transcript

transcript  Special Commission on State Institutions May 8, 2025

0:00

Good afternoon, everyone. We’d like to call  the meeting of the Special Commission on State 

0:09

Institutions to order. I’m Anne Fracht and I’ll  be chairing the Commission with Kate Benson today. 

0:26

Before we begin, we’d like to let everyone  know that the Commission meeting is following 

0:33

the open meeting law. Any votes taken during  the meeting will be done by a roll call vote. 

0:43

We ask that the Commission members please  mute themselves when they are not speaking 

0:54

and use the raise hand feature if they  would like to speak. Before speaking, 

1:03

please state your name so everyone knows  who is talking. If there's any questions, 

1:14

for any questions posted from the audience  in the question and answer for this meeting. 

1:22

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

1:30

is scheduled for two hours. We'll be having  a break around four. Ok Kate it's up to you.  

1:44

(Laughter.) >> Kate: All right. Hi   this is Kate Benson. I am the other co-chair  of this Commission. To make sure everybody 

1:52

can participate in the meeting, we ask the  following. We have CART services supporting 

1:58

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

2:04

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

2:10

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

2:16

We ask that you speak with as few acronyms as  possible. Doing so will help all participants 

2:22

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

2:29

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

2:35

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

2:42

recorded and the videos are available on the  Commission’s mass.gov page and on YouTube. Next 

2:49

slide, please. I'll turn it over to you, Anne. >> Anne: We hope everyone has taken a moment 

2:58

to view the agenda. These are the  items we'll be discussing today. 

3:12

Welcome and announcements. The recap of last  meeting, the vote to approve the last meeting 

3:19

minutes from April 10th, proposed recommendations,  next steps and voting to adjourn. We have some 

3:33

announcements. CDDER will provide a recap of  the last meeting. After that we’ll vote to 

3:40

approve the last month’s meeting minutes. The  bulk of the meeting will be a discussion about 

3:46

what we want to recommend for burials and burial  locations. We also vote on the recommendations 

3:54

for the framework for remembrance. Then we will  discuss any next steps and wrap up the meeting 

4:01

with a vote to adjourn. Next slide, please. >> Kate: This is Kate Benson again. We have a 

4:11

couple of announcements. The first is that  the 100th anniversary of the establishment 

4:17

of the Belchertown state school cemetery and the  first resident burials will be celebrated in a 

4:23

memorial service on May 23rd at 1:30 p.m. and  Jen did circulate the pdf invitation if anyone 

4:32

is interested in attending. Please feel free to  reach out if you have questions about the event. 

4:39

The second CDDER recently sent along a  news article about another fire in an 

4:44

abandoned building on the grounds of the former  Fernald state school which was followed up with 

4:50

a little bit more information about the  investigation into that fire. Anne, over to you.  

5:00

>> Anne: We’d like to invite Emily from CDDER to  provide a high-level recap of our last meeting 

5:06

before we vote to approve the minutes. >> Emily: Thank you. At the last meeting, 

5:19

it was announced that Victor Hernandez  the deputy assistant commissioner at the 

5:24

Massachusetts Department of Developmental  Services of was retiring and he has since 

5:30

retired. There was a discussion of the framework  for remembrance including a potential disability 

5:37

museum. The Commission conducted a brainstorming  session on the pros and cons or what they liked 

5:45

or didn't like about the idea to make  a physical museum or digital museum. 

5:54

The records management and access recommendations  were also discussed. The Commission reviewed and 

6:02

talked about 17 recommendations, focused on  improving the management, preservation and 

6:10

access to institutional records. The Commission  agreed to move forward with voting on all of the 

6:16

recommendations except for one which needed  to be changed. And those recommendations were 

6:23

accepted via vote. Thank you. >> Anne: Thank you, Emily.  

6:34

>> Kate: Thank you, Emily. Before we dive into  this afternoon's discussion, we have our vote on 

6:39

the minutes from the commission’s last meeting  in April. Draft copies of the meeting minutes 

6:45

were e mailed to members earlier this week.  Does anybody have any suggested changes to 

6:51

last meeting’s minutes? All right. If there  are no changes we can proceed with the vote. 

7:04

As usual we'll conduct a roll call vote, but  before CDDER reads out everyone's names do 

7:09

we have a motion to approve the minutes?  And please remember to state your name.  

7:15

>> Bill: Bill Henning makes a  motion to approve the minutes.  

7:20

>> Kate: Thank you, Bill. Do we have a second? >> Andrew: Andrew Levrault seconds.   >> Kate: Thank you Andrew. Alright. >> Christine: Great. Thank you, Kate. 

7:31

This is Christine from CDDER. So I'll now read out  members’ names in alphabetical order by your last 

7:37

names. When your name is called, please respond  with yes, no, present or abstain. Elise Aronne?  

