
53:16
cemetery and identification with records. There are still a few important things we need
53:26
to take care of first. We need to vote on publishing the Special Commission's report.
53:34
We're also waiting to hear back from Secretary Walsh about the letter we sent. We should talk
53:40
about possibly continuing the Commission's work. In the meantime, getting the word out about the
53:46
report and its recommendations is a priority, along with pushing to make those recommendations
53:53
are actually put into action. Another task on our list is mapping the DMH Foxboro cemetery
54:02
and matching graves with existing records. Let's start with publishing the report. As usual,
54:15
we'll be conducting a roll call vote, but before CDDER reads out everyone's names, do we have a
54:22
motion to publish the report on June 1st? >> This is Alex. I make a motion to publish
54:30
the report no later than June 1st. >> Anne Fracht: Do we have a second?
54:36
>> This is Andrew. I'll second. >> Anne Fracht: Do we have somebody
54:43
from CDDER to read everyone's name? >> Yes. Thank you Anne. This is Christine Roa from CDDER. I'll read out members' names in alphabetical order. When your
54:54
name is called please respond with yes, no, present or abstain. Elise Aronne.
55:02
Kate Benson. >> Yes. >> Sister Linda Bessom. >> Are we waiting for somebody to second the motion? >> Dr. Kate Benson: No. We have
55:11
a second. Alex moved and Andrew seconded. >> Reggie Clark. Reggie Clark. James Cooney.
55:33
>> Yes. >> Samuel Edwards. >> Yes. >> Anne Fracht.
55:39
>> Anne Fracht: Yes. >> Alex Green. >> Yes. >> Bill Henning. Camille Karabaich.
55:50
>> Yes. >> Andrew Levrault.
55:55
>> Yes. >> Evelyn Mateo. >> Yes. >> Lauri Mederios.
56:01
>> Yes. >> Vesper Moore. >> Yes. >> And Brenda Rankin. Did I miss anyone? Okay.
56:15
>> Christine, I'm sorry, this is Jennifer from CDDER. I couldn't hear Reggie's response. I was
56:22
wondering if we could ask him again. >> Christine: Absolutely. Reggie Clark. Reggie Clark. Could you speak a little louder. I believe you're
56:50
speaking. >>
57:06
I'm not sure if he can hear. >>
57:24
Christine: One more time. Reggie Clark. Seems like he's having trouble hearing. Okay. I think we're
57:42
all set, Kate. Thank you. >> Anne Fracht:
57:54
Thank you, Kate. Can we have the next discussion.
58:01
>> Dr. Kate Benson: So continuing our discussion of the other remaining items, we are awaiting a
58:08
response from Secretary Walsh to our letter. We would also like to discuss most specifically the
58:18
potential continuation of the Special Commission. So first let's start with does anyone have any
58:25
questions or comments or concerns with waiting for the response from Secretary Walsh to our
58:32
original letter? Jenn, how long has it been since that letter went to Secretary Walsh?
58:43
>> This is Jenn from CDDER. The letter was e mailed in November.
58:51
>> Dr. Kate Benson: And we've had no response yet, correct?
58:56
>> Jenn: Not to date. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Lauri, I see your hand up. Go ahead. >> Lauri Mederios: So was there a specific
59:09
well, I don't know. Did we ask for a response? >> Dr. Kate Benson: Yes, we did.
59:15
>> Lauri: What was the ask, please respond that you like it, that you don't like what are the questions that we're waiting in response to, I guess?
59:25
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Alex, I think you'd probably be better positioned to address that than I. >> Alex: I was just looking for the copy of the letter because I don't want to misrepresent it
59:34
and I am a mess on my computer. I don't know if we have a copy of it. Because I do think,
59:40
Lauri, you're right, like I want to make sure we characterize this correctly.
