00
>> Matt: The meeting is being recorded and videos are available on
0:05
the commission's MASS.gov page and on the YouTube page.
0:11
You see the agenda in front of us. So we're going to engage
0:20
CCDER to support at the commission, as we'll hear the team
0:26
has been hard at work since October. I like to take a moment to introduce the CCDER team. Emily, you like to
0:36
speak first. >> Emily: Thanks, Matt. Hi, everybody, I'm
0:41
Emily Lauer, the director of the group we call CCDER so that stands for the Center for Developmental Disabilities
0:49
Evaluation and Research. CCDER is the acronym. We're here at UMass Chan Medical School and we're thrilled to be a
0:58
partner to support this special commission. Thank you. >> Jennifer: Hi I'm Jennifer Fuglestad. I
1:10
work with Emily at CCDER, and I am happy to be working with
1:17
the commission to support you in your work. >> Hi, I'm Christine Clifford also part of the CCDER team
1:26
and I'm here to help take some notes today S.
1:32
>> Matt: Thank you for the introduction. Next we have
1:41
approval of meeting minutes for the October 20, 2023
1:52
meeting. Draft copies were sent out and hopefully everyone has had a chance to read those. Do
1:57
any members have suggested changes to the minutes at this time? [Pause] If not, can we proceed with the vote? A vote?
2:13
Do I have a motion to approve the minutes for October 20
2:21
meeting? >> Rania: This is Rania Kelly making a motion to accept the meeting minutes from October 20, 2023.
2:27
>> Andrew: Andrew, I'll second that. >> Matt: Thank you, now I will do a role call
2:35
to say approve of and not approve. Elise is here.
2:44
>> Elise: It's Ann and Brenda. Elise is getting back from a visit. She will be here momentarily. >> Matt: Okay. Is she coming in a minute?
2:50
I'll circle back to her if that is okay. >> That would be great, we appreciate that.
3:02
>> Kate: Kate Benson. >> Kate: Yes.
3:08
>> Matt: Reggie Clark? Anne Fracht.
3:15
>> Here. >> Matt: Approve, yes?
3:20
>> Anne: Yes. >> Matt: Alice.
3:25
>> Yes. >> Matt: Rania Kelly.
3:30
>> Rania: Yeah. >> Matt: Andrew Levrault.
3:37
>> Andrew: yes. >> Matt: Mary Mahon McCauley.
3:43
>> Yes. >> Vesper Moore. >> Yes. >> Matt: Brenda Rankin.
3:52
>> Do you approve the minutes. >> Yeah. >> Matt: Okay. >> Thank you.
4:00
>> Matt: Conor Snow. >> Conor: Yes. >> Matt: thank you. >> Mary-Louise White, not here. I approve
4:11
the minutes, is Elise here yet? >> She is not. I thought it would be quicker than the 2
4:19
minutes I anticipated. She is on her way. >> Matt: No worries. That's, that's will do.
4:26
>> Okay. >> Matt: Thank you, everyone, I didn't miss anyone, did I? So the minutes are approved. Copies of the
4:35
approved minutes all of the details are available through
4:41
the commissioners web page.
4:47
I would like to invite Emily back for CCDER to share updates
4:55
with the group. >> Emily: Thanks very much, Matt. Can we go
5:02
to the next slide please? [Pause] >> Jennifer: sorry, having technical difficulty.
5:21
>> Emily: So one update for you is that we have set up an
5:30
e-mail address that we will be using to communicate. We at CCDER will be using to communicate with you all as
5:36
commission members. This e-mail address is here. You'll also receive it via e-mail. That e-mail goes to the full
5:45
team. So if you want to reach out to us, I see that e-mail,
5:50
Jen sees that e-mail. Our project manager Christine sees that e-mail and anyone of us can receive your message and
5:56
respond back to you. If you want to reach out to our team, this is the best e-mail to use because we are all be able
6:03
to see it. Next slide please? Thank you. And next slide. We have a few things
6:16
we'd like to talk with you about at the start of this meeting. The first are a couple of updates.
6:23
So as we had discussed with you all at a prior meeting, we are able to make an agreement which is called an interagency
6:32
service agreement that allows us to get paid for the work that we do because UMass Chan is a state agency and the
6:41
funding for this project is being routed through the Department of Developmental Services, also a state agency.
6:48
It's a contracting mechanism that just makes it easier for us to have an agreement and to get paid. So we have drafted the scope of work based
6:59
on what you all had put together. That is in the process of being added to our current agency agreement with D. D.
7:06
S. and will allow us to provide these services.
7:12
The other update I wanted to give you is that it is our understanding that the funding for the commission is
7:19
available until June 30th of 2024. The work that the commission is planned to
7:28
do goes well beyond that for about another year. What our
7:33
understanding is is that it will be necessary to request any unused funds to be carried into the next fiscal year
7:43
for us to use them. So we do not anticipate -- we don't plan to use all the funds between now and June. We plan
7:52
to use the funds to support you over the period until which your first report is due. So we will need support probably of the legislators
8:04
to carry the money into the next fiscal year in order to continue to be working with you all.
8:12
There are ways to do that, and we're just sharing this information with you all now so that we can make a plan to
8:20
talk to our legislative partners and U.S. commission members can talk to them about how important it is that you
8:28
are able to access the funds for the commission in the next fiscal year as well. I wanted to see if there is any questions
8:37
about those two items. Alex.
8:42
>> Alex: Thank you so much. This is Alex Green speaking.
8:47
Just for clarification, is it correct that -- is it
8:53
the -- sorry. My screen is doing weird things. Is the Ways and Means, is the committee that approves the funding
9:03
for, like, that's where the budgeting goes that would allow
9:10
us to advocate for this or let them know about this? >> Emily: I believe so but we'll make that confirmation and
9:19
get that information back to you once we make sure that's the right group. >> Alex: Okay. Thank you so much.
9:26
>> Emily: Yeah. Any other questions? >> Andrew: Yeah, I apologize. I can't recall
9:34
offhand. Does the commission have a separate line item for its funding or is it tied to a DDS --
9:41
>> Matt: Andrew, can you introduce yourself. >> Andrew: Andrew Levrault,D. P. P. C. Thank
9:48
you, Matt. >> Emily: My understanding is that it is a
9:55
separate line that needed to be moved to an agency to facilitate
10:01
the payment. So I believe it was -- it was in the process of being moved to D. D. S. so D. D. S. could
10:09
make payments on behalf of the special commission. I would invite Victor Hernandez or Gabriel Cohen, if you have any
10:16
additional information you would like to share about that at this time to please go ahead and do so. Victor, you
10:24
are on mute. >> Victor: Yeah. After all these years. Good
10:31
afternoon, everybody. Emily is correct. The money now sits with D. D. S., and we develop what Emily referred
10:41
to as the ISA. So CCDER can do their work and get paid for it. And the sponsor, legislator knows of the need for
10:52
the leftover funding to roll over to next fiscal year. So it's on everybody's table, and it's being worked on.
