0:02
>>MATT: So good afternoon, everyone. This is Matt Millett talking. I'd like to call this meeting of the Special Commission on State Institutions to order.
0:10
As I just said my name is Matt Millett and Evelyn Mateo is the co chair. As usual we
0:18
like to let everyone know the commission meeting must follow Open Meeting Law. Any votes taken
0:25
today will be done via roll call. We ask that the commission members please mute themselves
0:32
when they are not speaking and use the "raise hand" feature if they would like to speak.
0:39
Before speaking, just please state your name. That way everyone knows who's talking. We
0:47
hope everyone will take a moment to view the agenda that was set out beforehand.
0:54
Thank you. Evelyn,
1:15
you're up. >>EVELYN: Okay. Now (laughing). My name is Evelyn. And I'm one of the
1:23
cochairs. To make sure everyone can participate, we ask the following: We have CART service support
1:32
our meeting today. They are captions that help people follow the discussion. If you need help
1:40
turning on these captions, please let us know. We ask that people speak at a nonrushed pace and
1:48
provide yourself provide yourself brief pause for the CART transcript to write what you have said.
2:00
We ask you speak with a few acronyms as possible. Doing so will help all participants to understand
2:11
important information that is shared here. I will try to remind folks of these terms
2:22
I just mentioned if needed during this meeting to keep us on track.
2:30
When we end this meeting, we will have notes made available based on what we talked about today.
2:40
The meeting is also being recorded, and the videos of available on the
2:46
commissioner's mass.gov page and on YouTube. We would now like to invite Emily from CDDER
3:01
to provide a high level recapture of our last meeting before we vote to approve the minutes.
3:13
>>EMILY: Thank you, Evelyn. So we have the commission met in
3:19
March. During that meeting they introduced new commission member Sister Linda Bessom,
3:27
who's a family member and current resident at Hogan. We had already introduced Julia O'Leary
3:35
from the Mass. Office on Disability. The commissioners viewed many different
3:42
PowerPoint examples for their commission, and they chose one, which is what we're
3:47
seeing in today's presentation. We discussed that CDDER created
3:53
a YouTube channel for the commission and moved the prior meeting's contents there.
4:01
Commissioners discussed recent news articles from the Boston Globe,
4:08
developments at Bridgewater state hospital, Tewksbury State Hospital and Fernald State School.
4:19
They talked about what types of institutions would be included in what the commission reviews.
4:26
And the discussion at Fernald included things like the records that were left there, a privacy
4:34
breach notice issued by DDS, the Department of developmental services, the condition of the
4:42
buildings at Fernald continuing to get worse, and commissioners expressed wanting people who lived
4:50
at the former state schools and their family members to decide what happens to the grounds.
4:59
A letter of inquiry was discussed by the commission and approved. It asked the governor,
5:08
governor Healey and the secretary of healthy about finding records that may still be located at closed institutions to resolve security issues at these locations
5:23
and to make the process to request records easier for former patients and family members.
5:33
We then heard updates from the different working groups, from the records and
5:39
record access working group. They discussed learning about
5:45
state record retention guidelines, which is how long they need to keep records.
5:53
They discussed what was learned about record access from various groups and next steps.
6:02
The burial and burial locations working group discussed learning the status of
6:09
cemeteries and burial locations and whether they're taken care of or not.
6:18
And they discussed creating a gap analysis of existing cemeteries.
6:25
The framework for public recognition working group talked about the vision and mission and
6:32
goal of the remembrance. And they talked about learning from other states who have remembered
6:40
people who lived in these types of institutions. That's my summary of the March meeting. Thank you.
6:48
>>LINDA: Thank you. >>EVELYN: Now we're
6:58
going to do the vote on minutes. I'm going to say the names. Alison maybe.
7:17
>>MATT: I need to say something first, before you do that. Sorry about that. I was on mute talking to myself. This is Matt. Before that these actual discussions we had
7:29
to vote for commission from the commission's last meeting back in March. That was set last
7:37
week. Hopefully everyone got the chance to read it. Anyone had any suggestions,
7:43
so any changes to meetings that they saw? If not, we can proceed with the vote.
7:56
And as always, we will be conducting a roll call. So if everyone could unmute themselves,
8:04
I will call out your names. First, though, do we have a motion to approve the minutes?
8:11
>>ANDREW: This is Andrew Levrault. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the March 2024 meeting. >> This is Anne Fracht. I'll second it.
8:24
>>MATT: And now Evelyn will read out the names. >>EVELYN:
8:33
Elise. >> Elise is unable to make it today, sorry.
8:41
>>MATT: We knew that, thank you. >> Thank you. >>EVELYN: Kate? >> Yes.
8:47
>>REGGIE: Hi, Kate. >>EVELYN: Sister Linda? >> Hi Reggie. Living room hi. I'm here, trying not to cough (laughing).
9:00
>>EVELYN: Do you approve? >>LINDA: Oh, yes, I do. Absolutely. Thank you.
9:06
>>EVELYN: Reggie? >>REGGIE: Yes, I do. >>EVELYN: Ann? >>ANNE: Second it, I approve yes.
9:16
>>EVELYN: Rania Kelly? >>RANIA: Sorry. I didn't recognize
9:28
it. Yes. I approve, Rania Kelly. >>EVELYN: Andrew?
