transcript

transcript  Special Commission on State Institutions Meeting January 23, 2024

0:00

>> KATE BENSON: Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you for joining us. We would like to   call the Massachusetts Special Commission  on State Institutions to order.  

0:09

I am one of the two Co-Chairs. And we would  like to let everyone know that this Commission 

0:16

meeting must follow the Open Meeting Law. Any  votes taken during the meeting will be done via 

0:21

roll-call vote. We ask that Commission members to  please mute themselves when they are not speaking 

0:27

and use the raised hands feature to speak. Before  speaking, state your name so everyone knows when 

0:34

you are speaking. For any questions you have  during the meeting, CDDER will be holding them 

0:42

until the question and answer period during the  meeting. We'll have a break at around 4 p.m.  

0:52

To make sure everyone can participate, we ask the  following: We have CART services and these are 

1:00

captions to help people follow the discussion. If  you need help turning on the captions, please, let 

1:05

us know. We ask people speak at a non-rushed pace,  and we ask that you speak with as few acronyms as 

1:18

possible. Doing so will help all participants  to understand information shared here.  

1:26

We'll try and say these things if needed during  the meeting to keep us on track. When we end 

1:33

this meeting, we'll have notes available  based on what we talk about here today.  

1:40

Recording and transcripts will be  on the mass.gov page and YouTube.  

1:48

Next slide, please. Can we  flip this to the next slide?  

2:28

>> CHRISTINE ROA: My apologies. This is  Christine, and I am trying to move the   slide. Which slide number would you like? >> KATE BENSON: I think it is slide 2.  

2:39

>> CHRISTINE ROA: Yeah. That's the  one I have, yeah. Sorry about that.  

2:46

>> KATE BENSON: No. It is okay. >> EMILY LAUER: It is still   showing slide one, Christine. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Thank you. Sorry.  

2:57

>> KATE BENSON: Technology  is so fun and helpful.   >> CHRISTINE ROA: You can see the correct slide? >> KATE BENSON: Perfect. Thank you.  

3:16

We hope everyone has taken a moment to review the  agenda. These will be the items we're discussing 

3:21

today. CDDER will provide a recap of last  month's meeting before approving the minutes.  

3:29

We will have a recap of last meeting and  after that, CDDER will show presentations 

3:38

on the report and areas to consider for  recommendations. We would like to invite Emily.  

3:45

>> EMILY LAUER: Thank you, Kate. This is  Emily. The Commission last met December 12, 

3:59

2024. And the secretary, [ ] and has not been  filled. Members talked about the scheduled 

4:18

meeting 2025, and agreed for the Commission  to meet each month to talk about the findings 

4:26

from the CDDER report and put together their  recommendations, which are due in June.  

4:33

Members talked about the report to review  workgroups and asked for more volunteers and we 

4:40

were able to get one more volunteer. CDDER talked  to members about what it learned related to areas 

4:49

of focus, which are in CDDER's report. We talked  about examples of what was contained in patient 

4:58

records from institutions over time. We talked  about public records, laws in Massachusetts, 

5:05

and the groups that are to show public  records in the ways you can ask for them.  

5:13

We talked about laws regarding who can get patient  records from institutions and how long the records 

5:21

must be kept. We also talked about which  records the Massachusetts State Archives have 

5:30

and the institutions and how to access those. We talked about how some records in institutions 

5:37

are held in private collections and talked about  different experiences people had when trying to 

5:45

get information on family members who lived in  the institution and who are no longer alive.  

5:53

We talked about different ways to create  memorials about people who lived in the 

5:59

institutions. And talked about the lessons these  groups learned while setting up the memorials.  

6:09

Lastly, Mary Mahon McCauley announced  she will be retiring and a member of 

6:20

FOD will be joining the Commission. Thank you. >> KATE BENSON: Thank you, Emily. Before we dive 

6:30

into this A's discussions, we have to vote on  the minutes of the Commission's last meeting in 

6:36

December, and a draft copy of the minutes were  e-mailed to members this week. Do any members 

6:42

have any changes to the minutes? If not, we can  proceed with the vote. And I see no raised hands.  

7:00

All right. We will be conducting a roll  call vote. If you can unmute yourselves, 

7:06

I will call your names in alphabetical order. First, do we approve the minutes? And first, 

7:11

state your name before speaking. Lauri  Mederios. Motion to approve the minutes.   >> ANDREW LEVRAULT: Second. >> KATE BENSON: And now I will say 

7:35

your names in alphabetical order. Please  respond with yes, no, or abstain.  

7:46

We have Elise, and myself, yes. Linda  Bessom, I don't know if I saw Sister Linda 

7:59

Bessom and Reggie? I don't think I saw  Reggie either. James Cooney. Do we -- Jim, 

8:24

yes, no, or abstain? >> JAMES COONEY: Yes.   >> KATE BENSON: Samuel Edwards. >> SAMUEL EDWARDS: Yes. [ ].  

8:32

>> KATE BENSON: Anne Fracht.  [no audible response --  

8:37

>> ALEX GREEN: Yes. >> BILL HENNING: [ ].   >> KATE BENSON: Mary Mahon McCauley.  Can you unmute and give us a yes, Mary? 

9:06

Okay. Looks like Mary can't  unmute, Jen. Evelyn?  

9:13

>> ANDREW LEVRAULT: [ ]. >> EVELYN MATEO: Abstain. I wasn't here.   >> KATE BENSON: Thank you. Lauri. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: Yes. I agree to 

9:27

approve the minutes, sorry. >> KATE BENSON: Thank you.   Matt is not on yet. Vesper? >> VESPER MOORE: Yes.  

9:34

>> KATE BENSON: And Brenda is not  on; correct? Did I miss anyone? Okay. 

9:48

Excellent. The minutes are approved. As a reminder, copies of the approved   minutes and all Commission meetings are  available on the Commission's webpage. 

10:01

Next slide, please. We would like to approve the 

10:06

plans for the upcoming work of the Commission.  Our work between now and June 1st is important, 

10:14

as a group, we need to review CDDER's final report  and prepare questions for anything in the report 

10:22

or anything we need clarification on. We need to decide on how we will generate 

10:28

recommendations and write a SCSI report,  which is due to the legislature on June 1, 

10:35

2025. One example would be to review one  topic per meeting and discuss what we 

10:44

want to do, based on what we have learned. I would like to open up the floor for ways to 

10:51

accomplish the work we have in front of us. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: 

11:05

Hi. I am sorry. I can't get my camera to work.  There's a triangle! So I will not bother. Sorry 

11:15

about that. My question is, am I to assume  there are four topics because there are four 

11:24

meetings to discuss four topics? >> KATE BENSON: That's a very good 

11:31

question. Emily, Jen, or Alex, do  you want to jump in on that?  

11:40

>> EMILY LAUER: Just to the way we organized the  report, we included information in three sections: 

11:48

Burials, [ ] and framework for records.  You can all choose how to go about the 

11:56

discussions and one opportunity is to cover  each of the three areas, and a final meeting 

12:06

to come it necessary agreements for the voting  of the recommendations and how to package 

12:16

them. If you want two meetings to talk about  records, for example, you can do that and pick 

12:23

whatever order you would like to go in. Today, we'll go through what we saw as 

12:29

opportunities for you all to consider. Those  are just things we have picked up on. They are 

12:36

not anything you are obligated to consider or  use. We'll talk about those and you will get a 

12:43

sense of what came out of our research, but you  all get to choose how to steer it from now on.  

12:58

>> KATE BENSON: Alex, go ahead. >> ALEX GREEN: Hi,   everyone. This is Alex speaking. In general, what  would a Commission normally do in this situation 

13:10

is, now that we have the report from CDDER, it is  -- that report really is a neutral informational 

13:19

report. So it is the findings they have gone  out and looked for, based on what we asked for.  