59:48
Jenn or Emily, do you have a copy of it by chance? >> We do. I think we just need to pull it up. >> Yes. I have it up. So the request was
1:00:05
to get further clarity from EOHS, DDS, DMH and DCAM on the date each facility was searching
1:00:19
for records and a time like when they would work together to evaluate the buildings at
1:00:26
Medford state hospital or any other campuses that are partially closed. The next ask was
1:00:39
to get a description of the location of where institutional records are being held, if they
1:00:47
aren't at the Mass Archives. And a description of the condition of the storage area where those
1:00:53
records are held. Reasoning behind the decision to store records outside of the archives.
1:01:05
The Commission requested the agency policy for records in the possession of DDS or DMH which
1:01:12
relate to the individuals who died more than 50 years ago. And a clarification on
1:01:18
the definition of "medical records" and what is considered a medical record. And
1:01:24
the Commission had asked for a response within 90 days. And that was the content of the letter.
1:01:35
>> Dr. Kate Benson: And Jenn, I know that you followed up this spring as
1:01:40
well asking if it a response was coming. >> Jenn: Yes. There was not anything official
1:01:52
prepared to share at that time. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Alex, go ahead.
1:02:00
>> Alex: This is Alex. Am I correct also, this was a response to an initial inquiry that we made;
1:02:06
right? So we sent the letter, we got a response, we felt it was unsatisfactory, if I recall, we drafted a letter for clarification which is this one, and we have not received
1:02:17
anything from this one. Is that correct? >> Jenn: Yes. That's correct. Sorry, this is Jennifer from CDDER again. >> Alex: So overall, this dates back
1:02:25
to January of '24 then, 2024, and we still
1:02:31
don't have answers. >> Dr. Kate Benson:
1:02:40
So I think that's, that's a conversation that I think is probably going to need a consideration
1:02:49
of next steps. But I think it does kind of dovetail nicely into talking about potential
1:02:58
continuation of the Special Commission. Obviously, we aren't going to get a response to our request
1:03:06
by today. So I think, you know, we heard a lot of really great information from Senator Barrett
1:03:15
about what it would take to continue the Commission's work. But we have not heard from all
1:03:22
of you about your thoughts on continuing our work and what that could look like. And we'd like to
1:03:29
hear from other Commissioner. Lauri, go ahead. >> Lauri: Yeah. I heard what you just said,
1:03:40
but can I go back to the letter, or are we still there? Are we still there? >> Dr. Kate Benson: Go ahead. >> Lauri: Okay. So just, just playing the,
1:03:53
I don't even know, forget about that term, cancel that. So when those questions were reread to me,
1:04:01
I always try to share it not from the perspective of my commitment, involvement and endorsement of
1:04:09
it, but from somebody I pretend I don't know anything that's going on and I just started
1:04:16
to work at under, you know, the secretary, and she put this on my desk, what would my response be.
1:04:24
And I just wanted to say, I would think, wow, this is really, you know, aggressive. Shoot,
1:04:31
what should we do? Do you know what I'm saying? I'm not saying I think it's that way. I'm saying as somebody who knows nothing about it, I might have that response.
1:04:40
So what I'm wondering is might it be an idea rather than sit and wait and say, still no
1:04:47
response, still no response, still no response, if there might be a point person or whatever,
1:04:53
a couple of people, whatever, that could just pick up the phone and call and say,
1:04:58
hi, this is my name, I'm from the Commission. We sent a letter back in January. I just wanted to
1:05:04
follow up in case there's any questions that you had or if there's anything further that we might
1:05:11
be able to provide for you to, you know, expedite a response or to help you get the response out, or
1:05:20
something to that, something along that thread. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Yeah. Just to clarify,
1:05:29
the letter that we were waiting a response on is a second letter. They did reply to our
1:05:34
first one in January, but they didn't give us all of the information we were looking for. So this was a second, maybe a little bit stronger worded request.