9:33
>>ANDREW: Yes. >>EVELYN: Yes Mary? >>MARY: I abstain I was not here for march. >>EVELYN: Vesper?
9:42
>> Yes. >>EVELYN: Brenda? Do you
9:49
approve the meeting minutes? >> Yeah. >>EVELYN: Conor? >> Yes.
9:57
>>EVELYN: Matt? >>MATT: Yeah. Yes. >>EVELYN: Myself, yes.
10:03
Did I miss anyone? >>MATT: Sorry. Thank you, Evelyn.
10:12
Thanks everyone. The minutes are approved. As a reminder, the approved minutes and all the materials of our meetings are on the commission's we know.
10:20
>>LINDA: Okay. >>EVELYN:
10:33
Next item on the agenda is the commonly used terms and acronyms.
10:41
Documents that were sent out to all commission members in April.
10:47
It is a reference tool to help clearly communicate complex information.
10:56
The document will be updated as needed and is available for anyone who would like to use it.
11:06
We want to share the documents again with the commission and see what people thought.
11:18
Are there any things that commissioners want to discuss about the documents?
11:29
[ Pause ] >>LINDA: Let's
11:44
[ Background voices ] >>MATT: Thank you, Evelyn. CDDER will be writing the first draft of a report over the summer that will be given to the special
11:52
commission this is Matt I'm sorry to review and ask questions about. The draft report is
11:58
due from CDDER by September 30th, 2024. We would like to ask CDDER to give an overview of their
12:07
plans for the first draft of the report. Emily? >>EMILY: Thank you. Could we go back two slides, please?
12:26
Sister Linda, I see you have your hand raised. >>LINDA: Yes! I sorry I didn't refer
12:32
to this earlier. Thank you. I have a question: Did the governor
12:38
ever respond to the letter of finding records, et cetera, and that letter was sent to her,
12:50
was that ever responded to by the governor? >>EMILY: That's a great question, Sister Linda.
12:56
>>LINDA: And so what was the response? I'm curious, really. >>MATT: Hi, Sister, this is Matt, one time cochairs. She had until July June or July
13:06
25th to respond if she >>LINDA: Oh. >>MATT: She hasn't responded. Actually, Reggie will give a update about it in
13:14
the next couple of minutes. So does that answer your question for that. >>LINDA: Yeah. I was just curious as to what a respond or that's fine.
13:26
>>MATT: I think we all were interested in her response. But she has a
13:31
little more time to respond, so ... >>LINDA: Good (laughing). Thank you!
13:38
>>EMILY: Hi, everyone. This is Emily from CDDER. We wanted to revisit our timeline to keep us all
13:46
on track, and we also have some new members. So we wanted to check in. We're currently conducting research and gathering information on behalf of the
13:55
commission. And we will talk about what we've learned in the working group updates later in
14:02
this meeting and where we are headed next. We are due to write a draft of a report
14:11
on what we've learned to sends to you. The first draft is due September 30th of 2024.
14:19
So over the summer, we're going to be working on writing up all of the information that we've
14:26
gathered. So you can all review it. This report will need to be reviewed
14:32
by commission members so that you can ask questions to us and ask us to follow up on
14:39
things or learn more about certain things that you will need to do your work as commissioners.
14:47
We have a final version, we at CDDER, of this report, due January 15th of 2025.
14:57
So this fall, in October, November, and December, it's going to be an important time for you,
15:03
as commission members, to be able to look at our first draft report and to ask your questions and
15:10
ask us to do other things and what you need. So this report will be part of what you use
15:19
to decide on the framework for special recognition and also about recommendations you might make to
15:28
the legislature about next steps in your area of focus after the time period of this current
15:36
version of the commission. . Next slide, please. We have scheduled meetings coming up every
15:46
two months. The next ones are in July, September, and then November.
15:54
Commissioners will get CDDER's draft report after the September meeting,
16:01
and there is then one meeting planned between you receiving the draft report and the final report.
16:10
So we have some questions for you to make sure that you have enough time to talk together as
16:17
commissioners, because, remember, we have open meeting laws where the commission's discussions
16:23
about what we've gathered and what you want to do next need to occur in these open meetings.
16:29
So we have two questions for your discussion today. One is whether you would like to
16:36
add any open meetings in October or early December in this period between the draft
16:44
report and the final report from us at CDDER. And the second is whether some of the meetings
16:52
which are currently an hour and a half should be a bit longer, perhaps going to 5:00 p.m.
16:59
So I'm going to turn it over to Matt to facilitate this discussion among commissioners. Thank you.
17:09
>>MATT: Okay. This is Matt. Thank you, Emily. So the two questions probably tackle,
17:16
ask the first question first that probably didn't make sense. I'm sorry.
17:21
The commission, should we add any open meetings in October or early December?
17:28
Does anyone have any thoughts on that? >>LINDA: Mm. Um, let's see. Yeah.
17:50
>>MATT: Kate, not to pick on you but you're at the top of the list. Do you have any thoughts on that?
17:59
>>KATE: Hi, this is Kate Benson. I think it's going to depend on I'm going to lean
18:07
towards we're probably going to need one in early December. And if we add one in early December,
18:13
making that the longer meeting, so that we have more time to discuss everything and ask questions,
18:19
that feels like it would make sense to me. But I'd like to lean on others for input.