7:50

>> Elise: Here. >> Christine: Thank you. Kate Benson?   >> Kate: Yes. >> Christine: Sister Linda 

7:56

Bessom? Reggie Clark? >> Reggie: Yes.  

8:07

>> Christine: James Cooney? >> James: Yes.   >> Christine: Samuel Edwards? >> Sam: Yes.  

8:14

>> Christine: Anne Fracht? >> Anne: Yes.   >> Christine: Alex Green? >> Alex: Yes.  

8:19

>> Christine: Bill Henning? >> Bill: Yes.   >> Christine: Camille Karabaich? >> Camille: Yes.  

8:26

>> Christine: Andrew Levrault? >> Andrew: Yes.   >> Christine: Evelyn Mateo? >> Evelyn: Abstain.  

8:33

>> Christine: Thank you. And Lauri Medeiros? >>  

8:42

>> Christine: My apologies. And  Vesper Moore? And Brenda?  

8:50

>> I'm here ( ) today. >> Christine: Thank you. 

9:05

Did I miss anyone? Okay. That's it. >> Anne: Thank you. The minutes are approved. 

9:24

Copies of the approved minutes and all materials  from our commission meetings are available on the 

9:31

commission's Web page. Next slide, please. >> Anne: We have the stakeholder updates.  

9:46

>> Alex: This is Alex. So today, we'll be  voting on the last recommendations, the core 

9:59

recommendation, but I have started doing just an  outreach to the various stakeholders who will have 

10:06

to take action based on our recommendations  especially after we approve all of the 

10:15

records related stuff last month just because I  know we'll have a tight turn around on getting the 

10:22

report out and making people aware that after  the meeting on the fifteenth. And to do that, 

10:31

what we'll end up doing is send out a letter to  each of the state agencies where we need them to 

10:37

take certain steps to let them know what we want  them to do. That comes at the recommendation of 

10:42

senator Barrett and is one of the stakeholders  who I’ve met with over the last month. So I met 

10:48

with Senator Barrett and with Representative  Garballey and they’re the two people who 

10:53

the two legislators who helped pass the bill  to create the commission and really spearheaded 

10:59

that. They'll come speak to us next week.  They were they were blown away by our work. 

11:06

They were really speechless of the quality  and the depth. And I think it's difficult for 

11:14

commissions to get a lot done and often they  go on for a long time and they go past their 

11:19

deadline date and hard to get things through and  they were really grateful to see such clear steps 

11:26

and really supportive and express the fact that if  there needs to be bills or legislation put forward 

11:35

and makes some of these things happen that they  are willing to do that and help make it happen. 

11:40

Which was really nice. I think the big thing  that probably will shape some of our discussion 

11:46

later about a museum that they did raise I think  none of us would be surprised by is that these 

11:52

are hard times and money -- asking for a large  amount of money is not going to go anywhere: 

11:59

And so, they’ve asked us to think in stages  and steps about how we might start to put the 

12:05

Commonwealth on a path towards some kind of  museum or memorialization. But at a moment 

12:10

where we recognize that we probably can't ask  for a lot of money to do that. Just, yeah.  

12:16

Other folks I met with, I met briefly with the  attorney's general's office. Very briefly with 

12:22

the secretary of state's office. Trying to  think there’ve been a couple… others. But 

12:31

the general tenor of things is that everybody has  the same reaction as the legislators have had this   is a serious issue. They are very surprised and  shocked by what we found. They appreciate seeing 

12:43

that there are clear steps that they can take to  start to fix this and they want to do that work. 

12:49

And that's really, really nice to have heard so  that's kind of the summary of where things are 

12:55

at. Which is just good there's a lot of good will  out there. Sorry if there's any questions briefly 

13:06

I can answer any questions, otherwise we can  certainly move into the next stage of stuff. 

13:30

Cool. Oh Anne, I think you are muted. >> Anne: Thank you. I'd like to turn the 

13:42

discussion over to Samuel Edwards  who will present the remaining 

13:48

recommendation for records and records access. >> Sam: Okay. So can I get the next slide, please? 

14:03

So the recommendation that we didn't get a chance  to vote on was to modify the laws regarding 

14:10

restricted medical records. So to modify existing  laws to allow family members to access medical 

14:18

records within 50 years of an individual's  death upon proving the person is deceased. 

14:23

Part of what this comes out of is Massachusetts  archives and others hearing a lot of people saying 

14:30

that the court order process is confusing, it's  complex, and some cases it may be a cost barrier 

14:36

for families who don't have a lot of money, and  in some cases I can speak to personal experience 

14:44

that I have that I have experienced someone coming  here to the archives all the way from Springfield 

14:50

thinking that a record would be open after a  hundred years and then having to be told no 

14:57

it isn’t you have to go through this Court Order  process. This person was an 80-year-old woman and 

15:02

didn't have the bandwidth or the stamina to go  through a court order for her aunt's record who 

15:09

she never got a chance to meet. So just to kinda  put into perspective where it's coming from and we 

15:16

can vote on this recommendation. Yes, Andrew. >> Alex: 

15:30

Andrew you're muted. >> Andrew: Thanks. Sorry. 

