Dear Agnes:

In order to train the Santa Clara County M.H. Dept. in re independent client organizing, it is essential IMHO that we give a presentation on discrimination law.

What Nancy Pena says is that the framework for this training is the AB14 law which specifies client-driven services. What many of us have learned over the last decade is that this law is defective because it presumes in effect that discrimination issues can be resolved civilly, whereas the opposite is still the case. The bottom line as of today, is that discrimination against clients is legal, and that we experience it as invidious. I refer you e.g. to Edna Elkins’ award speech before the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, which is on our website.

It seems to me therefore that Nancy’s advocacy — preeminently based on morality — depends on people making a moral commitment to work at changing the discrimination law. Civil rights for us goes as far as ‘reasonable accommodation’, which I know from personal experience can be a considerable benefit. Edna was able some years back to get (then Assemblyman) Lockyer to include ‘mental health disabilities’ in his Hate Crimes legislation. These things are dents in the wall of discrimination, but .. what kind of law would really SOLVE the problem?

I wonder if you have — you must have — thought about this. I feel like a rank amateur when it comes to assessing legal questions from within the canons of legal analysis. I’m hoping we can come up with a ‘formula’ that would represent a fulsome insight into how really the law needs to change here. And I think the integrity of this training depends on how fully and clearly we can handle this.

Best regards

Andrew