18:27
>>LINDA: Yeah. I agree. And this is Sister Linda. And it all depends on, like, how long is the
18:36
report expected to be? Like, how many pages. I mean, if it's that would be a question, like,
18:47
depending on the length um, you know, will we need more time to discuss what we see in
18:56
the report and talk about it together? So I agree. I think we are going to
19:02
need probably, um, a meeting in October, but definitely, definitely in December,
19:11
in order for us to meet the required deadline. >>MATT: Thank you, sister. This is Matt talking.
19:22
The reason why we're asking early, because we like to plan ahead. That way everyone knows the meetings. That way let's see today we have not 15. We're only missing two people. That's why we
19:32
like to ask these questions early. Reggie, do you have any thoughts of these questions?
19:41
>>REGGIE: Well, I would agree what Kate said and what Linda said. Um, I would hope it's
19:52
early December, so we have more time to review and stuff, so Jan can help me or call me and let
20:03
me know, you know. That would be good, you know. Um, I think the the more we know what's going on,
20:14
the more we can work together. >>LINDA: Yes. >>MATT: Thank you, Reggie. Anyone else have any questions or comments?
20:27
>>MARY: Yes. Matt. I have my hand up. This is Mary Mahon McCauley.
20:34
>>MATT: Sorry. >>MARY: Oh, that's okay. You're doing a few things at once, so no problem. I just wanted to say that remind me again. The
20:42
draft comes out in was that September or October? >>EMILY: That will come out
20:48
by the end of September. >>MARY: By the end of September. >> Yeah. >>MARY: Okay. So and then the next meeting after that is when? >>EMILY: In November. Probably mid November,
20:59
before Thanksgiving. >>MARY: Right. And then we'd have another meeting after that, and then >>EMILY: What's being proposed is either having
21:07
it in early December one in early December or we could consider one in towards the end
21:13
of October, if you >>MARY: Yeah. >>EMILY: to be given a chance to read the report.
21:18
I will just add to Sister Linda's kind of question about length, we'll make it as simple
21:26
as and brief as possible. But there's a lot we're learning. And we've got three different topics.
21:31
>>MARY: Right. >>EMILY: to discuss. So the reason we're posing the question is we think that 90 minutes may not be enough for the commission
21:41
to discuss everything. >>MARY: Right. I would agree that another meeting should be in the middle there. Due to the fact that the Open
21:52
Meeting Law is very clear that we can't have little groups of people discussing opinions and
21:59
suggestions, ideas outside of this >>REGGIE: Outside the meeting. >>MARY: larger group. >> Right. >>MARY: In order to do that and be free and follow the Open Meeting Law, I think we need another
22:09
meeting to discuss the draft prior to its final >>LINDA: Yes.
22:14
>>MARY: implementation of being a finalized document. >>LINDA: Right. >>REGGIE: I would agree. I would
22:21
agree with you, Mary. >>MARY: Yeah. >>MATT: Andrew, Conor, do you have any notes? I know you're at work right
22:31
now. So are you open to 5:00 meetings? >>ANDREW: This is Andrew Levrault and
22:39
a 5:00 meeting is okay with me. Worst case scenario we add another meeting,
22:44
we realize, you know, that we don't need the additional time, we can simply get rid of it. It's easier to remove a meeting than add one late in the game so let's try to get it scheduled.
22:53
>>MATT: Thank you. >>CONOR: This is Conor. Yeah. I think it would be helpful to have another meeting in the meantime. Our office closes at 4:30. So it might
23:03
be better for me to extend to a 5:00 time. I can always jump off early or if the meeting
23:08
started earlier, that wouldn't be a problem. >>ANNE: This is Anne. I think I'd rather see
23:19
a longer meeting in December than October due to both weather related issues and also it's just,
23:30
um seems easier to do it in October than December. >>MATT: here, so ...
23:42
Vesper, Ms. Kelly, do you have any thoughts on this? >>RANIA: (Nodding.) >>VESPER: I think I
23:50
liked the idea of early December, but I also am flexible for October. I agree on additional
23:57
meetings. I'm flexible with in terms of length of time. And going a little bit further out,
24:04
as long as I know in advance. So yeah. >>MATT: Thank you.
24:10
>>LINDA: I also have a related question. This is Sister Linda.
24:16
Since the we've already had publicity, in a sense, um, in the media, is this something that the media
24:27
will continue to cover? And do they expect to be informed, also, of these open meetings?
24:35
Just I don't know (laughing). >>EMILY: Just a point of clarification on the notification of open meetings. The date of the meeting is always posted publicly as well as the
24:45
agenda, at least 48 hours ahead of the meeting. >>LINDA: Okay. So so where would I mean,
24:57
would because it is an open meeting, um, what if, like, someone from the media comes? You know,
25:05
like, how how would they be treated? That kind of thing. Since we've already used
25:13
some of their articles and information already. >>EMILY: So members of the media are welcome to
25:19
attend just like members of the >>LINDA: Okay. >>EMILY: And they can attend as what we call an attendee. So they're not allowed to speak
25:26
during the meeting, but they can observe. >>LINDA: Okay. Thank you, thank you!
25:33
THE CLERK: >>EMILY: You're welcome. >>REGGIE: This is Reggie. There are certain things that we do have to be careful of what we say too,
25:40
because some people will break it wide open, which me an Mary talked about, you know. So we
25:48
have to be careful, you know. >>LINDA: Mm hmm. Right. >>MATT: This is Matt. So thank you, everyone, for the discussion.