13:26

And now, customarily, what we would do is  write something that's a summary that goes 

13:32

on top of that report. And that summary is  nor opinionated, and how we, as a Commission, 

13:39

feel about that report, and what we want to say to  the legislature, or to the public, or to anyone at 

13:46

large about what we think it all means, and maybe  what should be done, those sorts of things. That's 

13:54

why we created the subcommittee for looking at  the report and drafting some of that language so 

14:01

that we can -- those of us on that the committee  can listen to what we hear in the bigger meetings, 

14:07

and take that information and try and turn it  into words and language that might reflect what 

14:15

the Commission wants to say, and then bring that  back, so helping to move things along as we go.  

14:22

We don't have to write anything near what's  that in the report; not everything in it. 

14:29

Our job is to get it down to a couple of pages,  and here's what we say based on what we see.  

14:42

>> KATE BENSON: Lauri, go ahead. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: Hi, Alex. So does   that mean the Committee doing that work --  name it again for me now, Alex, please?  

14:52

>> ALEX GREEN: For the life of me, I can't  remember, but it is something like the 

15:00

Report Subcommittee or Working Group. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: Okay. So does that mean 

15:09

the Report Working Group is actually going to be  -- basically writing the recommendations, or are 

15:20

we going to participate monthly in a conversation  about those three topics and then the working 

15:29

group will take that and meet in the subcommittee  separately and gather the information they 

15:36

received at one of those open meetings? >> ALEX GREEN: Great question. Two things are 

15:42

possible. There are people in the working group  who have expertise in some of these areas. For 

15:49

instance, we have an official from the archives  who is part of this Commission and also part of 

15:55

that group, and know records stuff inside  out, and they get to a level of detail and 

16:03

understanding and specifics and kind of what would  work. What's the best way, the common way to do 

16:09

stuff. That's going to be helpful in getting to  the point in the most effective way possible.  

16:16

At the same time, more important than that,  everybody in this Commission chimes in about 

16:24

what they say in these group meetings. Because  at the end of the day, we're all going to vote 

16:29

in the meetings in the legislature. And first,  you will not have [ ] those in the working   group listen and making sure we start to turn  that into something, and maybe take time and 

16:51

effort getting it all down on paper. At the end of the day, it is important 

17:02

to share anything that you are concerned  about, or that you have explored, or say, 

17:07

can we try recommending this? We'll look for  anything like that. Because we have to be happy 

17:16

with what we're voting on. It would be great  to get to a place, whatever the summary looks 

17:22

like at the end, we're all comfortable saying,  yeah. I like that and support that. My two cents, 

17:33

that's what we should be cutting into. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: Thank you, Alex. I   surmised that. Thank you. >> KATE BENSON: Bill.  

17:47

>> BILL HENNING: I wanted to say the reports  are amazing and I will not profess I have been 

17:54

close to reading the 386-page version and  don't think I will get to the end of that.  

18:03

One suggestion. I don't have to do it here  on the report. There's history, and one 

18:11

little thing I might have knowledge of.  Just a record to the homestead condition, 

18:17

the whole pan at play during the whole  institution, reference ADA in the homestead 

18:29

resolution. Amazing work! I continue to be  overwhelmed by the high quality of writing and 

18:39

scholarship going into that. Thank you. >> KATE BENSON: Thank you, Bill. It will   definitely be noted. Emily. >> EMILY LAUER: Thank you, Bill, 

18:47

and it is in the larger timeline, and  we'll pull it forward in the summary.  

18:53

>> BILL HENNING: Right when you get to  the '70s, '80s, '90s, it is related to the 

18:59

homestead. Thank you. >> EMILY LAUER: I was going to add, 

19:09

we sort of gave you a polished report in  its entirety, however, we notice we have 

19:17

"not for distribution" and the report, and it  will be up to you to put it on the website.  

19:25

There's a little window of time we can make  the adjustment like this, and we can see it 

19:35

before you do that. Just know, we can make  those modifications if you all decide you 

19:41

want to share that on the Commission's website. >> KATE BENSON: Thank you. This is Kate. To throw 

19:51

my two cents in as well. I agree with Alex and  I think it would make things very manageable and 

20:00

making sure everybody's voice is heard to ensure  we cover each topic individually in the big group, 

20:08

so everyone has a chance to have that input. And  again, like Alex said, the report review group is 

20:17

not a closed group by any means, but it is those  of us who had the energy and bandwidth and would 

20:23

like to tackle it right away. But we would love  input from everyone. You have such a great wealth 

20:32

of expertise in different areas. And talking  as a big group and taking that and instilling 

20:50

that is a great way to handle this. Is there anyone else that has thoughts 

21:00

and feelings? This is something we would have  to vote on. So we can vote on this now. Jen, 

21:21

do we need to vote on this now for sure, or  is this something folks can mull over? I want 

21:27

to be sure everyone is heard and they are  clear on how we're going to approach this.  

21:38

>> EMILY LAUER: I don't know if  you need to vote on it, per se.   >> KATE BENSON: Okay. >> EMILY LAUER: It is up to 

21:43

you all if you want to formalize it going  through, or we can talk about it now, 

21:51

we can wait until we see what we talk about for  opportunities today and make the decision towards 

21:58

the end of the meeting. It is up to you. >> KATE BENSON: Okay. If I am not hearing any 

22:21

thoughts, comments, concerns at the moment, shall  we hold on to it and move on? I just want to be 

22:34

sure I am not taking away anybody's opportunity  to weigh in. Okay. Do we want to hold this until 

22:45

the end of the meeting, Jen and Emily? >> EMILY LAUER: We can make sure there's 

22:58

space before adjourning today to make opportunity  for making any comments or emotions before the 

23:06

next meeting. >> KATE BENSON: That's   great. Next slide, please. The next slide we wanted to discuss is 

23:17

the meeting schedule going forward from February  to June 2025. We need to agree how often and best 

23:26

days and times of the meetings. We want to be  sure how long we want our meetings to last.  

23:36

Option 1 is to meet on the second Thursday of the  month, and option 2 the fourth Thursday of the 

23:44

month. We propose the time will be 3:00 to 5:00  in order to complete the meeting and have enough 

23:59

options on the table. Is there any preference  on either of the options of one or other?  

24:16

>> LAURI MEDERIOS: Can you  do the options again?  

24:27

>> KATE BENSON: Sure. Option 1 is the second  Thursday of the month from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock. 

24:36

February 13, March 13, April 10, May 8. And the  second option is fourth Thursday of the month, 

24:50

February 27, March 27, April 24, and May 22. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: I want to see if we want to 

25:09

vote on option 1 or 2. We can call  a vote for both options; right?  

25:16

>> KATE BENSON: Yes. This is a reminder that  option 1 gives the time between the Committee 

25:25

meeting and June 1st. And option 2 doesn't give  us a whole lot of time between the last meeting 

25:37

and June 1st date. I see Samuel's hand up. >> SAMUEL EDWARDS: I was going to ask a quick 

25:47

question which is, is Thursday the best day of the  week that is good for everybody? Or wondering why 

25:54

Thursday was decided? >> KATE BENSON: 

26:01

I think it has come from a lot of the  dual polls out. And Thursday is chosen 

26:06

most often because people belonging to  other committees -- usually. I know all 

26:14

of my meetings are Monday's and Tuesday's, and I  think Thursday was the most often chosen day.  

26:25

>> SAMUEL EDWARDS: Makes sense. >> KATE BENSON: Okay. So Jen or Emily, 

26:34

just because we haven't done this before, how  would we like to conduct a vote again? Option 

26:40

1 or 2? Informal 1 or 2 or formal 1 or 2? >> EMILY LAUER: I saw James had his hand up. 