1:05:45
>> Lauri: No, that's fine with me. >> Dr. Kate Benson: I know. I'm just letting you know. But I do think we do need to talk about what next steps are with this letter to get a response,
1:05:55
but I guess we have to kind of talk about, will there be point people to take this on? Is the
1:06:03
Commission going to continue? Are we in a position to accomplish these final tasks that are still
1:06:13
kind of hanging at this moment? >> Lauri: What's our
1:06:19
official end date, June 30th? >> Dr. Kate Benson: I'm going to defer to everyone
1:06:26
else on that one, Emily, Jenn, Alex. I'm not sure what our official date is, if we have one.
1:06:34
>> The bill states that you need to get your report in by June 1st. I do not believe,
1:06:42
and I will check on this, but I do not believe it has an official date by which you must sunset the Commission. >> Lauri: I was just wondering because
1:06:53
that's the end of the fiscal year, and if this bill aligned with the fiscal year.
1:07:01
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Alex, go ahead. >> Alex: It's a great question. I don't think we ever included language that would sunset the Commission and I don't think that that was
1:07:10
intentional. So I just want people listening who may think for the part of the conversation about
1:07:15
how do we continue, do we continue, what do we do, I did not mean to commit you to something
1:07:21
forever nor is this a discussion committing you to something forever. I think there should be a reasonable conversation about a point where if people would like to consider this the place
1:07:31
at which their work on the Commission is done, that would make great sense. But I don't yeah, I think the money and the no, the time that the report is due had the date tied
1:07:43
to it of June 1st. I think the funding had some stuff tied to it that I don't really understand, but that sounds like that's more to Senator Barrett and Rep Garballey's end. I do feel if
1:07:55
we think the Commission's work should continue and folks would like to step off the Commission and
1:08:02
that work does continue in some way, we're going to have that period where we need to carry over
1:08:08
until we can get some more financial support from CDDER, which really helps to make all of this work. And there I would just say that I think that how ever we decide that folks
1:08:19
step off of the Commission should be done in a very organized way so that we because many
1:08:26
of the seats that people hold are appointed by the governor or by other agencies. And I
1:08:33
think what we would want to be able to do is do that in a very orderly and organized manner
1:08:38
so that it doesn't just sort of back to Lauri's point, like sending a letter out of the blue to
1:08:45
the governor's office saying hey, can you appoint eight people to this is not the ideal scenario.
1:08:50
So just doing it in an organized way, but I certainly don't want to commit folks to
1:08:55
it going forward; and yet, the letter is a good example that we clearly have some conversations that need to keep going and that tie to accountability and fulfillment
1:09:04
to the recommendation that we're making. >> Dr. Kate Benson: And I'm wondering, Emily and Jenn, if there's a potential for as one of our closing activities is that we have a survey
1:09:17
where folks have the opportunity to very quietly say stay or go, and, you know, maybe figure out
1:09:27
from there if we have some added information we need to gather just that way, to Alex's point,
1:09:32
it's very organized and very purposeful. >> Emily: Yes. I think we can do that. This
1:09:40
is Emily. And also, I think we can, as I was mentioning earlier, help to bridge this time
1:09:49
period. You know, we're still here, right, so we will keep the e mail live. We will
1:09:57
still have staff available and we can help you navigate the next portion of this. And certainly,
1:10:05
our ISA already goes to the end of June to assist with some of those next steps and to assist with
1:10:12
some of the distribution of the report and things. So please know that you will have
1:10:17
some continued support hopefully to bridge. >> Dr. Kate Benson: And I think that's really for
1:10:26
tonight all that we need to kind of have and think about at this point. I certainly don't want to ask
1:10:34
people to start raising their hands and saying whether or not they want to stay. You know, Alex and I have already decided and Anne that forever is just not that big of a deal. We're good with
1:10:44
forever, and the rest of you may not be. But we would absolutely like you to consider everything
1:10:51
that's been said tonight, everything you heard from Senator Barrett and Rep Garballey, you know,
1:10:56
and let that help you make the right decision for yourself. And as Alex said, yes, we have plenty
1:11:06
of things to move forward with and we will also, if we decide to stay in existence, we will have
1:11:13
that bridging period where we will have the mile long to do list that Senator Barrett mentioned. So
1:11:21
we hope that you all consider all of the points and will take all of that into consideration.