25:57
The support will email you guys or everyone for more meeting times and dates in the future.
26:05
We'll need a couple of meetings, and maybe a lot of meetings at 5:00. So thank you, everyone, for that discussion.
26:18
>> You're welcome. >>MATT: All right. I'm talking to myself again. I'm sorry. This is Matt again. I've got to stop talking to myself.
26:27
[ Laughter ] >>MATT: Since the last meeting of the commission, some of the news articles have been published that we want everyone to know about.
26:37
The first article, from WGBH, which reported about concerns from community members regarding the
26:45
lack of input from the community and former residents of the city of Waltham about the
26:53
plans for development of the Fernald grounds. We want to share the article with the commission and see what people thought. If you're not speaking, can everyone mute
27:05
yourselves because I hear stuff in the background when I talk.
27:14
Commission member Reggie Smith was quoted in the article. Reggie, anything you'd like to share about the article? >>REGGIE: Well, when I was interviewed with the
27:26
Boston Globe, I just told them what I thought, that one of the things that the mayor of Waltham
27:35
wanted to do was she was thinking about putting a, a park in. And they asked us questions about
27:48
that. And I said no, because she's never talked to us, she's never asked us questions. And she's
27:57
assumed that she's assumed that everybody sort of knows about it and stuff. And it's I don't think
28:06
it's true, because I think that the main thing is we've got to let people who do have disability and
28:17
do have affected by it, let them know what's going on, and she needs to ask questions before they go
28:29
before they do anything and let us know what's going on, because it's not fair to just go above
28:35
and do it and don't care about other people. I think it's disrespectful, but, you know,
28:43
we have to work extra hard to get that through. And maybe somebody in the legislature will
28:52
somebody outside can can investigate and make sure that things don't happen like that until we have
29:02
a say what goes on, what we want, because we're the ones that been there. We're the
29:07
ones that should be drafting our own, really. >>MATT: Thank you, Reggie. This is Matt.
29:17
Any other commissioners like to discuss the article?
29:26
All right. The second article for the Boston Globe which reported that the Mass. state
29:31
police used some of the buildings at Fernald to store records from criminal investigations.
29:39
We wanted to share the article with the commission and see what people thought. Are there any things that the commissioners want to discuss about this article, the
29:48
state police article? The third article was a
29:59
follow up regarding a man's long efforts to get his brother's records from the school.
30:07
He asked governor Healey for help in getting the records. Again, we wanted to share that article with the commission
30:13
and make sure people knew about it and what people thought. Do any commission members have any thoughts on that article? >>REGGIE: This is Reggie. I think it's good
30:26
that the person get a copy of the records. That's what I've been pushing for, because I think it's
30:34
only right for people to have it. I don't know how other people feel, but I feel very strongly that whatever belongs to you, should go back to you.
30:45
>>LINDA: I agree. >>MATT: Thank you, Reggie.
30:54
Any other commission members have thoughts about that article? >>MARY: Yeah. Matt this is Mary Mahon McCauley. >>MATT: Yeah. I didn't see your hand. I'm sorry.
31:05
>>MARY: No. That's fine. You know, I wanted to just go back to the one about the state police. I think that, um, any responsible police officer,
31:20
criminal investigator, defense attorney, or prosecuting attorney you know, anyone that's,
31:27
um, a responsible person within the whole legal system was really surprised and really saddened by
31:36
knowing that there was evidence found in Waltham and that you know, I think it's good that it was
31:45
disclosed. It's very embarrassing for whoever left it there. And I hope that's taken care of. It's
31:52
not you know, it's that's not under my agency. But, you know, I think that most people in those
32:03
jobs, you know, get pretty angered by the fact that there's some individuals that don't treat
32:10
private, personal evidence material for a case in a very special way, as it should be.
32:17
So although, you know it was really it was really disturbing. And I'm not sure what actions have
32:26
been taken, but hopefully the police and the you know, it was different municipalities,
32:32
different cities and towns. And there was some state police as well. So I don't know how that evidence got there. But hopefully they have all internally taken care of
32:42
those problems, and that's something that would never, ever happen again.
32:48
So that's all I wanted to say. But, you know, I think the people that work, that do a good
32:53
job in those fields which is a lot of them were as outraged as everyone else that they found evidence
33:00
in Waltham from cases, criminal cases. >>MATT: Thank you, Mary.
33:14
>>MARY: Yup. >>MATT: The fourth article regarding a citizen's
33:21
work to try to find unmarked graves on the grounds of the former Westborough State
33:26
Hospital and the Lyman School for Boys also on the same land that the state hospital was built on.
33:34
The article included a quote from the commission about the need to follow all state laws and local
33:40
bylaws when searching for the type of sorry I can't talk when searching for these types of
33:47
sites. Are there any things the commissioners want to discuss about this article? Before we
33:54
go over this article, I wanted to say CDDER was contacted by the reporter and
34:00
they reached out to me and Evelyn about a quote. CDDER to quote on and me and Evelyn approved it
34:11
for CDDER to forward it to the reporter. I hope that makes sense, what I just said.
34:20
So that how the quote from the commission was in the article, that me an Emily approved it
34:26
as the cochairs. >>LINDA: Yup. >>MATT: So did anyone have any discussions about that article?
34:35
Was your hand raised for this one or was it raised before?
34:57
No question or comment, so we'll move on. Thank you.