26:54

You can go through the roster and ask people  their preference or ask if anyone would like 

27:00

to make a motion for either of the options. >> KATE BENSON: Okay. James, go ahead. Jim, 

27:10

sorry. The hand went up and disappeared. >> JAMES COONEY: I wanted to echo the point 

27:17

you made, doing the first Thursday of the month at  the end, if it is crunch time at the end. First, 

27:27

it does build in the extra time if  extra time is needed for work.  

27:34

>> KATE BENSON: Absolutely. Then Jim, would  you like to make a motion for option 1?   >> JAMES COONEY: Yes. I move we schedule  the meetings according to option 1, 

27:45

second Thursday of the month. >> KATE BENSON: Do I have a second 

27:50

for Thursday option 1? >> VESPER MOORE:   I make a second for option 1. >> CHRISTINE ROA: This is 

28:02

Christine from CDDER. I can read the roll. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: I have a quick question. Do we 

28:11

have -- oh. The word? Enough people to vote? >> KATE BENSON: [ ]  

28:17

>> CHRISTINE ROA: This is Christine  from CDDER, and I am doing the roll 

28:25

call for the second vote. Alex Green? >> ALEX GREEN: Yes, I am good with option 1.  

28:34

>> CHRISTINE ROA: Andrew Levrault. [ ]. >> ANDREW LEVRAULT: Yes. [ ].   >> CHRISTINE ROA: Bill Henning. >> BILL HENNING: Yes.  

28:48

>> CHRISTINE ROA: Brenda Rankin. >> [No audible response].  

28:54

>> CHRISTINE ROA: [ ]. Evelyn Mateo. >> [No audible response].  

29:04

>> Yes. >> CHRISTINE ROA: James Cooney.   >> JAMES COONEY: Yes. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Kate Benson.   >> KATE BENSON: Yes. >> EVELYN MATEO: Yes.  

29:15

>> CHRISTINE ROA: Lauri Mederios. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: Yes to option 1.  

29:24

>> CHRISTINE ROA: Mary Mahon McCauley? >> KATE BENSON: 

29:31

Mary can also not unmute. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: Can she vote 

29:45

in the chat if she can't unmute? >> EMILY LAUER: We can visually   see her vote. >> KATE BENSON: Yes, 

29:51

we can see her vote. Thank you. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Reggie Clark.   >> REGGIE CLARK: I will take it, sure. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Okay. Option 1. Thank you, 

30:09

Reggie. Samuel Edwards. >> SAMUEL EDWARDS: Yes.   >> CHRISTINE ROA: Sister -- not here. [ ]. >> KATE BENSON: Next, we would like to receive 

30:36

the report delivered to the Commission this month,  and the CDDER team will speak about that.  

30:46

>> EMILY LAUER: Thank you, Kate.  I will get started and break this   up into sections. This is Emily from CDDER. To start on January 15, we shared our full report 

30:58

to Committee members, so you know. We want  to remind everyone the report says that 

31:03

the words used to be offensive. We used the  language at the time the events were happening 

31:16

because the way people talked about people  with disabilities reflected how they felt   about them and considered them. We think it is  important to consider this, even though we don't 

31:27

talk that way today or how we consider them. The words in the report are accurate according to 

31:34

history, and we'll begin talking about how we  put the report together and how we structured it, 

31:44

and highlight opportunities we identified  for considerations for you to think about. 

31:51

We have compared slides and discussion so you  can receive the information and listen to it.  

31:58

You are welcome to give us feedback  on the opportunities on the feedback, 

32:04

and you can ask questions as we talk about this.  This is the section of the discussion for you 

32:10

to really think about these ideas and try them  on, and make sure you understand them as well.  

32:17

You can also email us at the SCSI email address  if you don't want to raise questions today, or 

32:25

for things you would like us to follow-up on. If we start by looking at the report structure, 

32:34

there's a few main sections. There's the  historical timeline exploring the history 

32:40

of how Massachusetts as a colony and state to  take care of people and also includes people 

32:49

with disabilities and other groups. It changes  the support, how it changed over time, and the 

32:57

people with disabilities over time. The records and records access. This 

33:06

section talks about how old institutions in  Massachusetts' first created records, how 

33:13

they stored them and where they stored them. It also talks about the rules that keep private 

33:19

information and these records safe,  and talks about how hard of a time 

33:24

some people have had getting access to these  records. And the Commission talked about this 

33:32

last year about problems and offered  suggestions about possible exchanges.  

33:40

The next section talks about burials in burial  locations. This section talks about the laws and 

33:48

the regulations around how and when and where  people are buried. It talks about how death 

33:55

records were created, and where the records  can be found -- if they can be found.  

34:01

This section also talks about the stones of the  cemeteries and what sort of shape they are in and 

34:07

how they are kept up over time, and whether or not  people buried there can be identified as names and 

34:18

how we can find head stones or markers on them. We call the framework for remembrance, 

34:30

and the fame work what others have used and  what the Commission learned over the last year.  

34:38

Both Massachusetts and other states now  talk about what other states needed to 

34:43

do to get these reports and the lessons they  learned and how. These sections are the ones 

34:53

reviewed in our previous meetings. Next slide. So the report of the very start of it has a short 

35:04

summary called "Executive Summary." This is the  type of summary used in the big reports and gives 

35:12

a quick look at all of the things in the report.  It talks about the main points that are in their 

35:19

report. Some of the things we have included, and  we have taken the opportunities for you all to 

35:27

consider and put them right in that summary and  they are easy to find and in each section. So 

35:33

the burial has records related to burials, and  opportunities to records and records access.  

35:44

We took the executive summary and put it in  a plain language and you are able to access 

35:52

both the full information in the report and  plain language. We want to thank Alex Green 

36:00

for the audio records you can listen to  for the Plain Language Summary and it was 

36:09

shared with -- Commission members last week. At the end of the report, you will find 10 

36:25

attachments, extra documents providing you more  details and information to clarify and expand 

36:33

on the report. The attachments have been shared  with the Commission over the past year, and we 

36:40

referenced those within the larger report. Then next slide. We're going to pause here to 

36:50

see if there are any questions people have  about the report or comments they would like 

36:56

to raise now. [Paused]  

37:02

Samuel? >> SAMUEL 

37:11

EDWARDS: Hi. This is Samuel Edwards speaking, and  I wanted to thank you for your hard work on this. 

37:19

It was a really great overview, particularly  on the historical space, important to our work, 

37:26

as well as, learning where the different  records are held is very informative as well.  

37:34

One little thing I noted, I noted there  were a couple of inaccuracies talks about 

37:42

Massachusetts archives, so I wanted to clarify  those, and I will put that in an email.  

37:48

>> EMILY LAUER: Thank you.  I appreciate that. Lauri?  

37:53

>> LAURI MEDERIOS: I also wanted to echo  sentiments from the two speakers before me, 

37:59

including Samuel. This was an extremely impressive  product/report, and it is so far beyond my scope 

38:13

to ever produce anything as comprehensive as this,  and quite frankly, it is an honor to read the work 

38:24

and dedication of others and how they were able  to put it together and put it out. Big, huge, 

38:32

super kudos, super fan. Thank you so much! >> EMILY LAUER: Thank you, Lauri. It is our 

38:38

pleasure to support the Commission. And  thank you to all of the Commission members 

38:44

for the feedback and art of creating this. Our  report, summarizing things never put together 

38:54

for Massachusetts and is in and of itself  can be used for reference, education and 

39:01

understanding of how we got to where we are,  as well as opportunities to moving forward.  

39:08

Thank you for the positive comments, we appreciate  that. And mostly we help this is a very useful 

39:15

tool for you, as you all think about what you  want to recommend in the next steps. Thank you.  

