Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 16:50:49 -0700
To: "MHOCCA List" <mhocca@egroups.com>
From: "Andrew Phelps" <starfish@northcoast.com>
Subject: Re: [MHOCCA] 8-1-00 CMHS meeting — long

Dear Bill:

I think we should reframe this discussion as a cross-communication which gets confusing, rather than as an adversarial proceeding. I sense that whatever I say on the surface and howsoever much I ignore provocative comments, there is yet a subtext in my writing which disturbs you. I don’t mean to argue by insinuation, it’s just it takes a lot of todo to figure what needs to be said that’s not obvious.

The plain thing to me is that the Network Board has met and has (presumably) made decisions about the strategy the Board/E.D. intends to pursue in the coming period. Since nothing whatever has been forthcoming about this directly, I’m getting grumpier. I can hear you saying, “That’s not my fault,” and no, it is not. I am writing in the spirit of exploring what kind of dialogue is possible and what kind of consequential difficulties may be discussed up front.

What is your responsibility is your own political choice of when and where you take up the topics that concern me.
  1. Has the Network made any move to apologize to Carol Moss and make an attempt to restore civility in our ranks?
  2. Has the Network framed the Forum — contrary to the few cues that have been made available — in a way that is not directly adversarial to the dialogue I advocate?
  3. Has the Network made any plans to take up the problem of making itself a broad and inclusionary group?
  4. Has the Network any plans to temper its training of client bureaucrats with training in accountability to the clients?
IN 1995, the Network made fundamental choices that rendered these questions as indicators of supposed destructive sentiment, choices that have made it hard for many of us to participate with equanimity. The continuation/intensification of this has been the rule ever since that time, and there is no evidence that I see of any intention to change this agenda or have serious dialogue around it. You and I worked cooperatively in challenging the Ventura ‘kickoff’ of the AB 1800 campaign, and we have generally fought the forced treatment struggle in a collegial fashion. My concern is that there doesn’t seem to be any prospect of continuing this process of working as colleagues, that all we have to expect is a return to the ‘same-old, same-old’.  :-(

I would thank Gerald for speaking openly about his concerns in re LAMP & Project Return, because that makes it I guess plainer to you where that criticism is coming from and what it is about. Obviously spelling aside I’m not in any position to complain about specific choices made 400 miles away in the Southern California L.A. client culture, with regard to who goes to what, and you might have taken note of that. I am it is true aware of specific contradictions in L.A. politics that make me quite unhappy, but those have not been spoken of here. When Ron Schraiber was in San Jose at our Self-Help Conference last fall, I took the time/trouble to discuss this matter with him at some length.

Finally, with regard flaming, I would like to make it clear to you that although I am a Sagittarian with a hot way of expressing myself, I am also a community college instructor in the area of computer information systems. I teach my students about the meaning of ‘flaming’. I even hehehe had Dick Ratledge come and speak to my class about how he manages Internet discussion lists with an eye to friendly and productive conversation (which was most well-received by my students!).

Anyway the political problem I’m presenting to the Network and you as Board President is what kind of dialogue do you propose to have with me and in the area of ‘accountability’ generally.

Respectfully

Andrew Phelps