35:06
>>EVELYN: This is Evelyn the co chair. The next item on the agenda is a
35:11
report from the workshops. We have four workshops. One for the letter of inquiry,
35:20
one on records and records request process, one on burials and burials location, and one focused
35:33
on a framework for remembrance. The work groups need additional
35:42
members. Please consider joining a work group. If you would like to participate in any of the
35:50
work groups, please email the SCSI support email address and the CDDER team will share the dates of
36:03
the next scheduled group meetings. Matt your turn. >>MATT: Thank you. I was unmuting myself.
36:16
This is Matt. And we would now like to invite each work group to share reports
36:21
on the work they have done so far. Reggie, could you give an update
36:26
on the letter of inquiry, please? >>REGGIE: Well, me and Jan talked
36:32
about the letter that we sent to the governor, um, a few of us talked about it,
36:42
and we told them what we basically felt, that she should look at it and she should make a decision
36:54
what should happen and stuff. You know, I didn't see the letter. But I know Jan told me about
37:06
the will either and told me what it was all about. She read it to me and everything. So I approve
37:13
that the letter be sent to the governor. >>MATT:
37:22
Thank you, Reggie. Yeah. So the member has until November 25th to respond. If they respond the commission will get to see the response. Let's just take a step back
37:36
for a second. There's a question that Jay or Gabe or can answer for us. Were the records left by the
37:45
police actually be moved out of Fernald? They've been sitting there for decades. Does anyone know
37:52
that answer? I don't know that answer. >>VICTOR: Yes. If I'm not mistaken,
38:04
the state police went in and took them. I can't speak for them. But I think it was referenced in the article. This was questioned I believe a few years ago,
38:15
when it was found. But I think the state police had been through there. But I would reference the article, though, because I believe it's
38:24
it's reviewed in the article. >>MATT: Thank you, Victor.
38:40
Mary, we'd like to get an update on the records and requests of the work group.
38:46
>>MARY: Can you hear me now? >>MATT: Yup. I can hear you, Mary. >>MARY: Okay. Great (laughing). For some reason with the speech output it's alt A
38:55
for mute/unmute. But it's not telling me. So I'm losing track of which one we're on. Anyway,
39:02
this is Mary, and just to report on some of the work and the you know, overall work that we've
39:09
discussed and continuing to discuss and work on within the, um, records and record assessment,
39:18
um, at record access subcommittee, one thing that's pretty important to let everyone know
39:25
is that there was a bill in the legislature and that's within the Commonwealth, within
39:31
the state of Massachusetts, not federal, within the state legislation, there was a bill that was
39:37
proposed to open access and give people access to public records which would be all of the records
39:46
that we're talking about from institutions open them up to people after 75 years have gone by.
39:55
So that was one of the bills. And, you know, as people realize, I think, that, you know, the bill has to go through different committees,
40:03
and it takes a while before it becomes a law. That has not gone through. That will not become a law.
40:09
So that bill ended up not making it through. So, you know, we it looked good. You know,
40:16
in 75 years, public records would open. But that did not go through. But that's the update on that. Um, the next the next one that I
40:29
wanted to talk about and one of the other things. And then we can discuss if people have is the questions or comments. But the next one was that we also,
40:40
within the group, you know, we found out that there are, you know
40:48
it's very sad, but there are personal private records about people that were in, you know,
40:55
state run hospitals, state run residential programs, right.
41:01
And they got into hands of people that they shouldn't have been in. So people had records, and they were trying to sell them on eBay or, you know,
41:11
trying to get money for private records or they would end up in the hands of different people.
41:17
And as everyone saw with some of the papers thrown around in Waltham and the grounds there,
41:25
you know, a lot of different people have these records in their hand. And, you know, they really shouldn't. They're not about them, they're not about their family member. It's
41:35
personal information about other people that they probably, you know, um, shouldn't have.
41:40
It's not right for them to have it. So we talked about having an amnesty program. And for anyone that's not familiar with that word, what that would mean is you
41:52
would not get in trouble. So you might have records, and it really would not be a good thing that you have these private records. Maybe they were even stolen from somewhere, right.
42:02
But this would give you an opportunity, if there was some program like this, an amnesty record
42:07
where you would go someplace and you would turn them in and say here you go, here's the records,
42:13
but you wouldn't be charged with any kind of fine or if it was something that was stolen,
42:19
you wouldn't be arrested for having stolen property. You'd be able to give back the records.
42:25
So we discussed that as a nice way to possibly get some records from people
42:30
that are out um that they have, that if they know there was not going to be consequences,
42:37
bad consequences, they might turn them in. So that was the second thing I wanted
42:43
to talk about. And then the third was, it was mentioned earlier, during one of the there's a radio show on WGBH pretty regally. And
42:57
they recorded on Boylston Street right in front of the Boston library. And it's really interesting to
43:06
go to. The governor was a speaker. Governor Maura Healey was speaking there one. That's
43:11
where the gentleman someone came out and asked questions about his brother's records,
43:17
and he could not get access to his brother's records. So we do know that that person has been
43:24
able to obtain records that were his brother's. So I think, you know, that's something that's
43:33
positive. And that's really, you know, what we're looking for in the future, that individuals can get their own records or a family member could get records.