1:11:29
One of the things that is also an open item is publicizing the Commission's report and
1:11:34
recommendations. As you heard, it's a nearly 400 page report. It has all of our recommendations
1:11:42
in it. A great deal of history. And I think it's going to be a wonderful learning tool for a lot of
1:11:48
people who may not have knowledge of these things that this group has so engrained in them. And we
1:11:59
get a chance to share some of that with folks. Does anyone have questions about the process of
1:12:06
deciding when to publicize and how it's going to be publicized and how it can be accessed?
1:12:17
>> Lauri: Are you talking about publishing the report; right? >> Dr. Kate Benson: Correct. >> Lauri: Yeah. That was actually
1:12:23
a question I had. Who is it published to? >> Dr. Kate Benson: I believe it first goes
1:12:30
to Alex, do you know the answer, or Emily? >> Emily: It is in the chat. The quote from the
1:12:35
bill is in the chat about filing the report. >> Dr. Kate Benson: All right. Let me pull it up. So the language says the Commission shall file a report of its findings and recommendations
1:12:45
to the State Secretary, the clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives,
1:12:51
the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons With Disabilities, and the
1:12:56
Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use and Recovery, not later than June 1, 2025.
1:13:03
So the report will first go to those groups or individuals that are listed in that language.
1:13:13
Does that answer your question, Lauri? >> Lauri: Yes and no. So I understood that, but what I'm wondering is, but then where is it housed? Like can
1:13:25
my next door neighbor look it up? >> Dr. Kate Benson: Alex, go ahead.
1:13:31
>> Alex: Good question. So it will be on the Special Commission's website, which is easily available online if you type in Special Commission, it bounces over to it,
1:13:40
so all the materials will be there. They will also be stored permanently at the State House Archives
1:13:50
that are used by the legislature. So there will be a copy on file there, I would imagine. And then
1:13:56
we will be distributing per Senator Barrett's request, we'll be distributing letters with
1:14:05
specific action items out of the recommendations targeted to each kind of lead agency or individual
1:14:11
that we're asking to do those things so that they don't have to go through, wade through all 24
1:14:16
recommendations and figure out which one applies to me, which one doesn't apply to me. We'll sum
1:14:22
those up. And he suggested that we give them two months to begin working on those things and get
1:14:29
back to us with some kind of progress update after two months; that that was a fair amount of time.
1:14:35
Back to your point about something landing on someone's desk, just making sure they have enough time to process it and ask questions and think about it given that they're busy and have lots
1:14:44
of things on their plate. An example would be, one would go to the Speaker of the House and the
1:14:53
Senate President saying we have made the following recommendations for legislative action by the
1:14:59
State House, and we would like you to consider these, that sort of thing. A separate one would go
1:15:05
to the governor, to the Attorney General's Office or to the archives, to the Secretary of State.
1:15:11
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Camille. >> Camille: Hi. Feels like kind
1:15:19
of a silly question, but my communications person at my office was reminding me to,
1:15:28
you know, like get the date of the release of the finalized document because it was her
1:15:33
impression from the former person from MOD on the Commission that we needed to share the document.