39:22

If you have other comments,  please feel free to email those   or get into touch with our staff. Thank you. I will now turn it over to Christine, and she'll 

39:34

talk about some of the opportunities for you. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Thank you, Emily. This is 

39:40

Christine from CDDER, and we'll  talk about potential areas of 

39:46

opportunities for records and records access. All right. So in one area of opportunity around 

40:00

the rules governing records access. The first  opportunity for rules governing access to records. 

40:10

We researched and many families are having  difficulties getting copies of records for their 

40:16

family members. They have to have to [ ] for  records for their family. One opportunity changing   the laws to governing access to family members. This can include making the access process more 

40:44

consistent and trance for families and  clarifying whether state agencies can 

40:50

look at eligibility for family members and  family members going to court and any fees.  

41:03

Also related to access records, the length  of time allowing historical records. One 

41:14

is establishing the policy with a period of time  passing until individual records can be accessed 

41:26

at the Massachusetts archives. Currently, there  is no specific time period set in Massachusetts 

41:34

General Law like in many other states. Massachusetts, in practice and records, 

41:41

formerly public records are not allowed  without a court order. One way to revise 

41:51

the state-wide records and individual records  from state institutions are preserved at the 

41:59

Massachusetts archives once agencies no longer  need to hold on to them. Currently records medical 

42:07

records are sustained to a * 20-we're. We learned some records from State School 

42:24

and State Hospital with firearms held at the  Mental Health Center and State Hospital. For 

42:44

the admission it request a deep held accounting  for institutional records currently hold with 

42:55

Department of Development Services and Department  of Mental Health, and state processes.  

43:04

Some of the things we learned about the records  and institutions this year can be viewed 

43:11

by institutional staff when the institution  was closed. The Commission could include 

43:18

specific content and management when a state  institution or office closes and the Commission 

43:26

can recommend what's included in these rules. Finally, the Commission can request formerly, 

43:34

documentation and about what sets of records the  state agencies held by the Conservation Board, 

43:46

another in privacy laws for the institution  and in relation to records. As for rules, 

43:54

not all states have the rules for the records.  Some states decided that HIPAA, the health 

44:05

insurance -- my apologies, blanking on the  acronym, does not keep the records forever.  

44:15

For example, the State of Alaska as an institution  keeping patient records. And in that state, 

44:26

patient records are not shared because  of public records by State law.  

44:33

Another thing the Special Commission, state  records about how institution's privacy 

44:41

laws understood and since other states  have interpreting HIPAA differently.  

44:50

The acronym is for Health Insurance and  Portability and Accountability Act. Thank   you. Changes to records access laws means  access laws are no longer fully protected 

45:03

from being diseased. The state makes  arguments about institutions and the need 

45:13

when exceed o- deciding for records questions. Another area of opportunity related to access to 

45:23

private collections is that in addition to the  railroads headlight by the State of Massachusetts, 

45:30

there are a number of records held by various  institutions. The institutions can make 

45:39

suggestions about access and libraries  that may not have the State laws.  

45:52

The pathway to the return of records. From  the 1970s to early 2000s, many of the state 

46:05

and hospitals closed down. The rush to close  patients, private records were later found by 

46:15

urban explorers, exploring the old buildings. And  some of these records were taken for souvenirs and 

46:25

sold on line. The Commission can help return the  records to the state and be preserved. I would 

46:38

like to take a pause. Is there any committee  members regarding what I just explained? 

46:58

Yes, Lauri. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: I   don't mean this sarcastic, and I don't know  how it rephrase it. I honestly don't mean 

47:08

it that way. If the individual has passed away,  whose privacy is being protected? The Department, 

47:19

the medical providers, or is it really and truly  authentically solely on behalf of the individual 

47:29

that passed away? Because they have already passed  away. So protecting their records "from" family 

47:39

members, I don't get it. That's number one. Number 2. The Records Conservation Board, 

47:51

I am curious about who the members of  that board are, and might it be possible 

47:57

to either just look into, suggest, or figure out  if there are individuals with disabilities serving 

48:04

on those boards and family members serving  on those boards. Because the recommendations   they will make there, of course, be the bias  of the individuals serving on the board.  

48:17

I serve on a family board. We're  biased for families, you know, 

48:22

it just is. Those are two things I am  wondering about the many things you 

48:27

just talked about. >> EMILY LAUER: Alex, 

48:34

would you like to respond to Lauri? >> ALEX GREEN: I was going to respond because I 

48:40

think -- Lauri, your second point is exactly what  we want. Good example. Bringing a good example 

48:49

of other boards and how they operate. And making  those recommendations is a good thing to collect. 

48:58

Should the records in the list of all of the  members in the larger Plain Language Report? 

49:05

It has each of the official -- who's on it. A  representative from the General Attorney's Office,   and maybe that that you had have the disabled  person, or in some way take that into account.  

49:21

Your earlier question, is not that at all. We  don't all share the same senses of how long 

49:36

is long enough before a medical record becomes  something someone can look at for its historic 

49:45

value as a researcher, and that's different  than a family looking at it for personal value; 

49:50

right? We're going to have to figure out what  the common accepted practices are out there. 

49:57

And the report does a good job where, there are  examples in the earlier slide. There's a Federal 

50:04

law in Nebraska, and kind of the Medical Records  Law. Saying, 50 years after the individual dies, 

50:13

those can be accessible records. We have to get to  the month when talking about records and reports.  

50:29

I think everyone should start thinking about that.  What is fair and what's reasonable? And it doesn't 

50:35

necessarily have to be the same for either group.  It is probably very different for family members, 

50:41

descendants, than researchers. And there  are different ways to think about it, and 

50:48

we should all be prepared to think about those.  You are right to raise it. I had a thought. It is 

50:58

out of my head. I will get to it later. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: To follow-up with that, 

51:03

Alex [ ] and mindful family members or descendants  and have interest in that, and their loved ones 

51:15

have passed away, how many years do families and  descendants have left, period. One has to wait 

51:27

until 85 or 90 because that's the 50-year mark?  Or having to never get to that 50-year mark? It is 

51:40

good while moving forward having these discussions  what's mindful and reasonable. Given these 

51:46

institutions are closed. The last individual,  possibly they passed away or their medical records 

51:55

could be relevant or asked for because I wouldn't  want to wait until I was 90 and hope I hit 90.  

52:03

>> ALEX GREEN: Two things and I will shut  up and let Samuel dive in. On that end, 

52:12

I think the very specific consideration that  the major, larger report raises when reading 

52:17

the stories of people trying to get records.  A lot of people who died in institutions lived 

52:23

and died in institutions do not have children  simply because they were in the institutions.  

52:30

The rule of who has the right. And going  down from your children, children's children, 

52:38

and not helpful in these situations and a niece,  sibling, cousins and having to get these records 

52:48

and they are not able to. Looking at language and  also for families that maybe something is raised   that is not things they want to dig into. Opening point. We are also going to need to 

53:07

comment with our opinion and what we think  that every type of summary in the report 

53:16

reads. The second I think of that is, I think,  are these records, practices, intentionally or 

53:28

accidently, really ended up protecting the state  who the people whose records they are about, 

53:36

or the individuals or loved ones or  the public interest more broadly?  

53:42

It seems to me, one of the conclusions  and I, personally, take from the report, 

53:49

whether accidently or intentionally, this  ended up protecting the State in a lot of   ways because bad things don't come out, but  a painful expense for familiar my members 

54:03

or researchers who want to share this and  teach this and make sure it is known.   I want us to get into the practice, what's  the one line? It will get really short in 

54:15

the Summary Report, our opinion about what CDDER  has pulled together. Enough out of me. Samuel.  