15:36

Just out of curiosity what is the process  that you envision for somebody to establish   they’re a family member or descendant like are you  looking at – You know if you have different last 

15:47

names or how is that going to work out? >> Sam: Yeah, that's a great question. I 

15:52

think it probably it would probably be a case  by case scenario. In some cases when someone 

15:58

shares a last name it would be self-evident but  I think we can talk more in detail about what 

16:07

exactly that process would look like. Because  we would want to ensure that it's above board   and there’s clear documentation for someone’s  relationship to someone and it’s not you know 

16:16

if I say I’m related to someone. But in a lot of  cases, these patrons are doing their genealogical 

16:23

research and a lot of times they have that  documentation anyway. So. Just to put it out 

16:28

there, a lot of these patrons do have a paper  trail how they're related to that person.  

16:34

>> Andrew: Gotcha. Thank you. >> Sam: Alex?  

16:39

>> Alex: The answer to this maybe this is not  my area of expertise, either as a lawyer or an 

16:48

archivist is the HIPAA stuff for health  privacy on records that's national law, 

16:57

and I thought that said that it's death plus  50 years before someone can look at a record. 

17:06

Are there other states that have found language  that kind of falls you know, where I'm headed. You 

17:12

know that kind of idea basically is this okay. >> Do we have an example to do it with?  

17:19

>> Sam: Yeah. So that would be something that  I would want to do a deeper dive into how other 

17:27

states have handled it. My understanding is  that HIPAA pertains to active records and not 

17:35

archival records. And that's my understanding from  kind of digging a little bit into is this. But 

17:42

again, I'm not a lawyer, I’m an archivist.  So just putting that out there. I would want 

17:48

to consult with someone with more expertise on  the law to make sure that that's above board.  

17:54

>> Alex: Wonderful. Thank you so much. >> Anne: 

18:20

I'd like to hand it over then to Kate to  walk us through some of the recommendation 

18:26

for burials and burial locations. >> Kate: Thanks, Anne. Next slide. We have 

18:41

five recommendations for burials and burial  locations. We approved the recommendations 

18:47

together with other related recommendations.  The groupings are recommendations related to 

18:53

known and unknown burial grounds and  recommendations related to disabled 

18:59

dead practices and laws. Next slide, please. >> Our first recommendation is to make unmarked 

19:11

graves a top priority. The commonwealth needs  to take a serious focused look on where these 

19:17

graves might be on former institutional  properties and how likely it is that they're 

19:23

there. This is important because we can't fully  address the issue until we understand the full 

19:29

scope of it. Our next recommendation  next slide please is to create clear, 

19:41

easy to follow guidelines for everything related  to investigating, restoring, and maintaining state 

19:48

institutional cemeteries. We think it's important  to pull together a group to start working on this 

19:55

right away. There's a real risk of permanent  damage even when people are trying to help. 

20:01

Without clear guidance, efforts by community  members or state officials can accidentally cause 

20:07

harm that can't be undone. Next slide, please. >> The third recommendation in this group is 

20:20

to set up a perpetual care fund to cover the  long term upkeep of institutional cemeteries. 

20:26

This would help with landscaping, maintaining  access roads, and general care of the grounds. 

20:33

The funds could also provide grants to support  community groups wanting to create memorials at 

20:40

the burial sites of former patients and residents  of Massachusetts institutions. While community 

20:46

groups play a crucial role, they just can't bear  the ongoing costs of restoration and maintenance 

20:52

on their own and the majority of their groups  are volunteer. They should definitely have a 

20:59

voice in how these cemeteries are restored. But  that should happen in partnership with the state 

21:04

and disability advocacy organizations. In the  end the state needs to take on the long-term 

21:11

responsibility for caring for these important  historic sites. So I'd like to open up a floor 

21:19

for discussion on the recommendations for burials  and burial grounds. The first recommendation again 

21:27

was related to known and unknown burial  grounds and the identification of such.  

21:48

Any questions on the guidelines recommendation for  creating guidelines for numerous groups to follow 

22:00

when it comes to these burial grounds? Okay? And  finally the perpetual care fund. Are there any 

22:09

discussions about the perpetual care fund? Okay. I think, Anne it's over to you. We actually are 

22:29

way ahead of time. (Laughter.)   >> Anne: I think we can go on a little further. >> Kate: Yeah, yeah. I would like to just move 

22:38

on and present the next two recommendations  which should carry us to 4:00 for the break. 