11:01
>> Andrew: Sounds good. We need the prior appropriation language in the line item and we should be all set.
11:08
>> Victor: Let's hope. When it comes to budget items I stay
11:13
away from the firm all set but anyway -- >> Andrew: sounds good. Okay. Thank you.
11:20
>> Emily: Thank you, Victor. The next item that we wanted to review with you all is itself idea of a YouTube
11:27
channel -- the idea of a YouTube channel for this special commission. My understanding is that this is a topic that
11:36
you all as commission members have discussed previously, and there has been some discussion of maybe a commission
11:43
member setting this up. I wanted to offer as part of our support going forward, we could set up a YouTube channel
11:52
for you as the commission where you can post videos of your
11:57
meetings. Right now, I believe they're being posted on a different channel. So I want to pose this question for open discussion
12:07
about whether you would like us to support you in that manner. Kate?
12:13
>> Kate: Hi, this is Kate Benson. Initially I had volunteered to do that. I've been sick for a few months
12:20
so I need to take that off of my plate just so everybody knows. >> Emily: Thank you, Kate.
12:31
>> Matt: This is Matt Millett again. I would be okay with
12:37
CCDER taking over the YouTube channel for us. >> Emily: Okay. Thank you. I will go to our next meeting
12:45
agenda in one minute. I believe, Matt, we may have had some commission members join. I just wanted to see if you
12:54
wanted to take a moment to acknowledge or introduce them or you want me to move forward. [Pause]
13:00
>> Matt: Hi, this is Matt Millett here. Reggie, Elise, can
13:12
you both hear me? [Pause]
13:24
>> Jennifer: It appears that, well, Reggie may be on mute.
13:38
>> Matt: Reggie is here though, right? I see him as a
13:47
panelist. >> Jennifer: Yes. >> Matt: I want to make sure, Elise, are you here too, now?
13:54
>> I'm sorry, say again. >> Matt: Is Elise here now.
14:00
>> Yes, I am here. >> Here she is. >> Matt: I wanted to make sure. >> Thank you, Matt.
14:06
>> Matt: We can move on now Emily, thank you. >> Emily: Thank you. I saw you had your hand
14:12
raised. Did you still want to make a comment? Okay. Go ahead, please. >> Am I muted?
14:22
>> Emily: No. >> Mary: You can hear me? Okay., I'm Mary Mahon McCauley, and I was just curious to
14:30
know, I believe Gabe had spoken to my communications manager, Lily, and she was going to download
14:38
the information from these meetings on to the YouTube channel. So should I ask her to cease in that regard,
14:45
to stop doing it as of the end of this meeting today or as of the next? >> Emily: Let us connect with you, Mary. We
14:53
want to make sure we always have a live channel for the videos to exist. As soon as we get ours up and running and
15:00
tested and we're ready to receive those video, we'll let you know and then you can cease that work.
15:06
>> Mary: Oh, okay. Will you be putting it on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts YouTube channel? >> Emily: No, I believe the commission would
15:17
prefer to have its own YouTube channel, but the videos will be connected to the site for the special commission.
15:24
>> Mary: So it won't be under the structure or the auspices of Commonwealth of MASS YouTube? >> Emily: I don't think it will be. That's
15:33
not what we discussed but I'm open to input on that. >> Mary: I'm not sure how YouTube works so I was just
15:42
curious, thank you. >> Emily: The next item we have on the list
15:52
is a presentation template. So my understanding is that prior
15:57
meetings have used a standard template from the Commonwealth,
16:03
and the template we're using here is from our center here at CCDER. We wanted to ask the commission members whether
16:10
they would like us to draft a template for the special commission to use that's their own and distinct from the
16:18
state's template that has been used previously. Are there any
16:27
comments remitted to that question? >> Mary: This is Mary Mahon McCauley again. I guess I
16:35
would, I would be interested in knowing what the changes would be and how it would be shifted around before I would
16:41
just say yes openly. >> Emily: We could come back to the commission with a proposal of what that would look like.
16:52
>> Mary: Yeah. That's my personal thought anyway. Not sure what other commissioners think. >> Emily: Any other comments on that idea?
17:07
>> Rania: This is Rania Kelly. I think I agree. I need
17:12
more clarification, for example, what does the current template that you are using look like? Like Mary mentioned so it's hard to make a
17:22
decision based on not knowing what we're deciding on, thank you, Mary. >> Emily: We'll come back to you with more
17:29
information. Essentially it would be a template that is specific to the special commission. So it would have the name
17:36
of the commission on it. It would not just be a state template that's used, but we'll show you some more
17:43
options in a future meeting on that. >> Rania: One more comment, this is Rania Kelly. There
17:53
will be screen reader accessible and have -- >> Emily: Yes, absolutely, that's a requirement for any
18:01
presentation that we put forward and we'll continue with transcription of this and captioning of the videos and all
18:09
of those sorts of things. >> Rania: Thank you. >> Emily: Next point we wanted to raise with you is an idea
18:18
to form some working groups toe help the commission with
18:24
the work that you are doing. So there is five areas of work related to records of people who used to live in
18:31
institutions, burial sites, memorial. Each of these has a lot of detail behind it
18:40
as we'll discuss when we share our updates. We had an idea to form some informal working groups where
18:50
some of the commission members can choose to focus on some of the topics and work more closely with CCDER. These would not be formal subcommittees of
19:00
the commission such that they would need to hold open meetings or things of that nature, but they would be small working
19:07
groups that would help us review some of the information we're finding and help make recommendations back to the
19:15
commission on these specific sets of work. So we've envisioned potentially 3 working groups. One
19:23
focused on the records, access to them, their storage. Another focused on cemeteries and burial sites and the
19:33
information related to those. And a third focused on remembrance or memorials. So we'd like to get your input
19:43
as a commission as to whether you would like to proceed with forming informal working groups on these topics. Are there any comments?
19:53
>> Kate: This is Kate Benson. I think that's a fantastic
19:58
idea. I'm very interested in being part of those working groups and I think keeping them informal in order to go
20:05
through the information already gathered is a good next step. >> Emily: Thank you, Kate. Any other comments?
20:16
>> Matt: This is Matt Millett. I, sounds like a good idea.
20:31
>> Emily: So toe form the informal working groups. We do have one rule and we can't have more than a quorum so we
20:39
can't have more than the commission members as part of the working groups. We'll send out information to each of you
20:46
via e-mail from our support e-mail and ask you to let us
20:52
know if you would like to be a part of one or more of these working groups. If we get more than 9 members who are interested,
21:00
we'll work with Matt and Evelyn to make sure we have a fair process for participation, but we'll use e-mail to
21:09
permit you to sign up for these working groups, which brings me to the next topic which is a meeting schedule.