43:42
So and then [ Background voice ] >>MARY: That's right. I'm looking to my side because my assistant is over here,
43:51
helping me remember my list. And this, I think, is really, really
43:57
good news, the last thing I want to share from the records in the record access subcommittee,
44:05
is that, um, there's been some investigation and research and the, um, CDDER has been able to reach
44:17
out to multiple states, all right. So all together, there's 50 states in the country, and out of the 50 states, 36 which is a good number.
44:27
>> Yeah. >>MARY: have sent us information about, How do you access records in your state? So we asked all of the states, you know,
44:35
what's your process? Like, in the archives department or the people that hold records.
44:41
What's your process in your state to get records? And out of the 50, we have responses from 36.
44:49
So we're still waiting to get more responses, but it's a lot. And with that information, there will be a little deeper dive to look at some of the states of, you
45:01
know, where it might be kind of a simpler process, where it's more difficult, maybe look at in the
45:08
future how we would want to fit into that, the way that Massachusetts might want to do it. And there
45:14
will be more discussion, I'm sure, about that. But, you know, I think kudos to CDDER. I think
45:23
we've got some great allies to work with us on this.
45:28
That's it for me but if I could answer comments or questions, I guess, that would be fine, if I could. >>LINDA: Let's see
45:38
>>ANDREW: Andrew Levrault with the protection persons commission. >>MARY: Yes. >>ANDREW: I just had a quick question on the legislation. >>MARY: Sure.
45:45
>>ANDREW: So my understanding is that the legislation was amending the public
45:50
records law so that the public generally could have access to the records after 75 years, correct? >>MARY: Yes. I yeah. I believe.
45:59
>>ANDREW: Okay. >>MARY: Because it's well, it's the public records and the public would have access after 75 years. >>ANDREW: So are we is the commission at
46:08
all concerned about our access to the records? Are we entitled to the material? >>MARY: You know, I wouldn't want to speak for the whole commission, but my thought is that I mean,
46:25
there's different ways of, like, who who would have access and how do you get access? >>ANDREW: Hmm. No I just, just the or from
46:33
my understanding was that the bill was redrafted to say essentially that the Special Commission on
46:38
State Institutions could access these records. And Secretary Galvin's office pushed back and
46:45
said, Well, that commission can already access records in the possession of the Commonwealth. >>MARY: Hmm that's yeah. >>ANDREW: So are we
46:52
>>MARY: I actually can't comment on that. I'm not >>ANDREW: Okay. I just didn't know whether
46:57
overall our subcommittee is waiting for the commission to get the records or bring them
47:03
more broadly to the public as a whole. >>MATT: This is Matt. I think Emily
47:10
might be able to help us with that question. >>EMILY: Thank you for that, Drew. The most
47:15
recent amendment was not specific to the special commission. You are correct that
47:20
before this most recent amendment, there was an amended version of an amendment essentially
47:27
that limited it to special commission access, that has since been rescinded.
47:34
So the one that didn't pass most recently was about public access. >>ANDREW: Mm hmm. Okay. >>EMILY: And I believe
47:40
that the state special commission's authority to request records is unchanged.
47:47
>> Right. >>EMILY: And so far with any group we've interfaced with, we have not yet received any resonance.
47:55
>>ANDREW: Okay. >>EMILY: Any requests for records, um, and we would bring that to you all if we did. >>ANDREW: Okay. All right. That makes sense,
48:03
okay. Thank you. >>MARY: Thank you, Emily.
48:12
>>ANDREW: That was all I had, thank you. >>MATT: Anyone else have any questions
48:17
for Mary on the records? >>MARY: Then I can pass it over to Emily? No (laughing). [ Laughter ]
48:22
>>MARY: That I might know or I could ask for some assistance. >>MATT: Assist, Mary, I like it. Emily, see that question in the chat?
48:34
I'm not sure that you answer that had first. >>EMILY: I do see the question in the chat. And if I may, the answer would vary depending on what type of record it is, where it's held,
48:49
the age of the record, and if relatives would like access, they would have to follow the
48:54
requirements of the holding entity. So that might mean they need to be named as the executor on an
49:02
estate or some other legal process. But there is variability in how records could be accessed and
49:09
by whom they can be accessed. >>MARY: Mm hmm. >>EMILY: The answer to that question is not a simple sentence. And that is part of the research
49:17
we're doing with CDDER here, for the records group, is looking at how different groups have
49:25
created those rules and what those rules include. >>MARY: And, actually, if you could please
49:33
just read the question, because I have a hard time reading the chat. >>MATT: This is Matt. I'm sorry, Mary. >>MARY: That's okay. I can read it
49:41
but then I can't hear what someone is saying so that's always been a problem. >>MATT: Is question was, can you the members of the public get access to the records? Or
49:50
is it only those that have relatives committed? So that was the question.
49:59
>>MARY: Okay. I understand. Yeah. And it does depend. Yup. . Thank you. Thanks, Matt.
50:06
>>MATT: No other questions for the records, we'll move on to Kate
50:13
and the burials and the burial location. >>KATE: Hello this is Kate Benson. The burials
50:19
committee has completed our gap analyses tool not the gap analyses itself, analysis itself but
50:26
the tools we're going to use to evaluate institutional cemeteries across the state.