54:22

>> SAMUEL EDWARDS: I am hearing people talking  about HIPAA. And I think under Massachusetts, 

54:32

there are a few specific laws and development  health and developmental disability records. I 

54:41

was trying to find a fact citation and couldn't  find it in the short amount of time, but I can 

54:48

pull those up as well. Those are the legislative  things we want to tweak, specifically, and that's 

54:59

where we get stuck in those specific statutes. The other thing I want to say, there are a few 

55:10

different possibilities for this. I think some  states have, you know, a sunset law for all 

55:18

records, so all records are open after a certain  period of time, whether it be 75 years, 90 years, 

55:27

whatever feels appropriate. And I think that could  be potentiality, and I know in Massachusetts, 

55:35

the way we deal with prisoners, if you can  prove the individual with an oh bit wear, 

55:46

or if the records are over a certain period of  time, I think it is 100-year span as well.  

55:55

I think those are potential pathways for  words of access, I think. I completely 

56:01

agree with you about, you know, it becomes  very challenging for families and the money, 

56:11

these folks are not necessarily researching  a parent, but maybe researching someone 

56:19

who has a different tie to them. Those are thoughts. I have based on 

56:26

my interactions, and also to make things  clear for everyone on the Commission. I 

56:31

have been with my Superintendent, Caitlyn Ramos,  and State institution records and we have started 

56:45

doing that this September, and I think it is  a higher number than that because we get phone 

56:54

questions not documented on this spreadsheet. So  of those, we were able to successfully close the 

57:04

loop and about ten of them. Which, usually, in our  reference work, you know, it would be all of them, 

57:13

ideally. [Laughing]   So that's kind of where we're at. Often what  happens with these is we send them on to the 

57:20

agencies and we don't hear from the patron  again, unfortunately because I think a lot 

57:26

of people get stuck in that court process. That's what we're looking at in archives and 

57:33

putting it into a more numerical figure,  and get to go how many people are asking 

57:40

for these records and what's going on with  these records, in terms of access to them?   I think often, the folks are families.  I would say a majority are families, but 

57:54

many of them are researchers and doing history of  disability research or medical history research, 

58:01

which is also really important as well. >> EMILY LAUER: Also, the context about the 

58:13

privacy protection and really good seeking  mental health in Massachusetts, and the 

58:18

intention of that law was to enable people to  seek treatment without fear that their family 

58:25

members were able to find out about  that treatment and the nature of it,   and even shortly after their passing.  It is their protection allowing people 

58:36

to feel more free seeking out mental  health services. I wanted to make sure 

58:44

everyone had that piece of history as well. >> KATE BENSON: Okay. It is 4:03 and we would 

58:59

like to take a 5-minute break before moving to  the next section. All right. We'll see everyone 

59:10

back in about five minutes. [Break]-back at 4:09 p.m..  

59:26

>> KATE BENSON: Okay. Wrapping up our  five-minute break and returning. Thank you, 

1:04:36

everyone. We'll continue our discussion and Jen is  going to talk about burial and burial locations.  

1:04:47

>> JENNIFER FUGLESTAD: Thank you, Kate. This is  Jen from CDDER, and we're going to talk about 

1:04:53

some of the opportunities that we saw during our  research and would like to share those with you.  

1:05:02

Next slide, please. The first area of opportunity that   we wanted to talk about was Chapter 113. Chapter  113 Massachusetts General Law, allowing the state 

1:05:21

institutions of Massachusetts to send the bodies  in the institutions to one of the medical schools 

1:05:29

if their family doesn't claim their body. This  law has been around -- well, different versions 

1:05:36

have been around since the 1850s and Chapter  113, I believe was enacted in the 1920s.  

1:05:49

The way the law works is medical schools can  request bodies from different institutions 

1:05:55

like [ ] hospital or Taunton, and one the  State Veteran's homes and the law states 

1:06:07

that the person themselves asking to be buried  or isn't back to their families or friends.  

1:06:18

We learned during interviews with the staff  at the different anatomical departments 

1:06:25

at the medical schools that this practice is  not common. Medical schools have stopped using 

1:06:33

Chapter 113 to obtain bodies for medical  science and created things like anatomical 

1:06:42

gift programs and no longer need this resource.  The Special Commission can repeal the [ ].  

1:07:06

We have learned the unmarked burial sites or  graves, especially in the old cemeteries or 

1:07:15

state institutions are sometimes hard to find and  hard to protect. It could have been the grave was 

1:07:25

marked with a temporary marker or the grave was  not marked at all. And as the institutions age, 

1:07:33

markers disappear or have been moved. This often happens when a cemetery is 

1:07:41

near an area that's being developed, and  that really, unmarked graves increases the 

1:07:48

chance that they will miss. They are kind  of walking right over a burial site.  

1:07:57

So we know from our research that there's  documented or there's a strong possibility 

1:08:07

that there are unmarked graves. So we know about  Northampton, and unmarked graves at Chauncy,   Westborough State Hospital Reform School for  Boys. And we know Foxborough State Hospital is a 

1:08:42

Cemetery. And Pines-Tewksbury State  Hospital, the markers are in bad shape 

1:08:58

and hard to tell where the graves are  at that Cemetery. Next slide, please.  

1:09:09

So some of the things Special Commission can  consider to address the problem of finding 

1:09:16

and protecting unmarked graves. There are two  things we were thinking about. One would be to 

1:09:24

recommend creating educational materials that  could be used with local officials in towns 

1:09:31

and cities and shared with urban planners on  how to handle a situation if an unmarked grave 

1:09:40

is identified or potentially identified. These educational materials might include 

1:09:50

information about the history of state  institutional cemeteries, and what some 

1:09:55

of the legal or ethical issues would be around  disturbing or developing land near these sites, 

1:10:03

and the steps that should be taken if an  unmarked grave is found. That would be one 

1:10:10

possible recommendation or area of opportunity. The second is the State Commission might recommend 

1:10:19

additional research to find potential unmarked  graves. That would include asking for funding from 

1:10:27

the government or different grant organizations  to assist with the research, and you could also 

1:10:37

look at the historical records around burials and  maps to identify potential location of graves.  

1:10:50

This would also include a field survey,  using methods like ground-penetrating 

1:10:56

radar to help locate the graves. That's the second  opportunity that we saw. Next slide, please.  

1:11:07

Okay. Cemetery preservation and restoration is  a big area that, you know, is a place where you 

1:11:18

could find a number of recommendations to  really help further study or help support 

1:11:25

Cemetery restorations. We know that a number of  -- the Cemeteries associated with institutions 

1:11:37

needs restoration work and others need an  evaluation to figure out what's needed.  

1:11:48

Evaluation might include the structures around  the cemetery, like stone walls to see what kind 

1:11:57

of condition they are in, and that would help  to figure out what type of restoration is needed 

1:12:04

and how much potentially it could cost. Another potential area of opportunity would 

1:12:12

be to create an accurate inventory of those  buried at the site, and that would be done in 

1:12:22

conjunction with reviewing historical records. And finally, evaluating the area around the 

1:12:29

cemetery to look at things and address things  like erosion, over growth, debris build up in 

1:12:36

the cemetery itself, put a plan in place and make  sure the cemetery is protected and maintained.  

1:12:45

The example we found is in relation to the  MetFern Cemetery, and back in 2019, Community 

1:12:59

Preservation Act funding was approved, and that  was close to $80,000 for the MetFern Cemetery.  

1:13:10

The work would include fixing the  cemetery monuments or the headstones, 

1:13:18

repairing stone walls, creating the  inventory for people that are buried there, 

1:13:25

and basically, cleaning up the cemetery site  and putting up accurate historical signs.  