22:46

This is one that we've discussed before and  we had a really great quick discussion about 

22:54

this one we have one recommendation to repeal  Chapter 113 of the Massachusetts general laws. 

23:03

This is the law that allows medical schools  to request and use unclaimed bodies from 

23:09

state institutions including current state run  facilities for scientific and medical research. 

23:18

Section four in particular of this law states  that bodies shall be used only for the promotion 

23:24

of anatomical science in the commonwealth in  such manner as not to outrage public feeling. 

23:31

We believe that using the bodies of disabled  people without proper consent is problematic 

23:38

and can understandably upset the public. This  law is outdated as medical schools now have 

23:45

other pathways for obtaining cadavers  through anatomical donation programs. 

23:50

If the legislature and government do  not take action to change this law,   we recommend that the attorney general intervene  to prevent these practices. Next slide, please.  

24:05

Our second recommendation in this section is to  request a formal apology from the medical schools, 

24:13

institutions, and government agencies that used  the bodies of deceased disabled individuals for 

24:20

medical or scientific research without their  consent. These organizations should also be 

24:27

required to create a public registry of any  remains or related materials in their possession. 

24:34

This would provide loved ones and descendants with  a way to locate and honor those who were taken. 

24:41

We do need to fully understand the extent of  what happened and those who benefitted whether 

24:46

intellectually, professionally financially must  acknowledge their role and take responsibility by 

24:54

offering a sincere public apology. These actions  are essential for ensuring accountability and 

25:02

transparency. I would like to open up the floor  for discussion on these two recommendations. 

25:11

Alex. >> Alex: Hey this is Alex. On the first one on 

25:17

chapter 113 just from the earlier the mention of  meetings that I’ve had the last couple of weeks. I 

25:23

think there would be support for doing that in the  legislature and I guess I'm wondering if you think 

25:29

that it’s a good step to maybe -- the legislative  process can go slow even with revealing something, 

25:34

should we be asking the attorney general's office  to take a short term action on this. Kind of like 

25:43

say stop for now until the we can try to push  something as a repeal forward. And my second 

25:49

question relates to both – Do we have any sense --  I understand this has been done in the past and we 

25:56

can kind of track examples where the disabled  dead were taken by institutions. Do we have a 

26:03

sense how much this has been used in the modern  era? Because I just I want to make sure that the 

26:12

way we characterize what's going on or what has  gone on is also fair if for instance, the medical 

26:20

schools say we don't do that anymore or we haven’t  done that in X number of years or whatever it is.   Those are my two questions. Thanks, so much. >> Kate: Jen.  

26:31

>> Jennifer: Hi yes this is Jen Fuglestad from  CDDER just to kind of follow up on what you were 

26:37

just talking about, Alex. When we interviewed  people from the Harvard anatomical gift program, 

26:49

they let us know that really the they have not  had to request or look for bodies to be donated 

27:00

probably since the early 1940s,  late 1930s. So it's been many, 

27:08

many years and the modern day anatomical gift  donation program has met those needs. Of the 

27:17

state medical schools. Thank you. >> Alex: That's really helpful. 

27:25

Thank you so much. >> Kate: Say again?   >> Alex: It's really -- It’s an old -- Doesn't  make it less shocking or upsetting. But it 

27:35

sounds like, at least in that instance, an old  practice that was done and not done anymore.   >> Kate: Andrew? >> Andrew: Yeah just in terms of the 

27:46

first recommendation. I do know that last session  Katie’s law, which was to repeal antiquated 

27:52

language referring to persons with disabilities  in the commonwealth was stalled late because 

27:57

they wanted to have a commission that is basically  looking at all antiquated laws so I think that's 

28:03

part of the new language for Katie's law coming  up. So I don’t know if that's something we want   to consider trying to watching that or reaching  out to them to see if this could be included 

28:14

once -- if and when that commission is formed. >> Kate: Absolutely. That's fantastic. Thank you 

28:20

for sharing that. That’s really good  information to have. Okay. My $0.02, 

28:28

I like the idea of addressing chapter 113, we  can never guarantee that someone won't notice 

28:39

this law on the books and take advantage of it.  So I think our best bet is to ensure that the 

28:46

language no longer exists so no one can start  a modern reinterpretation of it. And Alex, 

28:55

I did like your suggestion of tha temporary  injunction against using that particular law. 

29:03

Not that we're seeing examples of it but just in  case. Any other questions or discussion on either 

29:14

of these recommendations? Either chapter 113 or  the formal apology from the medical schools? Okay. 

29:32

All right. Back to you, Anne. >> Kate: 

30:05

Anne, you're muted. I don’t know if you’re… >> Anne: So we'll turn it back to 

30:15

Alex to talk about the framework  for remembrance recommendations. 