21:17
Because you seem to feel like or many of you feel that
21:23
the working groups are a good process, we thought about using those to meet more frequently on the three topics and
21:32
then having working groups coming back to report to the commission at regular meetings. That would allow the commission to meet perhaps
21:42
every two months or so to permit time in between for the working groups to work with us and make progress.
21:50
And then the commission would be able to hear everything the working groups are doing, any decisions with come
21:57
back to you. So we wanted to propose a meeting schedule of something like every two months and see if people had comments
22:05
on that. [Pause]
22:12
>> Mary: This is Mary Mahon McCauley. I think that's
22:17
sounds like a good cadence. Every two months. >> Emily: Thank you. Alex, did I see you raise
22:28
your hand? >> Alex: Yeah, this is Alex Green I agree with what Mary said. There is the thumbs up again but I do
22:36
agree. Every two months sounds terrific. That would be good. If it needs to then change-based on how things are
22:44
going, just let I think letting us now and we'll adapt as needed. >> Emily: Thank you. Any other comments?
22:56
Okay. We'll coordinate the scheduling of those meetings
23:04
with you all via e-mail. We've received some information that you have shared previously about schedules.
23:10
We'll refresh that with you and try to come up with dates and times that allow the most commission members to
23:18
participate. So we'll be in touch about meeting scheduling. Thank you for your input on these
23:24
topics. This is a really helpful set of next steps to allow us to move forward with our work. So I appreciate
23:30
your input on these topics, and at this point I'm going to turn it back over to Matt to handle the next set of the
23:38
agenda. >> Matt: Thank you, this is Matt Millett again.
23:47
So Power Point 3 please. This article published in 9 "Globe" that was talked about the Fernald State School.
23:57
Medical directors, former residents there, a copy of that was e-mailed to the members on Tuesday, hopefully
24:05
everyone had a chance to read it. We want to share the article with the commission and see
24:12
what peoples' thoughts were. Reggie was actually quoted in the article. Reggie, if you want to talk about this,
24:20
do you want me to say something or quote from the article?
24:26
>> Reggie: The article was very good, I would say. I would say the article is very good. Just talked about people
24:37
having records that belonged to people that were there and
24:43
everything and talked about how messy they were and how the state didn't take care of them. Also looking into building
25:00
something there at the institution so people can recognize who was there, who lived there back then. Some type of memorial.
25:11
>> Matt: This is Matt Millett. Could we have the next slide
25:25
that tells what we can say if I remember correctly. So this
25:32
has some ideas we thought of, me, Evelyn a couple of other
25:38
people, letters to response to the globe, letter inquiry
25:44
to look at the facts are -- do nothing publicly. It's a
25:50
fact that the "Boston Globe" article was not written by I believe a "Boston Globe" writer. It was an add on if I got
25:58
that correctly. It was someone who does -- does anyone want to respond if we should respond to the "Globe" or do
26:09
nothing publicly or settle it -- I can't say that word, into
26:15
the facts? >> Mary: This is Mary Mahon McCauley, I hear
26:31
some whistling in the background. I don't know what that is but I can't hear you quite clearly, if you could say what
26:37
you just said again, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. >> Matt: This is Matt Millett. So we have
26:43
three options of what we can do to respond to the globe article. Letter, or a response to the "Globe." Second would
26:53
be a letter of inquiry into the facts. The third option we
26:59
do nothing publicly. We saw the article. It's horrible. It's sad. >> Mary: Yeah.
27:04
>> Matt: But so that, these are the three we thought of.
27:15
>> Mary: I guess this is Mary Mahon McCauley again. The
27:21
article was -- it was extremely sad. It was disgusting that, you know, to see the factual information of how PII
27:31
or personal identifying information was strewn around the
27:37
place, papers, personal information of people was disrespect and it gave us, gave me a stronger reason for,
27:46
to thank all after you that had to, were really involved with getting this commission up and running because
27:51
obviously it's very important that we are doing this so that the past never repeats itself. I shared it with my agency, the "Globe" article,
28:01
and made some comments. I'm not sure as far as replying
28:06
back to the "Globe" unless, you know, I believe there
28:12
has been articles in the past making note of this particular
28:18
commission, and what we're doing and why we're doing it. So if there hasn't been something like that in the "Globe," you
28:26
know, it might be nice for it to be either printed again or kind of a follow-up to the article in stating what we're
28:34
doing now, which is, you know looking at things and trying
28:39
to -- you can't right the wrongs. You can't make them correct. They are the wrongs, you know.
28:45
There was a lot of bad things that happened, but at least we can look at things and try to straighten them out going
28:50
forward and as we've said here before, you know, give dignity and respect to the individuals that were injured,
28:57
hurt or died within any of the institutions including in Waltham. >> Matt: Thank you, this is Matt Millett.
29:10
Alex, I see a hand is raised up. >> Alex: This is Alex Green. Mary, I agree with you.
29:17
Thank you for your comments and I, I've thought a lot about this and obviously been involved especially with the
29:23
Fernald and med state for sometime. I've some thoughts I
29:29
can share. I, I, but, first of all just Reggie, thank you
29:34
for putting your name in print is a brave thing and saying
29:40
the things that you said is a brave thing. It's a big deal to see that. So I know a lot of people have expressed their
29:47
gratitude about your remarks in there. I have been in, in the interest of transparency
29:56
I've been contacted by a "Globe" reporter because I worked so much on these things, and my feeling has always
30:03
been that I knew that from time to time things like this may
30:08
occur because I know about some of these issues. But that it's not my place as an individual member of the commission
30:15
to represent in any way what the commission as a whole body is doing. And I didn't intend to do that and
30:22
I don't intend to do that. So I think that if comments go out to the media those
30:27
things should go through the chairs and they should go through a meeting of the entire group and be somebody that everybody agrees on or else we should not be representing
30:36
ourselves as speaking on behalf of the commission, those are my thoughts. I think these are intentionally potentially issue that is can be politicized
30:46
in ways where that is maybe not good for the commission.
30:51
If those of us choose individually to be involved in those things, that's a very separate sort of thing.
