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.