30:25

Alex? >> Alex: Alex, These are our last three 

30:37

things to take up I think, folks. We’ll have other  things to discuss, I know. But little things here 

30:42

and there -- But these are our big recommendations  on how we go forward. So, there are three 

30:50

recommendations for framework for remembrance  and looking ahead and what actions we can take to 

30:57

take all these single issues we see in the records  and cemeteries and look at them from up above and 

31:03

say what's the bigger, the bigger thing that we  see. So if I can have the next slide, please.  

31:12

The first of these is the museum  and memorialization initiatives.   Sorry, hard to say that one. Creating a statewide  museum and resource hub to preserve institutional 

31:23

history and honor former residents, tell the  stories of the independent living movement,   deinstitutionalization, and disability inclusion.  The recommendation here is to form a feasibility 

31:35

committee to deliver a report on potential  physical and digital models. I think we have 

31:44

partners in the senator and state rep and some  of these other folks in thinking about what that 

31:50

committee could look like and the leverage to  push that idea forward and where it lives and 

31:56

what we do. And obviously, we want that work  to begin to get done, but this is in response 

32:03

to the fact that we know that there's not funding  available for this right away. And that even even 

32:10

putting together a working group is not funding  for that either. So I think it's a symbolic thing 

32:18

and not a light one, right - We get to say how  significant this history is. And get the ball 

32:26

rolling on something. It seems like every time  we discuss this, it's been hard to get beyond 

32:31

the idea that we need a group of people who are  somewhat expert on this to kind of get together   and sit down and talk it through. So we could get  more detailed about exactly who we think should 

32:42

be on that committee, but I think that's the kind  of overarching recommendation right now. There's 

32:48

a need for memorialization and that there is a  need for come kind of museum space and that we 

32:55

can start the work of collaboration to think about  that even if we don't have the funds to kind of 

33:02

push it forward right now. Next slide, please. >> Alex: Oh, yeah, so we can go one by one with 

33:14

these ones. Let's do that. Because these are big,  these are big. So questions on that? Thoughts   about that? Ideas that folks have or things  we should include with that recommendation? 

33:39

I know it's more limited than maybe what  we dreamed of a couple of years ago but   it’s not nothing to call for it and start  that process. Because there's no oh, gosh, 

33:51

what is there? There's one physical disability  history museum in the country right now and it's 

33:58

run as part of a haunted house show at the same  time. So it's not exactly the model of what we’d 

34:04

love to see. I think it’d be big for us to call  for this. Okay. Let's move to the next one.  

34:15

This is one we discussed before. We discussed in  March and a general agreement about it but never 

34:20

took a vote on it. I think everyone at that  meeting had said that they approved of it but   we will need to vote on it formally and this is a  recommendation for a formal state apology from the 

34:32

governor, issuing an apology for the neglect of  these institutional cemeteries that we’re talking 

34:39

about, the mishandling of the records that we’ve  identified and the overall systemic harm done to 

34:45

disabled individuals in state institutions; This  is important because it acknowledges that while 

34:52

some received care, many others were harmed and  it confronts the legacy of institutionalization 

34:58

that has often failed to prioritize the well-being  of disabled people. It would be a very powerful 

35:05

act of recognition, helping survivors and  descendants begin to heal and it re enforces 

35:10

the state's commitment to accountability and  disability justice. For folks who were not at 

35:17

the meeting in March, what we looked at then  was that there had been other state apologies   issued by both Democrats and Republicans, by split  legislatures of both parties across the country, 

35:29

I think we found 5 or 6 examples, they’re very  moving and powerful. And we're at the center of 

35:39

this because we had some of the first of these  types of institutions. And where the President, 

35:44

we discussed, had apologized for the radiation  experiment studies that were done at Fernald and 

35:50

Wrentham in the 1990s but no apology from the  state at the time. It feels like it's overdue 

35:56

and something we should ask for – And I think it  is -- it would be a very powerful first step for 

36:04

engaging with these recommendations. Questions on  that? Or things you would like to see reflected 

36:15

in the language of that? I think we’ll have the  chance to share in the report some of the other 

36:21

language from other states or say hey we’d really  like this thing to be a big point here and so if 

36:27

there’s something that you really think needs to  be said in this or a certain way it needs to be 

36:33

said to be meaningful definitely please say so.  Okay. Let's move to the next, last of the three.  

36:55

This last one is integrating disability  history into the K 12 education. Every 

37:01

state has certain subjects that they say are a  priority that they want to be taught in schools. 

37:07

Because they're important, often because they’re  important parts of what that state's history is. 