30:56
So I'm more hesitant about the idea of any kind of letter of response to the "Globe" because I don't know -- we
31:06
didn't do this. We're looking into this but this is not something that we did. And I think there are clearly
31:13
accountable parties that need to be held accountable but they're not us and our work is already sort of looking into
31:20
some of this. I think the letter of inquiry to look into the facts is closer to our mandate which is, I do think
31:27
we simply need to know what happened. Because some of what we're looking at is how do people
31:33
access records and what are the barriers to them accessing those records? Obviously, this would seem to have presented
31:40
a significant barrier for people to access those records. And so I don't think that a single article
31:47
in the "Boston Globe" is enough to go on for the quality of verifiable information that the kind of report we want
31:55
to have at the end should have. And at the same time, I'm
32:01
not sure who we ask or what a letter of inquiry to look into the facts would actually look like. That's where for
32:09
the millionth time today I feel very grateful that we've CCDER on board for that, but I would love to know what those
32:17
of you who have experience on the commission would think about that, whether that is a good idea or bad idea and
32:25
where you, you would think we should be asking to look into this and similarly with Emily and just to be specific,
32:31
I think that what the article outlined to me and certainly are things that have been known in the community for
32:38
sometime, is that, yes, D. D. S. is a stakeholder where this is an issue that goes to them, but it also appears to go to
32:47
a large number of groups. This is a city-owned property and it was left open by a city. That's part of, I think, what
32:55
I would like for us to know and have in our report, if it seems germaine at the end. Sorry to talk so much but that
33:04
is my two cents on it all. >> Matt: I see a hand raised. Do you mind if I ask Richard
33:13
to speak for a second about what D. D. S. did since the
33:19
article. >> Kate: Absolutely. >> Good afternoon, yes, I visit, made me go back a little
33:24
bit. Before the article even appeared, D. D. S. was
33:30
contacted by the author. He contacted the commissioner about the condition of the campus and the documents that
33:38
he said were located around the property. We immediately contacted city of Waltham who,
33:45
as Alex said, owns the property to allay those concerns from the family member. We also offered to take custody of
33:53
any documents that were located on the grounds. We then followed up regarding the concerns about the potential
34:01
for any documents onsite. We sent some people just to -- a lot much places were locked up but we did see some
34:09
papers and by collected them there. It was difficult at the time goat in but we saw -- we did collect. It wasn't
34:17
much at the time. Then we were in contact with the city of Waltham.
34:26
We made plannings to meet at the campus there at Fernald
34:31
to assess the situation. And about that time, this was a little bit before -- it was avenue about the time when
34:40
the "Globe" article appeared on-line before the print, and we have met with the city of Waltham and assessed the
34:51
situation. We've located documents. Were able to get into buildings. Begun efforts to retrieve and secure those
35:01
documents and the, the key words there are "Retrieve and secure." We can collect them but the question is what
35:09
do we do with them? And we are keeping them in storage at a separate site. We
35:18
would be mean to provide the commission with more information about this once we have all the documents and
35:27
they've been secured, and also, to the extent possible reviewed because you have to go through them. With privacy
35:34
staff or privacy lawyers to determine, you know, if we -- what we do with them. You know, are they personal
35:42
items or are they documents can be shredded? Those are the things that only a privacy lawyer
35:50
can really assess. We're, we're in the process of doing that actually. When we visited the campus a couple
35:57
of weeks ago, privacy lawyer was there. And went through what buildings we could at the time.
36:03
Once this is all done, this project, all said and done,
36:08
documents collected. Reviewed, cataloged, you know, we'd
36:14
be happy to provide an update to the commission to let them know essentially what we've done and what we found and what
36:24
we've taken since then. So, you know, it's provided that
36:30
information and it's, we want to move forward with this.
36:37
Like Mary said, can't undo anything. It was done. You
36:43
know, and you know we heard some of the comments, and we
36:50
really want to, as Mary said, this is, this just shows the
36:55
importance of this commission. >> Mary: Yeah. >> Victor: It shows the importance, you know, even though
37:04
the priorities are, well the charge is not in any sense of
37:09
priorities I don't think it was a mistake that priority one was records. Very important. So this is a way to look
37:19
forward and to provide, again, some guidance in terms of what do we do in the future? So that's really all I can say at this time
37:26
about this. We're still working on this. >> Matt: Thank you, Victor, this is Matt Millett. Kate, you like to say something.
37:37
>> Kate: Hi, this is Kate Benson. I wanted to echo what Alex Green had said. As individuals we've shared and
37:46
commented on the "Globe" article to the extent that we have our resources and our networks. I think as a commission,
37:54
responding to that "Globe" article the only thing that I could say would be a positive is that a lot of these articles
38:02
happen, there was a list of them on the previous site. A lot of the articles come out and there isn't much comment
38:08
from certain types of groups and now that we do exist, maybe
38:13
it would be interesting to respond. But I don't think to
38:19
Alex's point, that it really upholds the mission of what we're trying to do right now. I, too, would like to know
38:26
what a letter of inquiry could look like, who it could go to, what we'd want to achieve with the letter of inquiry
38:33
knowing that D. D. S. is already trying to step out in front of some of this, you know, where we're also, where would
38:40
we be going on that path? And what would it look like? But I think at this point, the article has done what we hoped
38:50
it would do, and hopefully the traction will keep on moving
38:56
without us having to wade into that potentially political quagmire. >> Matt: Thank you, Emily, likes to say something?
39:11
>> Emily: Thank you, Matt. There has been some questions from commission members about what a letter of inquiry
39:18
might do. And I wanted to just provide some more information about why you might want or not want to have
39:25
that option. A letter of inquiry could be used to gather more information, and it can also be used to put
39:32
pressure on groups to act. In this situation, and thank you, Victor for the update, you are hearing that D. D.
39:40
S. is already acting even before the article came out. So I think that is something to consider. There are other
39:47
groups involved. There is the city of Waltham. There is the state agency DCAM which is responsible for
39:53
state properties, all have had a role here. You can use a letter of inquiry, going forward to say something like,
40:03
this situation exists. What are your plans to do something about it and what are the storage procedures and to try to
40:11
obtain some more information for your work. You can also use a letter of inquire toe ask about what happened and why
40:20
it happened and so if you are looking to go backwards and try to understand was there a gap in the process of closing
40:27
down an institution so that it isn't repeated in the future, you can use a letter to try to understand more about that.
40:35
A letter of inquiry doesn't mean that you are going to get a response necessarily or that response will be fully satisfying to you or have all the things that you are
40:42
looking for but it's a normal effort to try to get some
40:47
more -- get more information, I wanted to share those two possibilities but those are two examples of how you could
40:56
consider using a letter of inquiry. And those letters can go to one party. It is could go to multiple parties. So
41:04
if you wanted to target a letter of inquiry to many groups involved, it doesn't have to be just to one group like DDS
41:11
or DCAM or the city of Waltham. It can be directed to all of those or a different point like the governor. Thank
41:19
you. Matt, for that opportunity. >> Matt: Thank you, this is Matt Millett again.
41:26
If, so we want to propose to draft the content from
41:32
the meeting or do we want to realize that, and leave it at
41:38
that and try to work on our commission?