1:13:33

Unfortunately, since the funds were never  used they were returned to the Community   Preservation Act account, and this was approved  for what was done for other cemeteries who needed 

1:13:42

restorational work. This is a slide that we  know there needs to be something done for 

1:14:02

those burial sites. We listed them out. One would be the Potter's Field at Mt. Hope 

1:14:10

Cemetery where patients were buried.  From Bridgewater State Hospital, 

1:14:17

[ ] and one was the prison complex on Conant  Street known as State Farm Cemetery. And 

1:14:32

within the complex is The Morgue Cemetery. Foxborough State Hospital has two together 

1:14:44

called the State Hospital Cemetery and  then there's a Rock Hill Cemetery and 

1:15:00

burial site for Metropolitan State Hospital and  Fernald. Northampton State Hospital is a State 

1:15:12

Hospital that could be a location where there  could get work done as far as restoration or 

1:15:26

preservation. And Tewksbury Hospital The Pines,  as well as, the Livingston Street Cemetery, also 

1:15:35

known as the No-Name Cemetery. And also Worcester  State Hospital known as the Hillside Cemetery. 

1:15:47

There are other areas we feel would be worth the  time as far as restoration and preservation. That 

1:16:04

would be the Gardner State Hospital and East  Gardner Colony, State Hospital Cemetery.  

1:16:15

And Grafton State Hospital Cemetery, Hillcrest  Cemetery and Taunton State Hospital, Mayflower 

1:16:41

Hill, where some are buried. Templeton State  Hospital and Pine Hill Cemetery, Tewksbury, 

1:16:57

and some of the medical hospitals  in the late '30s and '40s, 

1:17:10

and patients from Worcester State Hospital and  Hope Cemetery prior to the breakout of 1918.  

1:17:25

Next slide, please. Okay. So the next area of opportunity would 

1:17:34

be to identify the people. Many State Hospital  cemeteries don't have the names of the people 

1:17:45

buried there available, so we recommend that those  Special Commissions consider asking to have those 

1:17:55

lists of people buried in the cemeteries where  there are only numbers used to make those names 

1:18:01

public so their identities can be listed. We know right now, the cemeteries are where 

1:18:12

patient's graves are unmarked or marked with  only a number. That would be Boston State, 

1:18:20

Bridge water state, Foxborough State, Gardner,  Pine-Tewksbury, Tewksbury, Northampton 

1:18:31

State Hospital, and Taunton State. We realize cemeteries don't have proper 

1:18:54

signage and it is hard for people to  recognize it is a cemetery, or actually, 

1:19:03

even kind of encourage the community to care  about the cemetery. So a solution that the 

1:19:13

Commission could recommend is to put appropriate  signage up in the institutional cemeteries.  

1:19:20

For example, the signs can explain  the history of the hospital,   how the cemetery connects to the hospital, and  is a memorial to the people that are buried 

1:19:31

there. Having signage or memorials can really  help protect the site because it shows people 

1:19:41

it is an important place. Next slide, please. So we know that these cemeteries on the slide 

1:19:54

here don't have -- if they have signage, it  is small or insufficient signage, so again, 

1:20:03

the Mt. Hope Cemetery in Boston, Bridgewater  State Hospital, Foxborough State Hospital, 

1:20:15

Grafton State, MetFern, Northampton, and  Tewksbury and Worcester hospitals. Thank you.  

1:20:32

The next area is talking about The Pines  in Tewksbury. We talked about earlier 

1:20:41

in the Commission meetings. The Pines  is a Cemetery, historically significant, 

1:20:51

and currently being used for passing  recreational activities like walking or hiking. 

1:20:58

The trails cut through the cemetery itself. With the hiking trails going through the cemetery 

1:21:08

can disturb the grave sites and disrupt solemn  space. Visitors might potentially damage grave 

1:21:21

markers on the trails. Some of the markers have  sunk in the ground or are totally deteriorated, 

1:21:30

and visitors are at risk of tripping or  falling when walking through the cemetery.  

1:21:46

Currently, the cemetery is maintained by local  volunteers and consistent care and maintenance 

1:21:53

is really hard because it is a really large  cemetery, really through a pine bank. So there's 

1:22:01

really not a sustainable way to address the  conditions at The Pines. Next slide, please.  

1:22:12

If the Commission chooses to, some recommendations  could be about how to improve and protect The Pine 

1:22:19

Cemetery, and some of those can be recommending  that hiking trails be rerouted from going through 

1:22:28

the cemetery, and if those are rerouted to  help protect, and putting designated paths 

1:22:40

that are clearly marked, to make sure people  can stay within the accessible areas.  

1:22:52

The Commission might recommend that the grave  markers are repaired and stabilized. Leveling 

1:22:58

sunken markers, restoring, painting, and  medallions used to mark the graves.  

1:23:10

And again, signage. They can include signs  around potential hazards of the uneven ground 

1:23:19

or crumbling markers, but also educational signs,  teaching people about the history of the Cemetery 

1:23:26

and important sites and behave within the cemetery  while they are visiting. Next slide, please.  

1:23:38

And the final section of recommendations we came  up with is in relation to the Glavin Center, 

1:23:48

which has been closed, but there are currently,  apparently, a pathway to possibly move graves 

1:23:55

at the Glavin center. And the Commission  asked to explore designing and development 

1:24:09

opportunities for the Glavin site back in 2024.  And the Planning Commission issued a report and 

1:24:22

looked at possible developments for the site,  but had a statement in relation to the Hillside 

1:24:32

West Cemetery, and clarified the existing are to  be protected in purpose institute, and forever, 

1:24:51

and this can identify potential  opportunities for recreation.  

1:25:00

We wanted to highlight that, but you  know, if this idea is considered, 

1:25:09

I think we need to do a bit more research, to  kind of understand the history behind it.  

1:25:17

That was the final recommendation we have  for burial and burial locations. So again, 

1:25:24

we wanted to pause here and hear from members  of the Commission, if you have questions, 

1:25:31

comments, or anything you would like  to discuss. Lauri has her hand up?  

1:25:37

>> LAURI MEDERIOS: Yes. High. Astronomical and  for me, personally overwhelming. I don't mean 

1:25:46

the volume of the recommendations,  but I mean by all involved.  

1:25:56

On the last bullet when they gave  that recommendation and that last 

1:26:03

part says that the burial grounds may be a --  relocating burial grounds may be an option for 

1:26:11

recreational opportunity and recreational fields. Who makes that decision? The local zoning board? 

1:26:21

Like, who gets to decide that? >> EMILY LAUER: 

1:26:29

That's a good question. And I think have you an  opportunity to influence that. We were a little 

1:26:37

bit surprised to see that recommendation of that  because of the age and challenge and how hard that 

1:26:46

would be to do and do well. It might be a decision  that would benefit from some broader input, 

1:26:56

including from stakeholders and people  who live there or their family members.  

1:27:03

I think you are raising the right question. It  is not clear to us how that would come about, 

1:27:09

necessarily. I believe -- and Jen, correct  me if I am wrong. Shrewsbury would have to 

1:27:35

use the property as far as plans and other  things and boards, would have to approve 

1:27:42

whatever that developer was proposing.  Are family members on any of those boards? 

1:27:55

There would be an opportunity to make  recommendations for additional input. And the town 

1:28:04

of Shrewsbury has to do that in a meeting. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: I think there's a way to 

1:28:14

request to the City. Should this discussion come  up with a hall meeting or subcommittee meeting. 