50:33
We had talked about coming up with a list of best practices to guide how we would evaluate
50:41
the state of institutional cemeteries. And that gap analysis tool is complete,
50:48
as is, um, the list of known burial locations. We recognize that there may be other small cemeteries
50:57
that we are still looking into. But we have an exceptionally comprehensive list of all of the
51:05
known institutional cemeteries in Massachusetts. We also collected current practices from Hogan
51:14
and Wrentham which are two institutions that are still open and operating and maintaining
51:21
the cemeteries that are on their grounds. One of the things that we have learned as
51:27
we were collecting this information is that a lot of local towns and city officials don't
51:35
necessarily understand the steps to follow when searching for possible unmarked graves
51:42
that have to do with institutional cemeteries. In order to help that, some of the options that
51:50
the commission has put forward is that we, as a group, could create some educational
51:56
materials to make available to town and city officials so that they can look at those.
52:03
>>LINDA: Yup. >>KATE: and know the correct process to work through or that we, as a commission, would simply make the recommendation that educational
52:13
materials need to be made and that can be included in the final report. So we have two options of
52:19
either making the materials ourselves or just including that in our recommendations for later.
52:27
>>LINDA: Mm hmm. Good. >>KATE: Does anyone have any questions about that?
52:35
>>LINDA: Okay. Yup. >>KATE: Sister Linda, I see your hand.
52:43
>>LINDA: Yes. Well, being a former teacher (laughing) and a teacher of younger children,
52:53
I know the value of creating educational materials that are understood and very clear and succinct.
53:04
So I would recommend, if if people on from this special commission and maybe have consultants was
53:15
that, but to actually design the educational materials, I think that would be a valuable
53:24
resource for each town and city and where these are located. I think that would be and it would
53:34
be good for, um, our special commission if it is at all possible to design those educational
53:44
materials. And perhaps have other consults look you know, look at them or review them
53:52
to make sure that they are clear and succinct and respectful, et cetera. You know. But a
54:01
valuable resource. Definitely I affirm that. >>KATE: Absolutely. Thank you, Sister Linda.
54:07
>>LINDA: You're welcome. >>KATE: Does anyone else have any questions or comments on this update? >>REGGIE: I think when they do get this is Reggie.
54:21
>> Hi, Reggie. >>REGGIE: When they do get fixed, Kate, I think they should be put in a special file cabinet with a lock on it, and nobody can get access to it
54:35
except the person that it's supposed to go to. >>KATE: You mean once the records are
54:46
>>REGGIE: Yes. >>KATE: The cemeteries and all of those >>REGGIE: Yeah. Yes. >>KATE: Okay. >>REGGIE: The person should
54:53
be able to have their own file cabinet, because some things you have to hide because people get
55:05
ahold of these things and spread these things around. And we've got to be extremely careful
55:11
about of stuff that's been thrown that's been tossed around, information and stuff.
55:23
>>KATE: That's a very important suggestion, Reggie. Thank you for that.
55:31
There's a question in the chat that reads, perhaps a database could be created per institution,
55:39
to who is buried in these cemeteries. Emily can likely answer this a
55:44
little bit more in depth than I can. >>EMILY: Thank you, Kate. That is one possibility.
55:54
The information about who was buried in these cemeteries is good in some cases and missing
56:03
in others. And so part of the work we are doing to support this work group is to understand who
56:10
is buried in there and where we may not know the identity of who was buried in a space that might
56:17
be have a marker or a must be. And we may not know their name. So there has been work done by other
56:26
interested parties to potentially identify those marked or unmarked graves that we might be able to
56:33
benefit from. And so it could be a recommendation of the commission to put together a database or
56:41
what is sometimes called a repository, where all that information that is known
56:46
is put in one place for the public to access, and specifically that would be just the names of who
56:54
is buried in certain locations and known graves. >>KATE: Are there any other questions?
57:07
>>MATT: Thank you. I think Vesper has his hand raised. >>KATE: Oh, thank you. I didn't see the hand raised in the chat. Vesper?
57:16
>>VESPER: Yes. I was I was just kind of going back to the database point. There are examples
57:25
of this that exist for antenna boarding schools. One example is the Carlyle Industrial School in
57:34
Pennsylvania has kind of, like, a memoriam website who has some of the individuals who were in that
57:44
school listed. Sometimes that can be listed with part of things that were their belongings or
57:54
just remembering that person. I wonder if we look at something like this over time,
58:03
if we would want to look at those resources as examples, because it's a I see a lot of parallels
58:10
and it's a very, very similar circumstance. >>KATE: I think those are wonderful resources,
58:22
Vesper. And everyone should be taking a look at those. They're beautiful and they're incredible.
58:29
Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Matt.
58:41
>>MATT: This is Matt. Thank you, Kate. I appreciate that. Kelly, would you like to give an update for the framework for remembrance work groups. Rania?
58:52
>>RANIA: Yes. Hi, everybody. So this is Rania Kelly.
59:01
So far that we've done is we've learned about the work of friends of I'm sorry. My voice is,
59:07
like I'm losing it Belchertown state school museum to create a history museum. For the next steps we
59:19
have a interview scheduled for the Tewksbury State Hospital museum that we're going to learn about
59:27
in June. And everyone on this call is invited to the presentation by Willowbrook steering
59:35
committee on June 7th. I don't know if that's virtual or in person. So can someone clarify?
59:43
And I believe the material was e mailed to all of you earlier to review. In how
59:51
they memorialize or Emily, go ahead. >>EMILY: The meeting is virtual, Rania.
59:56
>>RANIA: Thank you. Did I miss anything else you wanted to add?