41:45
Any suggestions? Anyone want to propose a working group or
41:52
-- >> Alex: This is Alex Green. I would propose
41:57
a working group for a letter of inquiry to look into the facts. I would not, for the "Globe" end so I don't
42:05
know if there is agreement on that, but I would, if you need me to make a motion nor that, could I make a motion for
42:13
that. And I, I agree with Emily's characterization of that,
42:19
that it's, to me I guess most important to know what happened. These places closed down. I don't think any of us
42:27
has a really good sense of what happens when they close down and I'm very grateful to Victor for the transparency and
42:33
forthrightness in getting in front of this. We may meet with
42:39
the exact same transparency from some of the other agencies and folks along the way and just knowing will help,
42:46
I think, us understand the landscape of what we're tasked with looking into.
42:52
So if that's useful, I will make a motion to propose that
42:59
we create a working group to draft content for a letter of inquiry to look into the facts related to what was revealed
43:09
in the "Boston Globe" article. >> Matt: Thank you, Alex, this is Matt Millett.
43:15
Do you have a second to the motion of that. >> Kate: That is Kate Benson. I second it. >> Matt: Thank you, so I will do a role call
43:25
now for the motion. Elise.
43:31
[Pause] Elise still here.
43:36
>> Sorry, just had to unmute. Looking for a group to draft
43:43
a letter of inquiry, yes or no. Are you voting yes or no?
43:50
>> No. >> No. >> Matt: Okay. Thank you, Elise, Kate. >> Kate: Yes.
43:59
>> Matt: Thank you. Reggie. Reggie, you have to unmute
44:08
yourself. Sorry. Reggie, you are still muted. We can't
44:20
hear you right now, Reggie. Reggie,can someone help you
44:36
unmute yourself so we can hear you? >> Mary: Reggie it's star 6 to unmute on a
44:43
phone to let you know. >> Matt: Thank you, thank you. >> Rania: Maybe Reggie can nod yes or no so
44:53
he can answer since we can see him. >> Matt: Reggie, do you approve the motion, yes, nod.
45:07
[Pause] >> Rania: He may not be hearing us.
45:16
>> Matt: Yeah. Not sure what to do. >> Alex: Admin. privileges, whoever the host
45:27
of the meeting is, should be able to unmute him as the admin., Gabe, is that in your court or --
45:35
>> Jennifer: This is Jen from CCDER. I've been pinging
45:41
Reggie to ask to unmute. That is the limit of my ability. I'm not able to manually unmute him. I wish I would do
45:48
that. >> Alex: Got it. Sorry about that.
45:53
>> Emily: Perhaps we could come back and see if we could get Reggie's vote by the end of the voting. >> Matt: Sure, thank you. Anne, yes, no, for
45:59
the motion? >> Anne: Yes. >> Matt: Okay. Miss Kelly. >> Rania: Yes.
46:06
>> Matt: Andrew. >> Andrew: Present. >> Matt: Mary. >> Mary: Yes.
46:13
>> Matt: Vesper. >> Vesper: Yes. >> Matt: Brenda is not here, Conner. >> Conor: Yes.
46:22
>> Matt: Thank you. Mary-Louise is not here. Evelyn is
46:29
not here also, I'm a yes. Reggie, can you, can unmute
46:41
yourself? We can't hear you, Reggie. This is Matt Millett
46:52
talking. You are still muted.
47:01
>> Brenda is here, too, I just wanted to add. >> Matt: I'm sorry about that.
47:09
>> That's okay. > We're right here. Do you want a yes or no. >> Brenda: Yes. >> Can you hear that.
47:15
>> Matt: We heard that. Sorry about that. >> You are fine. >> Alex: This is Alex Green. I made the motion but I didn't
47:22
make a vote. I'll vote yes on that. >> Matt: I skipped right over you, Alex, I'm sorry, I
47:33
believe the motion passed. >> Reggie: Hello, I would vote for the letter
47:39
but I would also say that, that the motion, most important
47:45
thing is to find out what records are good and which ones can go back to the people that we served, the people are
47:52
going to ask for that. >> Matt: Thank you. >> Reggie: I would put a motion on that, I
47:59
know some other people that were in institutions but I can tell you guys later.
48:06
>> Matt: Thank you, Reggie. This is Matt Millett. I
48:13
believe the motion passed if I got my numbers correct.
48:21
Thank you for that. If you want to meet in the record group e-mail
48:31
the scsi@umass.edu. Thank you. Now I would like
48:37
to go to the plans of the goals of the commission, like to invite Emily back to plan this special with the group.
48:45
>> Emily: Thank you so much. This is Emily Lauer again.
48:51
As follow up to your recent vote we'll communicate with you via e-mail to allow you to just reply and indicate whether
48:57
you want to be a part of the working group to form a draft of the letter of inquiry. So as we had proposed earlier, we have made
49:07
some groups of your growls. The first group is on existing records and the process to request them. Goals 3 and 4
49:16
relate to the burial locations and 5 is about what was called
49:21
the framework for public recognition which might be a memorial or an event. What I would like to do today is to share with you some
49:31
information about what CCDER has found to date. We've been very busy digging through news articles and records and
49:40
things that we have been able to find and gather. So we want to share some high-level details with you.
49:47
We may not get through all the details today but whatever we don't get through we'll pick up next time. And I will
49:54
add for those of you who will join the working groups, we're going to get into a lot more details about these things when
50:02
we talk together. So this is just a preview to help you, help share at a very high level what we're seeing.
50:11
Next slide please. Thank you.
50:17
So before I even get into the goals, our research to date
50:27
has shown us that we need to become very specific about what we mean by "Institution." And the reason for that I'll show you an example
50:38
of the language that has been used over time to refer to different types of settings which could be considered
50:47
an institution. So there are some we know about. I'll take Fernald as a good example. That were labeled as institutions,
50:56
they are more recent, we probably have a better chance of understanding burial locations and records
51:03
related to them, but there's a whole array of others. A lot of groups, a lot of different types. As a commission,
51:13
we're going to advise that at some point we need to decide how you're defining what is in of what you are looking
51:21
at and what is not in that group. It's not as clear-cut as it may sound just by using the term "Institution."
51:30
So we're going toe share more information about this with some of your working groups. We'll come back with a
51:37
premise the working groups but I want to give you a little preview of the types of things we're talking about.