1:15:40
So I guess I'm just clarifying. I don't know if that's a need to and/or if that's something that
1:15:47
maybe was just like encouraged to like share the news, you know, put out more of like a
1:15:53
news announcement that it's come out. So I just wasn't sure if that was a okay,
1:16:01
I see. Thank you for adding that to the chat. I wanted to make sure I had the right understanding
1:16:07
of thought. So I see that in the chat, thanks. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Yeah. So for folks who might not be able to see the chat, some of the language in the Commission legislation was
1:16:16
also that the Massachusetts Office on Disability, or MOD, shall make the report publicly available
1:16:23
in an accessible format on the office's website. That was the language in the bill and was written
1:16:30
before the SCSI page on mass.gov was created. But one of the things that Senator Barrett did mention
1:16:39
repeatedly is ensuring that we are kind of selling this report, that we're sharing it with people,
1:16:47
we're talking about it, we are answering questions and encouraging questions and
1:16:55
starting conversations where we can because we have to remember that there, again, there are
1:17:03
a lot of people who don't have this knowledge engrained in them and they are the ones that we
1:17:09
really need to reach out to and help understand why our recommendations are important and why
1:17:14
our recommendations should be carried out. So the hope is that everyone here will be taking
1:17:22
this report and talking about it and sharing it and supporting it once it's out in the world.
1:17:31
Any other questions about the publicizing of the report and our recommendations? Okay.
1:17:44
One of the other conversations that we've had a couple of times is future oversight and advocacy
1:17:50
for the implementation of the Special Commission's recommendations. Obviously,
1:17:55
if this Commission still exists, that's something we continue working on. If we don't exist,
1:18:02
we have to think about who do we hand these recommendations off to? Who is ensuring that
1:18:13
the recommendations are implemented? If by some miracle we end up with money tied to any of our
1:18:21
recommendations, who is supervising where that money goes and what it accomplishes?
1:18:29
So that's one of those things that there may be lots of questions about and it
1:18:36
depends on whether or not the Commission is still driving the bus. Does anyone have
1:18:43
thoughts, questions? Alex, go ahead. >> Alex: Just given what we heard from
1:18:49
the Senator and representative, it sounds to me but tell me if this is wrong, that we can really
1:18:56
rely on the legislature to be the ones to lead some of that accountability, especially through
1:19:02
this period where we try to figure things out. You know, they're deeply familiar with it. They have the ability to have a hearing or to reach out to folks and have conversations with them. And it
1:19:12
sounds like they, they're deeply aware of our work and understand what the goals and intent are.
1:19:17
So maybe that's a natural way, rather than trying to shoehorn this in to,
1:19:22
you know, state employees have a lot of work on their plate and so I don't want to say, hi,
1:19:30
here's 24 recommendations to enforce, to folks. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Yeah. Absolutely. Lauri.
1:19:40
>> Lauri: So who is the financial or what entity or who is the financial
1:19:48
oversight person right now? >> Dr. Kate Benson: That is a good
1:19:54
question. Emily, I'll have you answer that one. >> Emily: Thank you. Yes. The legislative funds
1:20:01
were distributed to the Department of Developmental Services and the
1:20:07
Department of Developmental Services issued an interagency service agreement, which is a form of
1:20:12
a contract to us here at UMass Medical School, which they can do because we are also a state
1:20:18
entity. So they are the ones who are managing those funds and paying the bills as a conduit
1:20:25
for the Special Commission currently through the executive Offices of Health and Human Services.
1:20:32
>> Lauri: One more follow up question about that. So are all of the current allocated
1:20:41
funds only being spent on CDDER? >> Emily: That's correct. So there was
1:20:49
$145,000 awarded for the Commission and that money started to be used when the
1:20:57
Commission chose CDDER as the administrative supporters of the Commission. And that covered
1:21:04
roughly a year and a half of support. >> Lauri: Okay. So is it a fair idea that
1:21:14
moving forward let's say this happens and then there's funding that that would continue?
1:21:21
>> Emily: So that is an option, as the senator and representative said. There are different ways to
1:21:27
earmark the funds. So the funds, you could ask the for the funds to come to the Special Commission,
1:21:34
but that would have to come through some sort of state entity, like it did with DDS. You can,
1:21:40
if you choose, ask for the funds to come directly to UMass Chan Medical School and
1:21:45
CDDER to support you all, if it that is what you would choose to continue and we could do a
1:21:52
scope of work associated with that. So there are multiple different ways that you could ask for legislative funds to be distributed. >> Lauri: And just one more point. So currently,
1:22:04
the Department of Developmental Services kind of virtually holds that money and then I assume that
1:22:11
within CDDER, there's some sort of bill reimburse, bill, reimburse, bill, reimburse, you know, as the
1:22:20
months go on, something to that effect. That's how a lot of RFRs work within the department.
