Hi

1.   Meeting.  Present were Barry Fultonberg, Theresa Georges, Alma-Alicia Castillo, and Tom Jurgensen from the Office of Client Empowerment, and also myself, Stephen Blum, Director of Student Relations at C.S.P.P., and M.H. Director Nancy Pena.
2.   Agenda.  I presented the following agenda and also a “Vision Sheet” which was a first pass at how to imagine having workshops that would work at different organizational venues in mental health in the County.

   Commitment to Follow-Up

   Long-Term Follow-Up

   How to Organize Workshops

   Systems of Care (Adult)

   Systems of Care (Children)

   Community Coalition

   Contractors Association

   Other Venues

   Next Meeting

3.   Commitment.  For the record, I asked Nancy to affirm that she is committed to producing the follow-up to the Retreat. I then pointed out that this is happening in an environment where there are serious projected budget cuts. Nancy affirmed that it is her intention to proceed with the follow-up.
4.   Long-Term.  My view is that if we are to have effective workshops in these different venues, we need to be able to put forward some kind of first pass notion of what transformation might be desired, if the moral message of the related part of the service delivery is to be rendered closer to what we’d like. On the follow-up document that was passed around at the Retreat, there are ‘one-liners’ for four different areas. I think there was general assent Tuesday that this topic is important if the people in these workshops are to take the change issue seriously enough. But there was no passion to pursue long-term questions, not at that meeting.
5.   Vision.  I had been seeking to formulate the dramatic themes that would make the workshops each of the (10) identified venues in its own way a rich and informative experience. These areas are [A] MHB, [B] Systems of Care (Adult), [C] Systems of Care (Children), [D] Contractors Association, [E] SEIU 715 Union/Management Group, [F] Acute Psychiatry, [G] MHCSCC, [H] Community Coalition, [I] NAMI – Santa Clara, and [J] Planning Work Group. Unfortunately I was suffering from the optimism of our August success, and fancied that if I put my notions in the Visionary mode and in the language of the client culture, my text would still be accessible to people. It wasn’t. “A great deal of stage-setting in language is presupposed if the mere act of naming is to make sense.” (Wittgenstein, Philosophical investigations, no. 257)
6.   Criticism.  Anyway I got a lot of criticism for my way of presenting this material, and I felt quite triggered and after a while, quite defensive.  :-(  However, as to substance, it came down to a simple difference. In the agenda I listed the four of these 10 venues that seemed to me to be needful of being taken up with high priority. Nancy agreed on the first two, the SOC venues, but she also wanted the MHB, which I had by contrast put at the low end of the priority scale. Her stated reason was that the MHB is integrally involved now in the SOC venues and this makes it timely to bring them in. And I must say in the way of a disclaimer that I was pretty triggered by then, and that while I hope so, still I’m not sure I’ve got this so that it has the exact import that Nancy gave it.
7.   MHB I.  My own feeling was that to do an effective workshop for the MHB would require a good deal of preparatory work, if the notion of ‘client-driven system’ were to be thematic in a meaningful way. But be that as it may, I was in no state to argue this. More than that, and even more obscure I think to the others in the meeting, my expression of Vision was not meant as an Rx for the MHB or for the system in general. It was just the bringing together of the things I knew about in the best and most expressive way possible. What I got out of this discussion was that Nancy wanted to start with the two SOC’s and the MHB, and that I’d have to envision what process would be responsive to that. Even though I was very nonplused at the time, Nancy’s preference wasn’t the reason: In principle this isn’t of itself so formidable of a difficulty.
8.   Next.  We tried to set the next meeting, but by this time Stephen had already had to leave, and (it turned out) we guessed wrong about his schedule. Since then, the meeting has been set to Tuesday, October 16^th from 1:30-3PM. Nancy has asked that we keep the same working group while we brainstorm the follow-up direction.
9.   MHB II.  Following the meeting I had two issues, one was the triggering itself but the other was the practical discussion and apparent misunderstanding, especially in regards to the MHB. I made an appointment with Nancy for 9/28. When that came by, as it chanced, I ran into Jose Rangel and Phil Winn just beforehand (both being former Vice-Chairs of the MHB) and invited them to come along with me. This kind of kept the discussion off the triggering, but it did ground the politics better. We discussed the general issue of client involvement in the MHB and also some specific matters related to current MHB work.
10.   Trigger.  So where is this all at? I persist in thinking that everyone more or less is ‘optimistic’ based on August 17^th. But that produces it seems a kind of bungee mentality because the full implications of all this are not clear to anyone. We are each kind of invested in the trajectories of where we’ve been going, and now we need to look around and take notice! I’m expecting we will all catch ourselves w/o catastrophe and start to feel more centered. Inferentially, recognition of this process is probably what is behind Nancy’s desire to restrict participation in the working group for the time being.  :-)
11.   Ranch.  “Meanwhile, back at the Ranch.” I’ve been talking with senior managers about the longterm follow-up issues, for brainstorming purposes. I talked with Kitty Palmer, Adult Systems Manager, about the ‘Line Staff’ area and my proposal based on a paper of Phil Cushman, which I dubbed hermeneutic conspiracy. I talked with Maria Fuentes, Ethnic Population Specialist, regarding what would be involved in an authentic shift in the way of community involvement. For me, the role of Jim McEntee, who runs the County Office of Human Relations, is a kind of model. I talked with the new Medical Director, Terry Osback M.D., regarding inpatient services; he pointed to the crucial matter being what kind of services can be provided prior to the WIC 5150 intervention process. I also enlisted Chris Zubiate, the Planning and Policy Manager, to participate in a meeting at SJCC with the City College Grants & Development person, regarding the development of the ‘client course’ initiative. I will have to say that — despite the current level of confusion — there is yet a backdrop of serious conversation that will in good time lead us somewhere. In fact, probably somewhere pretty creative!

I’m developing a website for the Retreat Follow-Up. And for people who are looking for ‘input’ into this process, please feel welcome to access me at 408-793-6476.

Respectfully

Andrew Phelps