51:46
So if we could go to the next slide please. Thank you. Overtime these institutional settings were called
51:55
different things, between 1830 and 1930, there were many
52:01
different sites. Sometimes they were called schools or
52:06
farms. They might have been called things like almshouses or sanatoria or used institutions. They were created for
52:18
different groups of people at the time. Some of them were for people with developmental
52:24
disabilities. Some of them were for youth that were involved with law enforcement. Some of them were involved
52:32
for people who were considered to be poor and didn't have the means to support themselves. And some were for
52:38
particular conditions like tuberculosis or leprosy or
52:44
other types of disabilities. So all of these things could potentially be
52:50
considered institutions, they all look different. The
52:55
buildings and the structures are different. Sometimes it's one house. Sometimes it's a school. Sometimes it's a
53:02
campus. What happened to them differs, where the records are may differ. So this is the type of sets of groups that
53:12
we're going to need to work with you on to figure out do we, for example, include alms house ors do we just focus on
53:21
psychiatric hospitals and bigger institutions that were more recent? So we'll share more information with you about
53:29
this but I wanted to share this amount of information with you as one of our first questions for you all to think
53:37
about. Any comments or questions on this? >> Mary: I have a question. I'm sorry, should I raise my
53:49
hand? I didn't raise my hand. >> Emily: Go ahead. >> Mary: This is Mary Mahon McCauley. I had
53:56
thought, I'm happy to be corrected if I'm incorrect. Tell
54:02
all the other commission members I'm fine with that if I'm saying something that is not correct but I thought
54:07
that we were specifically looking at institutions that were for individuals with intellectual developmental
54:14
disabilities as well as mental health issues which would
54:19
mean that we would immediately take out the T. B. hospitals and a few of the others that you mentioned. So I, I
54:29
thought that within the information of the formation the commission, it was specific to I. D. D., intellectual developmental
54:36
disabilities which I think at this point in time would
54:42
include autism spectrum disorders as well as any mental illness, mental health which I'm not sure if the, even
54:51
though it may be a lot of the juveniles had mental health issues, it may have been more of a corrections institution
54:59
and not looked at at a mental health institution. Then the T. B. was more for medically ill so that's my comment.
55:07
Thank you. >> Emily: Thanks, Mary. Kate. >> Kate: It's Kate Benson. Alex and I were having a side
55:17
conversation. A lot of these institutions did purport at one time or another to specifically provide care for those
55:24
two groups so it does muddy the water a little bit. The reform schools were loaded with juveniles with
55:34
disabilities, disproportionately so. But I agree with knocking off the sanatoria.
55:40
You are correct, the tuberculosis hospitals typically stayed to their own purposes. But I think, to Emily's
55:50
point, we need to figure out what our target is because we could open up a huge can of worms then talk about things
55:57
like truant schools and hospital schools and other institutions
56:03
that could sort of fit the bill but don't really and, you know. Unfortunately becomes where are we getting
56:11
the biggest bang for our buck in understanding the history of this process I guess.
56:19
>> Emily: Thank you, Kate. Vesper? >> Vesper: Hi, I think it raises a really
56:27
good question. I mean if you consider unsightly and beggar ordinances at the time or ugly laws houses for the poor
56:39
as well as psychiatric institutions and, you know institutions for people with disabilities would be considered
56:45
under the same umbrella because those who were considered unsightly were both poor or disabled. So I think it's an
56:56
important consideration when we talk about it. I would say our current charge really seems to be.
57:04
(Screen froze). But I can see the overall applicability.
57:09
>> Emily: Thank you, Vesper. I will emphasize that the
57:17
definitions are not clear underneath the different locations. So even how mental health conditions
57:25
were diagnosed, the labels that were used, there
57:31
were people who were in institutions for people with developmental disabilities who may not have had developmental disabilities.
57:39
So there is not a very clean sorting of if you are focused
57:46
on people with mental health and developmental disabilities, they were exactly here and only here. That makes this work a little bit harder. And I
57:55
think the likelihood of success of getting information about certain records, certain burial locations will differ
58:03
depending on how many time has gone by, how much of a formal structure the locations had. So there is a lot more
58:12
to look into here. But I appreciate all the comments to date. I think we can try to take that focus of population
58:21
and see what, how it aligns with these and come back to you all with, with the working group, some suggestions on how
58:31
we might move forward for that. We don't have to decide that right now. We're not going
58:36
to stop our work until we figure that out. We're going to keep going but just know we need to clarify that at a certain point going forward. Thank
58:46
you. Next slide please. So next I would like to
58:51
share with you more about what we've learned about records and the request process. Next slide. So we have observed there
59:01
is many different types of records. There is medical records that contain health information about people who
59:09
were served by institutions. These are generally protected by laws. There is federal laws, there is Massachusetts
59:17
laws. And these laws limit access to recent records
59:22
of people, especially who were receiving services. Those laws may be a little bit different for records that
59:30
are much older, and we also need to understand that there's
59:36
a portion of times when the laws are followed and a portion of times where perhaps they are not. So we'll look for
59:44
that. There is also information that we're calling registration information. This might be a list of people
59:51
who lived at certain locations. It may have things like the date they came to the institution, how old they were.
1:00:01
Things about their family. So not necessarily health information, but other information that would record who
1:00:08
lived there and at what times. Sometimes these records have been returned
1:00:14
to people and their families when institutions have closed. Sometimes they have not. And in some cases, it's not
1:00:22
clear that those records are still available. We'll talk more about that. There is also what we're calling business
1:00:29
records and reports. So this is information about the
1:00:34
institution, maps of the facilities, sometimes including burial grounds, numbers of people that were there
1:00:42
at a given time or who may have left the institution or who died and the types of services the institution provided.
1:00:52
Next slide please. Where these records are now varies. There
1:01:00
are many collections at both public and private universities and we have some more details on those. They are
1:01:09
in state and city archives. How you access those records also
1:01:16
varies. So sometimes there is restrictions on the records
1:01:21
that are not always the same. For patient records, medical privacy laws usually restrict the record for about
1:01:30
75 to 80 years after the file was created. So usually after
1:01:36
an adult's life time. But some records exist in libraries
1:01:41
where a librarian or archivist can choose a restriction
1:01:47
that is even greater than that, and in many cases they do. So it's at least 75 to 80 years but it maybe longer.
1:01:55
Based on how that library has set up their rules.
1:02:00
There's not that we could find consistent guidance to libraries or archives that it should be this. It's a case
1:02:08
by case decision. Who gets access to records in archives
1:02:15
can also be made on an individualized basis. I see some hands raised. Kate. >> Kate: It's Kate Benson again. Taking up
1:02:25
a lot of air space today. Alex and I have also identified
1:02:30
that a lot of these records are held in private collections because they have been either scoured from institutions
1:02:38
or purchased off of eBay. There are local historical societies that hold some of these collection, my nonprofit
1:02:46
holds some records. So there are some less regulated
1:02:56
groups that also hold a lot of patient records just so everyone is aware that's out there as well. >> Emily: Thank you. Conner.
1:03:05
>> Conor: Yes, this is Conor Snow. I thought I want to
1:03:11
provide a little bit of contextual background being at the state archives. So we do have various permit nonactive
1:03:20
records from various institutions including almost all of the institutions that you had on the previous slide.