1:22:26
So that to me would mean that CDDER would then have to do some kind of annual accounting or
1:22:35
summary of how the funds have been spent to date as an obligation to the Department.
1:22:43
>> Emily: Thank you, Lauri. So we do invoice our actual costs every month to the Department and
1:22:54
they get an accounting of what we've spent and then they reimburse us for our costs.
1:23:06
So we don't need to do an annual report but they do get transparency on each of the invoices about what we're spending and how we're spending it. >> Lauri: Just one last point. So I think that maybe, maybe that the Department probably holds a summary of that
1:23:15
money for internal auditing themselves. We got this pocket of money allocated,
1:23:23
here's how we spent it, contracted with CDDER, money's been spent.
1:23:28
So in some ways, the accountability right now actually sounds like it's falling with DDS because
1:23:37
they're the fiscal intermediary. Right isn't CDDER is the recipient of the funds for the tasks,
1:23:46
but the fiscal intermediary is Department of Developmental Services, and I would just make a
1:23:52
little pitch there that, you know, an idea moving forward would be to maybe let that be a continued
1:24:02
relationship, if nobody has any other objections, because in a way they're then responsible for any
1:24:09
kind of accounting or auditing about it and it takes a, it takes a lot of responsibility
1:24:14
off of the Commission, if you will. >> Emily: Thanks, Lauri. I want to clarify. I
1:24:22
don't think the Commission currently has a way to directly receive the funds. It has to come through
1:24:27
an agency and that's why DDS was selected. >> Lauri: Right. Sorry. >> Emily: They're the administrator of the funds, just to clarify.
1:24:38
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Alex, go ahead. >> Alex: Lauri, you're right, that helped streamline things when we got things off the ground because CDDER has preexisting relationship
1:24:49
with the state and the whole contract and all of that, certainly this arrangement we have had has
1:24:58
made it incredibly easy for us as a Commission to operate and focus on the work at hand without
1:25:07
having to focus on areas where, as you've heard me say too many times in today's meeting,
1:25:12
I should not be trusted involving numbers over ten, let's say.
1:25:17
>> Dr. Kate Benson: And for those who don't see kind of what goes on behind the scenes,
1:25:25
CDDER does, I would say, conservatively 90% of the heavy lifting and the majority of
1:25:33
what we've accomplished, especially when it came to the research end of things,
1:25:39
agency communications, down to just creating the slide shows, none of that would have been possible
1:25:46
without CDDER in partnership with us. Honestly, so much of this, I mean Alex and I would have just
1:25:57
gone all over the place talking about, I don't know, two years straight. Like Alex, I should
1:26:08
not be trusted with numbers over ten either. So it is something that we will talk about as
1:26:16
a Commission if we make the decision that we are going to continue to exist. As Emily said, there's
1:26:24
the opportunity to have CDDER help us bridge that process. Again, you heard the to do list that
1:26:30
Senator Barrett kind of shot out at us. That's a lot of work, and it's a lot of work to do on
1:26:37
our own. And we frankly don't have the knowledge, the understanding, the connections that CDDER has
1:26:45
that they can support us with in that process. So I hope that helps answer your question,
1:26:54
Lauri it's a long winded >> Lauri: Yeah. I was just trying
1:27:00
to follow the money. I didn't really have a question about why it's structured that way,
1:27:06
I just didn't know, so I was asking. But I do have another question. Maybe I'm a little
1:27:14
lost because it's 4:36 and I'm starting to go brain tired. These are open items we're discussing
1:27:22
right now. I see that we really only kind of not covered all of these bullets. Should we prioritize
1:27:30
with the time we have left at least one of these bullets? Because I'm thinking we probably should
1:27:35
get to the potential continuation of the Special Commission question on this open item first,
1:27:42
because everything after that comes under that. >> Dr. Kate Benson: We actually touched that we
1:27:49
are on the last bullet about Foxboro cemetery. I think what we're going to do, Lauri, is rather
1:28:06
than having people say yes, we'd like to continue the Commission, no, we wouldn't, right here, that we're going to do some sort of follow up, like official follow up so that folks can share their feelings about continuing the Special Commission. I don't think we intended to make that decision tonight. Is that correct, Alex?