37:13

And they think that school kids should grow up  knowing this. It’s probably why all of you who   went through schools in Massachusetts had to read  a page of Emerson and growing up in California, 

37:23

I had to read John Muir for the same reason.  People from the state with some big tie to 

37:28

the history. But it's important because younger  folks then encounter things they otherwise might 

37:34

not ever hear about and we know the silence  around this has been a significant reason 

37:40

why these sites and places and disabled folks,  treated badly. So what this recommendation is, 

37:49

is to commit to ask the legislature to take action  to commit to incorporating disability history 

37:54

in Massachusetts into the public social studies  curriculum with a focus on institutional history 

38:01

and its impact on individuals and communities,  really seeing the people in these stories, 

38:06

the evolution, how disability rights,  advocacy and inclusion came out of that, 

38:12

the connections between the past injustices and  the present day. And this is important because 

38:18

also there are just a lot of disabled students  who – I, as a former high school teacher,   I can tell you, having talked disability history,  see themselves in that history and it’s really 

38:27

profound to see yourself reflected and  people like you reflected in history. 

38:35

And it helps for comparing past and present. So  there's an example of something like this that   was done a few years ago by the state legislature  around Holocaust education. They felt that was 

38:45

important to have in the curriculum and obviously  some of this stuff unfortunately connects in that   way and I think when I’ve mentioned that this  might be something that the Commission would 

38:54

vote on I’ve found generally that people were very  receptive to it. A lot of legislators used to be 

39:01

educators, or have disabilities themselves  or people in their lives who are disabled,   I think teachers understand what we're talking  about. So that would be the last of these three 

39:11

recommendations. Any questions on that, Any things  you want said or talked or included? Okay. I'm 

39:30

going to send it back to Kate and Anne. >> 

39:40

Anne: Does anybody have any recommendations for   the Commission? >> 

39:59

Alex: I do think at some point we want to take  up how this work continues but I don't know do 

40:07

we want to take a vote on these recommendations  first or what, what do you think is a good I can 

40:14

certainly – share some thoughts about  how this work could continue, but -- 

40:26

Kate, Anne, what do you think? >> Kate: It might be helpful to   vote on the current recommendations before  we consider any additional. Let me rewind. 

40:59

So the first Andrew, go ahead. >> Andrew: I was just going to say 

41:04

do you want someone to make a motion,  I'm happy to make a motion to approve   the recommendations as presented. >> Kate: Okay. So moved. Do we have a 

41:12

second to approve the recommendations as  presented. That means everything that we   just gone over between ( ) and Alex regarding  both burials and framework for remembrance.  

41:28

>> James: Jim Cooney, I second. >> Kate: Thank you, Jim. I appreciate   it. All right. And we'll do a roll call vote. >> Christine: Great. Thank you, Kate. This is 

41:43

Christine Roa from CDDER, and once again,  I'll read out members names in alphabetical 

41:48

order. By your last names. When your name is  called please respond with yes, no, present,   or abstain. Elise Aronne? >> Elise: Present.  

41:56

>> Christine: Kate Benson? >> Kate: Yes.  

42:05

>> Christine: Sister Linda Bessom? Reggie   Clarke? >> 

42:17

Reggie: Present. >> Christine: Reggie, did you say yes?   >> Reggie: Yes. >> Christine: Thank you. James Cooney?  

42:24

>> James: Yes. >> Christine: Samuel Edwards?   >> Sam: Yes. >> Christine: Anne Fracht?  

42:31

>> Anne: Yes. >> Christine: Alex Green? Alex Green?  

42:40

>> Alex: Oh sorry, yes. >> Christine: Thank you. Bill   Henning? Camille Karabaich? >> Camille: Yes.  

42:53

>> Christine: Andrew Levrault? >> Andrew: Yes.   >> Christine: Evelyn Mateo? >> Evelyn: Yes.  

42:59

>> Christine: Lauri Medeiros? >> Lori: Yes.   >> Christine: Vesper Moore? And Brenda? >> 

43:13

(Off Mic). >> Christine: Yes or no?   >> Brenda: Yes. >> Christine: Thank you so much. 

43:18

Did I miss anyone? Ok. We're all set. >> Kate: Anne, do you want to put 

43:35

forward the discussion for further  recommendations now that we've voted.   >> Anne: Yeah so ( ) does anybody think there's  anything else that we should consider?  

43:47

>> Kate: And I believe Alex, you had something. >> Alex: A couple of things. I think one big one 

43:55

we can't decide today but we should be ready  for, for next week is because the senator and 

44:02

the representative will be here and maybe they  can help us answer this. It's obviously it's 

44:10

after our work is done – we’re done at the end of  May -- and we submit this report and we have like 

44:17

I said before we have lots of friend and allies,  and it sounds like they want to get stuff done   and they really support doing this stuff but we  don't exist anymore after that and we don't have 

44:27

the ability certainly to push or research or hold  people accountable. And it doesn't mean it goes 

44:35

away and I think legislators would, if, you know,  if someone said we're not doing that they would   help us get folks to step up and answer questions  and be accountable. But one question is whether 

44:47

or not the Commission continues in some form. It  may not have to be so large actually. It could 

44:52

be a smaller group of people just to make sure  things are accountable. But as a part of that, 