1:00:01
>>JEN: Hi this is Jen Fuglestad from CDDER. Just to let folks know, the meeting on the
1:00:08
7th. It's at 3:00 p.m. It's with Diane Buglioli, who actually was a former, um,
1:00:17
employee of Willowbrook State School and has since been very active in the Staten Island community in
1:00:27
providing community based residential supports to people with disabilities and has led the
1:00:35
steering committee to develop the Willowbrook mile memorial on the grounds of the former institution.
1:00:43
So everybody is invited to attend. She's going to talk about what their committee went through,
1:00:49
the work that they did over probably 10 to 15 years to establish their, um their memorial.
1:00:59
>>RANIA: Great. Thank you. I actually have to leave. So
1:01:06
I'm going to be leaving the meeting now. Hopefully we still have quorum. I could stay on any phone if you need me to. Maybe I'll do that. Because I have to drive to an appointment.
1:01:19
>>ANDREW: Rania you only have to start a meeting with quorum. >>RANIA: I didn't know that. Okay. Great. >>REGGIE: I hope your voice gets better, Rania.
1:01:27
>>RANIA: Thank you, you're so kind. >>MATT: Thank you, Rania. I appreciate it.
1:01:42
>>EVELYN: Thank you, everyone. I think, I think in our final minutes,
1:01:48
we want to remind everyone that we have scheduled the next full commission meeting for Thursday,
1:01:57
July 18th at 3:00 p.m. >>REGGIE: July 18th.
1:02:04
>>EVELYN: We will be setting the schedule for the remainder of the year in the next few weeks, so be
1:02:14
on the lookout for invites to the fall meetings. Does that work for
1:02:23
>>REGGIE: I'm listening. Yes. I would suggest this is Reggie. I would suggest to send the
1:02:30
stuff to Jan so Jan could call me and let me know, you know, 'cause,
1:02:38
'cause that would be good, we can both talk over the phone. We'll either send it to Mary, you know.
1:02:48
>>EVELYN: Okay. Does that work for everyone?
1:02:55
>>REGGIE: Yes. >>EVELYN: If members have any questions
1:03:02
before then, you should feel free to contact us. >>MATT: Thank you, Evelyn. This is
1:03:22
Matt. Someone will definitely email, contact, about getting in touch for a future meeting. >>REGGIE: I would suggest to have Jan. Because Jan sometimes calls me from CDDER, you know.
1:03:30
>>MATT: Yeah. >>REGGIE: And so we talk, you know. So I was just making a suggestion. >>MATT: Yup. No, no definitely.
1:03:35
So we will definitely get in contact with you. >>REGGIE: Okay. >>MATT: Um, so if there are no other items Sister Linda, you want to say something?
1:03:47
>>LINDA: Yes. Please. Thank you. My question is, Could we have,
1:03:52
um, a list of the different work groups and who are the leaders of those groups and then
1:04:01
how to respond, or the contact information to respond to them, if we wanted to join?
1:04:11
>>MATT: Yup. So this is Matt. Sorry, Evelyn. Do you want Emily.
1:04:17
>>EMILY: I can take it unless you want to. >>MATT: I'll stop there. If you have no questions, you can finish, Emily. These are sponsor A to the work group,
1:04:26
this email to CDDER or the support group website, the SCSI support at UMass ed. And we'll get back
1:04:38
to you if we have a specific question. >>LINDA: Okay. >>MATT: Is it work groups? They're, like usually, Mary take the lead. But if they're not available,
1:04:48
someone else takes the lead. So we have no real no real, um, leader in that
1:04:56
group, if that is correct, Emily. >>LINDA: Okay.
1:05:02
>>MATT: Does that answer your question, Sister Linda? >>LINDA: Yeah. No. I was just curious. Right (laughing) thank you.
1:05:08
>>MATT: That's a good question. Any questions about work group at all, definitely email our
1:05:15
support group, and they'll get back to you. They answer you very quickly. I know
1:05:22
this my personal experience, so ... Anything else you'd like to discuss?
1:05:32
If not, we'd like to take a motion to vote to adjourn.
1:05:39
>>REGGIE: I'm making a motion, please. >>MATT: Thank you, Reggie. >>MARY: I'll second the motion this is Mary. >>MATT: Thank you Mary for seconding the motion.
1:05:49
I'll do a roll call vote now to adjourn the meeting.
1:05:59
>>EVELYN: Elise. >>MATT: Elise is not here at this meeting. Kate.
1:06:08
>>KATE: I move to adjourn as well. Sorry, yes. >>EVELYN: Sister Linda.
1:06:18
>>LINDA: Yes. Whoops (laughing). Yes, I vote to adjourn. Yes.
1:06:25
>>EVELYN: Reggie? >>REGGIE: Yes. >>EVELYN: Anne? >>ANNE: Yes. >>EVELYN: Ms. Kelly. She left. >> She had to leave.
1:06:36
>>EVELYN: Andrew? >> Yes. >>EVELYN: Mary? >> Yes. >>EVELYN: Vesper? >> Yes.
1:06:43
>>EVELYN: Linda? >> Yes. >>EVELYN: Conor. >> Yes.
1:06:50
>>EVELYN: Matt. >>MATT: Yes. >>EVELYN: And myself, yes. Thank you,
1:06:57
everyone. The meeting is adjourned. >> Have a nice afternoon, everyone. >> You as well. >> Bye bye. Thanks.
English (United States)