1:03:27
Hospitals, different institutions like Fernald. We are subject to the public records law which is under the
1:03:34
secretary's office and this public records law restricts medical and mental health information indefinitely. Thereto is no sunset law, there is no 75 had
1:03:44
ever 80 years, it's forever, we cannot make records accessible without a court order. If that happens providing access
1:03:52
to records does happen. Someone who would like to request the records will have to obtain a court order Granting
1:04:01
them to be the temporary administrator of on estate and then
1:04:06
the,we'd make records available not through ourselves but through a contact D. D. S. D. D. S. would then make
1:04:11
records available so there are streps and processes but it's always a headache, it's a lot of hurdles to get through.
1:04:19
It's not something that archives wants to do because we want to make records accessible especially for people who
1:04:25
have been in the institutions and to be able to say you can't look at them is heart-breaking so I wanted to give
1:04:33
background on that. And yeah, I guess this is one comment I had about the article
1:04:40
released from the "Boston Globe." Article did state in one sex that state archives many of the records found in the building that Fernald
1:04:49
were all of the case files and that the state archives
1:04:54
does not have those and they only have the administrative records much Fernald. We do have about 186 boxes of patient
1:05:01
in case files. So that is not the only thing that we have here. So, yeah, I wanted to provide some background
1:05:10
on how the archives handles these records when they're requested for access. But unfortunately, there's no sunset
1:05:18
law in Massachusetts, and the records are permanently sealed by statute. >> Emily: Thank you, Conor. And we'll talk about gathering
1:05:29
that level of detail as well in some of our next steps. So I appreciate that context. Next slide please. We have some additional
1:05:42
information here about some of the laws that restrict the rights as Conor was mentioning. Sometimes there are
1:05:50
ways to get the records. These could be by people who are put in charge of the estate which is the money or property
1:05:58
someone have when they died. Lawyers who have permission from the person if they're still alive or their estate
1:06:07
and court ordered as Conor was saying, times when information can be shared. There is often fees you have to procure
1:06:15
legal services. You might have to pay a lawyer, sometimes that is a few thousand dollars to help get the
1:06:21
records if things go fairly smoothly. Next slide please.
1:06:30
For this part of the discussion I've put in bold blue for those of you who are reading the screen the questions
1:06:37
we want you to think about. You don't need to fully answer these today but these are things for us to discuss going
1:06:44
forward. We'll need to figure out with you when we talk about records what types of records do you want to include?
1:06:53
We also will be planning to talk to more people like Conor and Kate and Alex and others who have been working on this
1:07:02
for quite a while. So we want to learn more about where, records are kept and start to record that for you to know
1:07:10
more about which of the records exist and which are missing. We want to get some experiences of what it has been like
1:07:18
to try to get the records from people who have tried. So we want to speak to people who work at libraries and
1:07:26
archives. People who have studied these records and that may include the historical groups Kate was mentioning or
1:07:34
who may have been in charge of the records when an institution was closed or during the time it was open.
1:07:41
We're also looking for suggestions about who else you think we should talk to. It doesn't have to be a name per
1:07:48
se. It could be this type of person or a person who had this type of role. Whether there are other steps you would like,
1:07:57
for this particular set of goals about records. I'll open it up to some comments to see if anyone wants to share
1:08:05
some thoughts. Raising hands works well. If you are able
1:08:11
to do that, please go ahead and do that. Alex.
1:08:23
>> Alex: This is Alex Green. One group that just comes to mind are local historical societies. I know the Waltham
1:08:30
one has stuff. That may just be on your list as part of archives, but I, that came to mind. I don't know about any
1:08:40
others offhand but this is one at least. >> Emily: Thank you. Any others? Okay.
1:08:52
Let's move on to the next slide. So let's talk a little bit about what we've found for goals 3 and 4 related to
1:08:59
burial locations. Next step, next slide, thank you.
1:09:05
So there are, we found there are cemeteries on the grounds of former state institutions. Some of these are still
1:09:13
owned by the state of Massachusetts so we have gotten the list of cemeteries that Massachusetts still owns. So
1:09:22
we're able to see that there are cemeteries from institutions for people with developmental disabilities
1:09:30
and institutions for state hospitals that are still listed as property sites owned by the state of Massachusetts. We have learned that there are some people
1:09:41
who died in institutions that were buried in what are called pauper cemeteries or local parish cemeteries. These
1:09:50
may not have had individual markers or locations. They
1:09:56
may not have had individual coffins and so it may be challenging
1:10:01
to identify who is buried there and exactly where they're buried. We have observed also that many of the cemeteries
1:10:12
may not have marked graves. Where there are markers,
1:10:17
they may only show either an identification number or a
1:10:22
code as to whether people were of a certain religion like Catholic or Protestant but to know who was buried there
1:10:30
you would need the key to unlock what does the code mean and what was the person's name and more information about them.
1:10:38
So there's much more to dig into here, but we are finding
1:10:45
many different types of circumstances where people are buried. Next slide please. New Mexico in some cases
1:10:54
the records of who is buried where have been lost and we know that -- sorry, it has been reported for the
1:11:02
north Hampton sites and Foxboro those records are no longer available. Sometimes the burial records are held by a
1:11:11
state agency. They may or may not be available to the public upon request. And for some cemeteries it's not clear how
1:11:21
many former residents or people who lived in institutions are actually buried there. So we don't know the total counts
1:11:29
of the people who are buried. Next slide please. So we are aware of some folks in the state
1:11:39
who have been some more work related to this particularly historical societies. And some of your commission members.
1:11:48
But we will need to talk more about who else we should be talking to about these sites and which cemeteries
1:11:56
are in scope. I think that that question relates back to which institutions are in scope for you.
1:12:04
I'll open it up to see if people have questions or comments.
1:12:18
I think Anne has her hand raised. [Pause]
1:12:25
I'm wondering if there are staff -- see Anne is the name
1:12:41
on the screen. Can we hear more? >> Sorry. Brenda is animated just listening,
1:12:53
no question at this time. Thank you. >> Emily: Thank you so much. I just wanted to -- >> I appreciate it. >> Emily: All right. Let's move on to the
1:13:04
next slide please. >> Emily: My apologies. One moment. >> Emily: As we're waiting for the slide the
1:13:28
next goal we'll talk about is related to the memorials. We've
1:13:34
spend sometime looking at what other locations have done. So there are some memorials. Go to the next slide
1:13:41
please, that exist in Massachusetts. So those include the Wrentham state schools memorial walk and friends
1:13:49
much Belchertown state school. There are cemetery restoration projects as well. These can be run by different
1:13:57
groups. Sometimes it's people who lived at the institution or family members or disability advocates or
1:14:04
community members. Next slide please. We also looked
1:14:09
at other states. So many other states have created some different types of memorials. Some of them have standing
1:14:17
memorials that are a physical site that you can visit. Some of them hold anniversary events like Vermont. Some
1:14:26
of them have an actual museum that you can go and visit. So there's a whole different set of types of things you
1:14:34
can do for remembrance. We will share more about these projects with the working group. Next slide please. So as
1:14:44
we looked at the process to create these different things, we have pulled out some lessons learned. The first
1:14:53
is that many of these projects especially to build a physical memorial or a museum take time and often many years
1:15:03
and lots of planning. So this is, unless it's an event
1:15:08
that can be more easily planned it's not going to happen very quickly. It also needs a really good action plan that
1:15:17
identifies the goals and questions like, who will be involved?