44:59

we had a budget just so everybody knows kind  of where we started we were also given money   by the Legislature and that’s awesome. And  that money was used to pay CDDER to do all 

45:09

of this amazing work. And the reason I raised  this now is that if this is something we want 

45:15

to do and we also think we need to pay CDDER  there isn’t a lot of money in the state right 

45:21

now and we would need to push really hard for  that and I think make it very clear and known 

45:26

to the senator and to the representative and ask  for their help in thinking through how we might   go about getting that money to do that. And also  keep the Commission going. Because it was formed 

45:38

by an act of the Legislature through the budget  but that, that process is over at this point 

45:43

in terms of our ability to get into it and so  they might – I don’t know how we would get that   continuation. Anyway, it's to say we should  ask them about those things if we want those 

45:53

things to be something we're doing. And I don't  know how [Off Mic] (Multiple people speaking) 

46:08

Anne, you're the boss. I'll go back to you. >> Anne: I think we should also I think 

46:16

having it teaching disability in schools  is more important than just teaching 

46:24

disability in schools. It's like it's  on the road to breaking the stigma.  

46:37

>> Kate: Yeah, absolutely. >> Anne: And that's something   that we really need to do. >> Kate: Yep. Agreed. Samuel?  

46:53

>> Sam: I had a process question. So we voted on  the burials and the framework for remembrance but 

47:00

do we want to vote on the records access point? >> Kate: Oh, yes. Thank you for reminding us. We 

47:06

would have completely blown by that one. And  that last records access one was the shift in 

47:19

access for family members to access medical  records within 50 years of an individual's death 

47:28

with proof of the deceased and the connection  to the deceased. Do we have a motion to accept 

47:36

that recommendation? >> Alex: This is Alex I 

47:42

make a motion to accept the recommendation. >> Kate: Thank you, Alex. Do we have a second?  

47:47

>> Andrew: This is Andrew I'll second. >> Kate: Thank you, Andrew, and we'll   do a roll call vote for this one as  well and then take a break. I think.  

47:58

>> Christine: Thank you, Kate. This is Christine  from CDDER again. I'm going to call everyone's 

48:04

name in alphabetical order by your last  name. Please respond with yes, no, present,   or abstain. Elise Aronne? >> Elise: Present.  

48:14

>> Christine: Thank you. Kate Benson? >> Kate: Yes.   >> Christine: Sister Linda  Bessom? Reggie Clarke?  

48:25

>> Reggie: Yes. >> Christine: Thank you. James Cooney?   >> James: Yes. >> Christine: Samuel Edwards?  

48:31

>> Sam: Yes. >> Christine: Anne Fracht?   >> Anne: Yes. >> Christine: Alex Green?  

48:37

>> Alex: Yes. >> Christine: Bill Henning? Camille Karabaich?  

48:44

>> Camille: Abstain. >> Christine: Thank you. Andrew Levrault?   >> Andrew: Yes. >> Christine: Evelyn Mateo?  

48:53

>> Evelyn: Yes. >> Christine: Lauri Medeiros?   >> Lori: Yes. >> Christine: Vesper Moore? And Brenda?  

49:02

>> Brenda: Yes. >> Christine: Thank 

49:07

you so much. Did I miss anyone? I don't  believe so. I think we're all set.  

49:18

>> Alex: That's the last vote  of our recommendations. I agree,   Brenda, that’s awesome. >> Kate: That is awesome. Thank 

49:26

you everyone for the consideration on that and  making that a very easy process. All right. Anne 

49:35

do we do want to give everyone a break? >> Anne: Yeah I think so.  

49:41

>> Kate: All right. If everyone  wants to return at 4 o'clock, 

49:52

know that was a little bit longer than a five  minute break, but I feel like we all needed it. 

50:01

I know that we just discussed a few other things  that we might consider as recommendations, 

50:07

was there anyone else who had anything to add for  other recommendations that we might consider?  

50:22

>> Laurie: So I have a question. I’ve got  the document up, am I not seeing or is it 

50:30

not in here, a recommendation to extend  the Commission – Commission’s work?  

50:36

>> Kate: Alex did bring up some of that  conversation in the potential for other 

50:42

recommendations that we may consider. We did have  a brief discussion about the fact that there is 

50:52

budget difficulty to put  it nicely so we do want to 

50:59

decide on some recommendations for next steps. >> Laurie: Can I just say something? I follow 

51:10

he's a representative from Cambridge. And I  might screw up the name, apologize ahead of 

51:19

time Markovitz maybe? He did a report card  in March on kind of like the state budget, 

51:32

State of the Union if you will, and talked about  all of the accomplishments that had happened in 

51:38

the last year and one of the things he stated in  there that was really good news and surprising 

51:45

to me was that Massachusetts right now has a 9  billion with a B – billion dollar rainy day fund. 