1:28:14
>> Alex: Yeah. And to be more specific, I don't think it's about continuing the Commission because I don't think we actually have that ability or plan in place to sunset it, but continuing
1:28:23
people's role in service to the Commission. So do people who are currently serving on the Commission
1:28:29
want to continue serving on the Commission, and that seems to be something that we can that
1:28:38
seems to be something we can do by e mail. But I don't think that there's nothing here that I'm seeing in the statutory language that says that we have to take any action whatsoever.
1:28:49
The Commission simply continues, whether it has delivered the report or not. It has to deliver
1:28:57
the report, but I don't see any contingent language that says that when it delivers
1:29:03
the report the Commission ceases to exist. Now, we probably should take a vote on whether
1:29:11
or not we want to enable CDDER to work with us to, and for us in general, to seek more funding. That
1:29:21
probably does need enactment by the Commission before we close today, just to say like even if
1:29:27
you personally do not want to continue to serve on this, do you think that it is a good idea to pursue obtaining funds to continue the Commission in some form or another and get support for it
1:29:41
through an organization like CDDER, or CDDER. And I think we can just continue that without
1:29:47
a bidding process, probably given the existing relationships, but I don't want to speak to that
1:29:52
because I don't know how the budgeting works. >> Dr. Kate Benson: I know, Jim, I saw your
1:29:57
hand up and Andrew has his hand up and then maybe we can return to what you were saying, Alex, about voting whether or not we want to continue that relationship.
1:30:06
Jim, go ahead. >> Jim: Actually, I think Alex kind of addressed
1:30:11
what I was going to raise. But I think is there's clearly work to be done. There's clearly work
1:30:19
that the Commission is the right forum to do it where we are right now, in my judgment. And the
1:30:33
support of CDDER, so I would support voting on requesting continuation of CDDER's support.
1:30:44
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Excellent. I'm going to come back to you when we head for that vote.
1:30:49
Andrew, you had your hand up as well. >> Andrew: Yes. Andrew Levrault. The only,
1:30:55
I guess, issue that I see is if you look at the special, excuse me, if you look at the board's
1:31:00
and Commission's website all of our terms are sunsetted as of June 1, 2025, so it seems like
1:31:07
at least they might be believing the Commission is over June 1, 2025. So we might want to reach out
1:31:13
to them to clarify what their understanding of the continuation of the Commission is.
1:31:19
>> Dr. Kate Benson: Absolutely. Thank you. Okay.
1:31:24
So we have a lot of, a lot of information to kind of handle and digest. So the question on
1:31:33
the table is, do we have a motion to continue our relationship with CDDER or an agency like CDDER
1:31:43
in order to help us potentially gain funding for the Commission to continue? Do I have a motion?
1:31:51
>> Anne Fracht: I'll make the motion. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you, Anne. Do I have a second. >> Jim: This is Jim. I'll second.
1:31:58
>> Dr. Kate Benson: All right. And can we have CDDER read the names for a roll call vote please. >> Sure, this is Christine from CDDER
1:32:06
and once again I'll be reading out members' names alphabetically by your last name. When your name
1:32:11
is called please respond with yes, no, present or abstain. Beginning with he will Elise Aronne.
1:32:19
Kate Benson. >> Yes. >> Sister Linda Bessom. Reggie Clark. >> Reggie: Yes.