1:28:28

I will speak for myself. Giving an opportunity  to be present and give any input for any such 

1:28:37

recommendation of moving to the Cemeteries. If can get it out to an Open Meeting Law, 

1:28:45

and it doesn't have to be mostly by descendants  or relatives. It can be influenced by you and I, 

1:28:55

Alex and of the people on this call. I think  to be able to say we're from this compilation, 

1:29:04

I think, really holds a lot of weight. Going to a  City meeting and opining what we feel would be in 

1:29:18

the best interest of those deceased. >> JENNIFER FUGLESTAD: 

1:29:35

Thanks, Lauri, Alex? >> ALEX GREEN: I have a 

1:29:41

couple of questions, but maybe stay on this  point. Lauri, are you suggesting we weigh in 

1:29:48

or take this up -- I wouldn't want to -- if you  are suggesting we do weigh in, like in a letter, 

1:29:56

I would want to know more, I guess until our  next meeting. We weighed in on other things, 

1:30:02

so we could certainly take a vote on it,  write a letter. You are making a good point, 

1:30:11

I just -- yeah. I have certainly done it >> LAURI MEDERIOS: I don't know if I have 

1:30:17

an actual recommendation, per se, but when we give  feedback or ask questions about the last couple of 

1:30:26

slides, that would just be my heartbeat, you know,  feedback. My heart starts to beat, and I go, "Oh, 

1:30:35

my God. What about this?" That's all. >> ALEX GREEN: I am curious about, like, 

1:30:45

in your experience, Emily, Jen, Christine, looking  at all of this. At the State level -- I understand 

1:30:54

the state's portion burial records is  more archives, DDS, that kind of thing, 

1:31:01

but when it comes to the body, and State --  we're going to make recommendations and say, 

1:31:12

oh. It is a burial. We go to this group of people.  I don't know where to point with some of this, and 

1:31:19

I don't know if you have a good sense on that? >> EMILY LAUER: I think this would largely 

1:31:27

come through the local boards of health,  influenced by the State Board of Mental health, 

1:31:33

and their laws on burials, and also  what to do if there are unmarked 

1:31:42

graves discovered. There are procedures there. I think there might be an opportunity to say more, 

1:31:51

though because my understanding of working with  some of the other state boards, their knowledge 

1:32:01

level about this history and what to do in  some of these more rare situations may vary, 

1:32:09

and there's an opportunity for bringing  out more consistent information and making 

1:32:17

a recommendation to an existing group and they  do that so these practices are more consistent 

1:32:24

and also the maintenance of these locations. >> ALEX GREEN: That's very helpful. Thank you. 

1:32:33

And just one other question. I am very disturbed  by the Bridgewater State stuff you mentioned. 

1:32:44

Across the board, it sounds like, but I want to  get an explicit sense from you. Are you saying 

1:32:51

that there be theirs, or at least a reasonable  thing to assume there are unmarked graves in 

1:33:00

these locations? Is that a fair take on -- it  is hard for me to calibrate what the sense is, 

1:33:10

given the scope of everything you looked  at. The Pines, I think it is thousands; 

1:33:16

right? So just scope would help, I guess. If you  have a sense? You may not. It is totally fair.  

1:33:26

>> EMILY LAUER: I think there's a range. There  are confirm the cases where unmarked graves were 

1:33:31

found, and then there is information we were  not able to independently verify, but there may 

1:33:39

be unmarked graves on the ground. This is where I  think there is more work to be done with the State 

1:33:46

Archivist and more to on historical evidence  and their sites on how you would do this.  

1:33:59

There's more work to see which ones have evidence  worth pursuing and which ones are based in rumor 

1:34:08

and how far you want to go with that, that may  entail meeting with some sort of a body. Maybe 

1:34:16

a Commission or second wave Commission. Because  the work takes multiple phrases and for example, 

1:34:31

some of the time involved in the research and  we have to think about, should we do this, 

1:34:41

or not do this? We do get into more detail in the  report, but it is a really large year to dig into, 

1:34:51

and we didn't have the time or  resources to go more deeply than 

1:34:56

we did in the report. >> ALEX GREEN: Really,   really helpful. Thank you. >> EMILY LAUER: James?  

1:35:06

>> JAMES COONEY: I had a question on the Glavin  Center. The statement for the [ ] Commission is 

1:35:16

attributed to May, 2014; is that correct? >> EMILY LAUER: Yes.  

1:35:23

>> JAMES COONEY: So do we know -- it was 10  years ago, do we know this ongoing consideration, 

1:35:33

or has that issue seasonally been put it bed? >> JENNIFER FUGLESTAD: I have reached out to the 

1:35:40

CDDER in [ ] and haven't heard back from anybody. >> EMILY 

1:35:59

LAUER: Equality and access to  information. I want to mention 

1:36:07

there was a comment at the start of the  burial discussion in the comment section, 

1:36:14

recommending assembling of Chapter 113 by Lauri,  and I wanted to be sure everyone could access 

1:36:22

that information. >> LAURI MEDERIOS: 

1:36:42

Sorry, I was toggling and took me a second to  get back to the mute button. So yeah. That remark 

1:37:00

was a single, put it out there remark, basically  saying, why are we doing this? Let's rescind that, 

1:37:11

that's an excellent idea. Because we're going to  move on to the next slide and the next slide and 

1:37:17

the next slide. So I don't know where a formal  recommendation would be, or if it will ever make 

1:37:25

it into a report, and not saying it has to, but I  felt like I had to say my Amen when you mentioned 

1:37:34

what one of the recommendations would be, since  it is really not being used anymore. It could 

1:37:41

be an idea we close that chapter altogether. >> EMILY LAUER: Thanks, Lauri. Do others have any 

1:37:53

comments or questions? We talked a lot about  burials. You know, we have a little bit of time 

1:38:17

left and you could consider opening it up to  broader comments on sections or if you want to 

1:38:27

have a motion to continue towards the and. We had one piece you wanted to think about, 

1:38:36

how to structure the next set of meetings.  Perhaps the remaining time would be 

1:38:41

helpful for that set of suggestions. >> KATE BENSON: Absolutely. This is Kate, 

1:38:46

and I think it would be great to consider,  now that we have seen how the report 

1:38:53

is split up and we have heard about each  of those sections, that we might be able   to vote on how we would like to move forward to  cover these sections for our recommendations.  

1:39:10

So I will go out on a limb and say, first, before  we adjourn, do we have a motion to continue to 

1:39:18

discuss the CDDER report in these three sections  as a large group, to then bring the information 

1:39:26

into a smaller report review group? >> LAURI MEDERIOS: I make a recommendation 

1:39:36

that we do that. Discuss the three sections and  then have that go back to the small groups that 

1:39:46

will test it out more succinctly efficiently.  I am sorry, I didn't know how to word that.  

1:39:55

>> KATE BENSON: Lauri making  the recommendation, second?  

1:40:01

>> ALEX GREEN: I will second that. >> KATE BENSON: Christine,   do you mind reading the names? >> CHRISTINE ROA: This is Christine from CDDER, 

1:40:13

roll call. Alex Green. >> Yes.  

1:40:18

>> Andrew Levrault. >> Yes.   >> Anne Fracht. >> Bill Henning.  

1:40:27

>> BILL HENNING: Yes. >> Evelyn Mateo.  

1:40:41

>> Yes. >> James Cooney.   >> Yes. >> Kate Benson.  

1:40:48

>> Yes. >> [ ].   >> Mary Mahon McCauley. >> [No audible response].  

1:40:59

>> Jennifer Fuglestad. >> Mary is shaking her head affirmatively.   >> Reggie Clark. >> Yes, I do want that. We should be 

1:41:16

talking about [Off mic]. Someone being buried, how  expensive, you know, it costs a lot of money.  

1:41:28

>> You didn't even bring that up. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Thank you, 

1:41:35

Reggie. Samuel Edwards. Sister Linda Bessom,  I don't believe is here. And Vesper Moore.  

1:41:49

>> VESPER MOORE: Yes. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Thank you.   >> KATE BENSON: So we'll move forward  discussing each of the sections as a 

1:41:56

whole group and distilling the language in  the smaller report review group. And as Alex 

1:42:03

said earlier, it is not a closed group and we  value the input of anyone who wants to help 

1:42:11

us put that into the Commission's words So now we get to vote again to adjourn the 

1:42:22

meeting. We're looking forward to seeing everyone  at the full Commission meeting in February. CDDER 

1:42:29

will be following up with the specific meeting  information if that works for everyone.  