51:56

So, I know that money is hard and the budget  is hard and it’s really scary about Medicaid 

52:04

right now, but I'm just saying, with 9 billion  in the rainy day fund, my head thinks there 

52:12

could be a little wiggle room, that's all. >> Kate: Okay. Thank you Laurie. Let’s hope 

52:21

there is some wiggle room. (Laughter.)   >> Any other recommendations that folks would  like to potentially consider? Okay. If not, Anne, 

52:39

I'm going to turn it back to you because  I think that's it for this week. Yes?  

52:47

>> Anne: I think so. >> Reggie: You were talking about the  

52:52

>> Kate: Oh, go ahead, Reggie. >> Reggie: You were talking about what 

53:00

the state budget is going to be. Let's not touch  it until the state budget is going to be and how 

53:07

much is going to be allocated for that. >> Kate: Yeah you got a great point. We 

53:14

don't know what the money situation is  going to be. We're certainly keeping an 

53:21

eye on it as we decide how we're going to  move forward and what next steps are.  

53:27

>> Reggie: The 23rd, you haven't told us how to  get out here. I have no way to get out there.  

53:38

>> Kate: Oh, yeah, Reggie, we need to talk about  that. Alex or I will try to get in touch with you 

53:47

and see if we can try to figure something out. >> Reggie: Okay.   >> Kate: Anything for you, Reggie. >> Reggie: [Off Mic] take me in a heartbeat.  

54:05

(Laughter.) >> Kate: We'll figure out a way to   get you out here for the celebration. >> Reggie: Okay, good.  

54:11

>> Kate: All right. Anne, it's back to you. >> Anne: All right. Thank you, everyone. We 

54:19

look forward to seeing you at the  next full commission meeting on May 

54:25

15th. CDDER will be following up with meeting  information. Does that work for everybody?  

54:36

>> Kate: Yep. >> Yes.   >> Anne: If there's any questions before  then, you should feel free to contact us. 

54:48

If there's no other items to discuss, can  we have a vote to adjourn the meeting?  

54:57

>> Reggie: There's items to discuss.  I want to know about the fire.   >> Kate: What was that, Reggie? >> Reggie: I want to know about the   fire. I want to read about it. I want to  know how many buildings were damaged.  

55:12

>> Kate: Jen, you sent out the  article for that, right.  

55:17

>> Jennifer: I did. There has been if you  all have been following the news or hearing 

55:25

the news. There's been a series of fires going  back I believe December or November last year at 

55:34

the former Fernald and most recently the  state fire Marshall has opened an arson 

55:44

investigation into is those fires because  a patterns is emerging of them happening on 

55:50

Saturdays. And I believe there's a tip line  and a possible reward now being offered for 

55:57

information for information about those fires. >> Kate: Yep. So it's still  

56:05

>> Reggie: [Off Mic] be there.  Someone should go to jail. For life.  

56:14

>> Kate: Agreed. Thanks, Reggie. All  right. Do we have a motion to adjourn?  

56:30

>> Reggie: Second. >> Kate: Are you making a motion, 

56:35

Reggie, to adjourn? >> Reggie: Yes.   >> Sam: I second. >> Kate: And now we'll 

56:45

do a quick roll call vote to finish it off. >> Christine: Thanks Kate. This is Christine 

56:50

again from CDDER. I'll be reading your names  in alphabetical order by your last names.   And once again, please respond with a yes,  no, present, or abstain. Elise Aronne?  

57:04

>> Elise: Present. >> Christine: Kate Benson?   >> Kate: Yes. >> Christine: Sister Linda   Bessom? Reggie Clarke? >> Reggie: Yes.  

57:14

>> Christine: Thank you. James Cooney? >> James: Yes.   >> Christine: Samuel Edwards? >> Sam: Yes.  

57:20

>> Christine: Anne Fracht? >> Anne: Yes.   >> Christine: Alex Green? Alex Green? >> Alex: Yes, sorry.  

57:31

>> Christine: It's okay. Bill  Henning? Camille Karabaich?  

57:38

>> (Multiple People Talking). >> Christine: Andrew Levrault?   I'm sorry, Camille, did you respond? >> Camille: Yeah. I said yes. I'm sorry.  

57:47

>> Christine: Thank you. No, No  problem. My apologies. Evelyn Mateo?   >> Evelyn: Yes. >> Christine: Lauri Medeiros?  

57:54

>> Lori: Yes. >> Christine: Vesper Moore? And 

58:00

Brenda Rankin? Not sure if Brenda is on anymore. >> Kate: Brenda and Elise had to log off.  

58:13

>> Christine: Oh, Okay, thank you, Kate. I  think -- Did I miss anyone? All right. We should 

58:20

be all set. >> Kate: Okay.   >> All right. Thank you. >> See you next week.