1:15:23
How are they going to be organized? What do we want to develop and who is going to do that? Does it require an architect or a planner?
1:15:32
Who is going to build it? Do we need permits? Do we need a site? How do we pay for it?
1:15:38
And if it it is something that goes on over time or needs maintenance, how do we pay for that? So there are a lot of questions to be formed
1:15:50
and both answered here and this will be what we take to the working group to start to consider and to come back
1:15:58
to the commission with ideas and opportunities for decisions. Next slide please. So within this working
1:16:10
group we're going to review what other states have done and our state. Start drafting what we're going to call a
1:16:16
planning document. This is kind of a road map how you get to where you want to go. So not yet a set of plans
1:16:25
for what it is you want to build, but kind of a plan to plan where we have to take what was in the prior slide and add
1:16:32
some more details to it and understand all the different decision points that you need to make in order to move forward
1:16:40
to have whether it's an event or a memorial or a museum or whatever it is you want to form.
1:16:47
So if there are ideas that you have about people who we should talk to next, for this goal, we're happy to hear some
1:16:55
recommendations from you all today. Alex. >> Alex: This is Alex Green. I, what I can
1:17:07
share just briefly is from the drafting of the bill that led to the creation of the commission. Just so you know
1:17:12
what some of the stakeholders then including the political folks who were involved had envisioned in recommending
1:17:20
this portion of the statute which was that I think there
1:17:27
was a widely held sense some kind of museum was a good idea, that memorialization was a good idea thinking big
1:17:40
was an important aspect of this. That that the state
1:17:49
should be a central party to owning that responsibility because these were public institutions and our charge ask
1:17:57
to look into those public institutions and that the composition of the commission which includes people who currently
1:18:05
or formerly lived in state-run facilities, that those
1:18:10
folks should have a central voice in saying what they would
1:18:16
like to see above all else even if that meant saying we don't want a museum. We want something else. So those were the,
1:18:24
some of the big thoughts that went in early on. And I hope that's just helpful for broad thinking.
1:18:30
>> Emily: Thank you, I appreciate your sharing that thinking. Certainly this will be the commission's decision. Going forward, Kate.
1:18:40
>> Kate: It's Kate Benson. The Belchertown State School friends have worked for over 13 years to try to put a museum
1:18:50
at the former state school. The process has been maddening, frustrating, and very difficult. But I'm
1:19:00
looking forward to sharing that process with everyone and what success has looked like for us so far and getting
1:19:09
everyone here especially, getting everyone's thoughts and
1:19:14
opinions and directions as far as what we would like to see
1:19:20
in a museum memorial, the campus is going to be a mix of all of that so I'm really excited about this particular goal
1:19:29
because I think it's going to go nicely hand in hand with what we're already starting to do. And how we can kind of
1:19:37
take this even further. So I really appreciate that this
1:19:43
is going to be a part of this conversation. >> Emily: Thank you, Kate. Certainly your
1:19:49
experience and the friends' experience would be part of what we'd want to tap into to understand what you've learned
1:19:55
already from the a very long 13 years of work it sounds like.
1:20:01
Very good. Other comments on this topic?
1:20:07
Okay. Let's see. Next slide please. So we will e-mail
1:20:19
you all as commission members to allow you to sign up for the works groups. That includes for the letter of inquiry. So
1:20:27
you are welcome to reach out to us at this e-mail address. Don't feel like you need to take the first step.
1:20:32
You are going to get a note from us that specifies the working groups and gives you a chance to sign up but you are
1:20:39
welcome to contact us at any point if you have further thoughts from today. You will get a copy of this presentation so
1:20:46
you have these details and this will all be available to you. And we look forward to working with you all
1:20:54
more closely and the next steps on this. So next slide is -- just questions. Turn it over to Matt.
1:21:06
>> Matt: Thank you, Emily. This is Matt Millett. I guess
1:21:14
to wrap up. What Emily said make sure to have the new
1:21:22
e-mail address book, that way it doesn't go to spam. Sometimes I have to with my e-mails address. So the, yeah.
1:21:31
So if there is no other -- I like to -- there is no other
1:21:37
items to discuss we have a motion to adjourn or someone want to talk about something else right now? >> Mary: That is Mary Mahon McCauley, I want
1:21:46
to thank Emily. I feel good about this meetings meeting and would like to make a motion to adjourn.
1:21:52
>> Matt: Thank you, Mary, do I have a second. >> Alex: This is Alex Green, I second.
1:21:59
>> Matt: Thank you. Role call to adjourn. Elise I believe
1:22:05
just left. Kate. >> Kate: Yes. >> Matt: Reggie. >> Reggie: Thank you, thank you for this meeting,
1:22:18
thank you for everything you do. Alex, I hope you have that book out so we can show the book to the people that,
1:22:24
that been at institutions. >> Alex: Publishing is slow, sorry Reggie. >> Reggie: Very good, take your time, throws
1:22:34
probably a lot to add to -- there's probably a lot to add
1:22:42
to it. Thank you for everything.
1:22:49
>> Matt: Yes motion to adjourn the meeting? >> Reggie: Yes.
1:22:57
>> Matt: Thank you. Reggie. Anne. >> Anne: Yes. >> Matt: Thank you, Anne. Alex, I won't skip you this time.
1:23:06
>> Alex: Yes. >> Matt: Ms. Kelly. >> Rania: Yes. >> Matt: Andrew.
1:23:13
>> Andrew: yes. >> Matt: Thank you. Mary Mahon McCauley.
1:23:19
>> Yes. >> Matt: Thank you. Vesper. >> Vesper: Yes. >> Matt: Thank you. Conor.
1:23:27
>> Conor: Yes. >> Matt: Thank you. Mary-Louise is not here.
1:23:33
Evelyn is not here. Yes for me to adjourn the meeting,
1:23:41
thank you, Emily, thank you, everyone. Hopefully see
1:23:47
you. >> Andrew: thank you. >> Victor: Bye, everyone. >> Versus nice evening.
English (United States)