1:42:35

If there are any questions before then, feel  free to reach out to the SCSI email. Do we 

1:42:44

have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> CHRISTINE ROA: Kate, this is --  

1:42:50

>> EMILY LAUER: We have a  raised hand with Alex.   >> KATE BENSON: Thank you. I didn't see that. >> ALEX GREEN: Sorry to delay things. One thing, 

1:43:00

and it could wait until the next meeting, I  defer. And the report right now is a draft, 

1:43:08

not for distribution, and I think we have to  vote if we want to make it a public document. 

1:43:14

I mean it is a public document, but we have  to take a vote on that fort Commission. I 

1:43:20

don't know if you want to wait on it until next  meeting, but I wanted to raise that because it 

1:43:29

came up for organizing the meeting intention. >> KATE BENSON: Yeah. It was talked about earlier,   and as we want to post the CDDER report as  it stands on the compilation website. We 

1:43:46

do have 10 minutes left, so Alex, we  could very well vote on that now.  

1:43:53

>> LAURI MEDERIOS: I actually have a question  regarding that. So given all of the feedback 

1:44:05

that was given here, I am wondering if  CDDER has any thoughts of -- let me go 

1:44:13

back and adjust that. Somebody mentioned, you  know, ensuring that homestead gone in there, 

1:44:19

and perfect it gets released does CDDER have an  idea maybe, let's not vote today and maybe tweak 

1:44:30

a few things we heard about today. >> KATE BENSON: Thank you,   I appreciate that. Bill, you want to jump in? >> BILL HENNING: I think it is essential to be 

1:44:41

released and thinking about the Commission, and  anything you want to embrace, to get afternoon 

1:44:48

all in favor now, and get behind it. And it is  significant and critical to release, but maybe 

1:44:57

somebody doesn't. We need to hear that. >> KATE BENSON: I think absolutely tabling 

1:45:02

the discussion and decided how and where  we want to share all of this information. 

1:45:11

Emily, do you have something? >> EMILY LAUER: A note that one   of the things you make a motion to do,  release it with minor modifications and 

1:45:22

taking all of the feedback from you all,  updating the version ready for posting 

1:45:29

with the feedback. For example, we can have  feedback and make the modifications and then 

1:45:36

released. And if we can get Bill, Lauri,  and everybody else's comments under so 

1:45:44

you are comfortable to be released? >> KATE BENSON: Emily is suggesting 

1:45:53

to make a motion now saying we will release the  report with the understanding that minor changes 

1:45:58

will be made as we give feedback as a Commission.  A lot of people nodding that makes senses.  

1:46:05

Do I have a motion with release of the report with  the understanding the changes are made first?  

1:46:18

>> ANDREW LEVRAULT: I will make that  motion. Sorry, Andrew Levrault.   >> ANNE FRACHT: I will second it. Anne Fracht. >> KATE BENSON: Thanks, Anne. Christine, 

1:46:29

do you mind doing roll call? >> CHRISTINE ROA: I will do the roll call,   and start with Alex? >> Yes.  

1:46:40

>> Andrew Levrault? >> Yes   >> [ ]. >> Yes.  

1:46:50

>> Anne Fracht? >> Yes.   >> Bill Henning? >> Yes.  

1:46:56

>> Yes. Brenda Rankin. Evelyn Mateo? >> Yes. James Cooney.  

1:47:08

>> Yes. Kate Benson, yes. >> [ ].  

1:47:14

>> Yes. >> Mary Mahon McCauley?   >> No. >> JENNIFER 

1:47:24

FUGLESTAD: She's saying no. >> Christine Roa -- Matt Millett, 

1:47:32

I don't think is here. Reggie Clark. >> [No audible response].  

1:47:38

>> Samuel Edwards. >> SAMUEL EDWARDS:   No. I don't think it should be released.  

1:47:43

>> CHRISTINE ROA: Sister Brenda  Rankin not here. And Vesper Moore.  

1:47:58

>> VESPER MOORE: Yes. >> EMILY LAUER: I think Reggie   was trying to indicate his vote. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Absolutely. Reggie Clark.  

1:48:07

>> EMILY LAUER: I see you have unmuted,  Reggie, but we're unable to hear you.  

1:48:18

>> REGGIE CLARK: Yes. >> EMILY LAUER: Thank you.   >> CHRISTINE ROA: Thank you, Reggie. That's it. >> KATE BENSON: Excellent. Are there any other 

1:48:31

questions, concerns, things we  didn't cover? Lauri, go ahead.  

1:48:37

>> LAURI MEDERIOS: No questions, but I  have a quick comment. In organizing the 

1:48:43

next three meetings around those topics that  would be in the final report, I am wondering 

1:48:52

if some of the topics that we might imagine could  go kind of fast, go first, and then if we wrap 

1:49:01

up early in the first meeting, maybe we could  begin the second topic in the first meeting.  

1:49:07

And by the time we get to the second meeting,  if we're able to wrap that up early, I recommend 

1:49:12

the 3rd, and I recommend the 3rd would be what  we recommend to the cemeteries. And I think   that's the largest communication of feedback. Reggie said it, but I was thinking about to the 

1:49:26

whole time, I am sure -- whatever the Commission  recommends about the cemeteries and moving them 

1:49:35

and all of those things discussed last, is  going to have a significant price tag to it. 

1:49:43

So I feel that one topic could probably  use a little extra time and if we could, 

1:49:49

capture it from some of the previous meetings. So the heaviest to go is last, and hopefully, 

1:49:56

the earlier ones wrap up sooner  and we can begin the next and then   the next. Giving that last one extra time. >> KATE BENSON: I think that's a very sound idea, 

1:50:08

Lauri. I think something Jen and Chris --  correct me in I am wrong -- having an agenda 

1:50:15

for that in the three meetings. And breaking  up time because that burial conversation is 

1:50:26

going to be a very lengthy conversation because  there are so many pints it mull over. Thank you 

1:50:37

very much for bringing that up, Lauri. Are there any other questions, concerns, 

1:50:44

things we didn't cover? And of course,  remember to reach out through the email if 

1:50:52

you have questions in the meantime. Okay. If no one has anything else, 

1:50:59

do I have a motion to adjourn for today? >> SAMUEL EDWARDS: I make a motion.  

1:51:07

>> KATE BENSON: Everybody is in  a hurry from that one. Did I hear   a second there? Samuel is a second. >> CHRISTINE ROA: I will do the roll call. 

1:51:23

Start with Alex. >> Yes.   >> Andrew Levrault. >> Yes.  

1:51:29

>> Anne Fracht. >> [Inaudible].  

1:51:35

>> Bill Henning. >> Yes.   >> Evelyn Mateo. >> Yes.  

1:51:46

>> James Cooney. >> Yes.   >> Kate Benson. >> Yes.   >> Lauri Mederios. >> Yes. Mary Mahon McCauley.  

1:51:57

>> KATE BENSON: She's not here. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Thank you. Matt   Millett. [No audible response]. Reggie Clark. >> REGGIE CLARK: I wanted to say thank you for 

1:52:10

today's meeting and I want you to know that I  am still pushing for people to still have the 

1:52:16

rights to their records. I still think they have  a right. If we don't go through all of this and 

1:52:26

[ ] we're going to be in more trouble. >> KATE BENSON: Absolutely. Thank you,   Reggie. Glad you can join us tonight. >> REGGIE CLARK: I miss you.  

1:52:36

>> KATE BENSON: Thank you. I miss you, too. >> CHRISTINE ROA: Samuel Edwards.  

1:52:42

>> SAMUEL EDWARDS: Yes. >> KATE BENSON: And Vesper.  

1:52:49

>> VESPER MOORE: Yes. >> KATE BENSON:   Thank you everyone. See you next  month at the next meeting.

English (United States)