1:32:28
>> Thank you, Reggie. James Cooney. >> James: Yes. >> Samuel Edwards. >> Samuel: Yes.
1:32:35
>> Anne Fracht. >> Anne Fracht: Yes. >> Alex Green. >> Alex: Yes.
1:32:40
>> Bill Henning. Camille Karabaich. >> Bill: Yes.
1:32:46
>> Andrew Levrault. >> Andrew: Yes. >> Evelyn Mateo. >> Evelyn: Yes.
1:32:52
>> Lauri Mederios. >> Laurie: Yes. >> Vesper Moore. Vesper Moore? All right. And Brenda Rankin, which I don't believe is here. Did
1:33:07
I miss anyone? Okay. I think we're all set. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you. So the motion
1:33:13
is passed that we will continue our ceilings ship either with CDDER or an agency like it
1:33:18
in order to potentially secure funds for the continuation of the Commission. And that brings
1:33:23
us to our last bullet because this is one of the things that we would look forward to as a future
1:33:30
endeavor for the Commission with the support of CDDER. CDDER gained support from DMH to access
1:33:38
the records for the Foxboro cemetery, the Foxboro cemetery was one of the ones that
1:33:44
will need some major reconstruction of the population buried in that cemetery,
1:33:51
and CDDER did a great deal of legwork to make sure that we would have an opportunity to re
1:33:57
assemble that particular burial ground and identify those who are buried there,
1:34:04
as that is one of the cemeteries that is currently not appropriately memorialized. So that is one
1:34:10
of the things that will be on our list to continue as a Commission if we choose to.
1:34:19
Does anyone have questions about that one? That one is pretty straightforward and very excite -- I don't know if exciting is the right word, but you all know what I mean. It's
1:34:28
incredible to think about that being perhaps the first cemetery that we have a major impact on.
1:34:46
Okay. If there are no questions on that point, I'm going to turn it over to Anne.
1:34:52
>> Anne Fracht: Thank you, everybody. If there's no other items to discuss, can we vote to adjourn
1:35:03
the meeting? If everybody [interruption] >> Dr. Kate Benson:
1:35:13
Reggie, was that you? >> Reggie: Yes. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Go ahead. >> Anne Fracht: Do we have a motion
1:35:29
to adjourn the meeting? >> Reggie: Yes.
1:35:34
>> Anne Fracht: Thank you, Reggie. Do we have a second? >> This is Jim. I move that I second. >> Anne Fracht: Thank you.
1:35:46
>> Christine: All right. Thank you, Anne. This is Christine Roa again from CDDER and once again I'll be reading out your names by alphabetical order by your last names. Please respond with yes, no,
1:35:56
present or abstain. Elise Aronne. Kate Benson. >> Yes.
1:36:03
>> Sister Linda Bessom. Reggie Clark. >> Reggie: Yes.
1:36:09
>> Thank you. James Cooney. >> James: Yes. >> Samuel Edwards. >> Samuel: Yes.
1:36:16
>> Anne Fracht. >> Anne Fracht: Yes. >> Alex Green. >> Alex: Yes. >> Bill Henning. Camille Karabaich. >> Camille: Yes.
1:36:26
>> Andrew Levrault. >> Andrew: Yes. >> Andrew Levrault. >> Andrew: Yes.
1:36:31
>> Evelyn Mateo. >> Yes. >> Evelyn Mateo. Lauri Mederios. >> Laurie: Yes.
1:36:45
>> Evelyn, sorry. >> Evelyn: Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Vesper Moore. >> Vesper: Yes.
1:36:52
>> Wonderful. And Brenda Rankin, which is not here. I think we're all set.
1:37:00
>> Anne Fracht: That you, everybody. The meeting is adjourned. And it's been a pleasure to work with everybody. >> Dr. Kate Benson: Thank you, everyone,
1:37:09
so much for everything. And hopefully this is not good bye, it's see you soon.
1:37:15
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, all. Take care. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
1:37:21
>> Bye now. >> Bye.