To: cnmhc@yahoogroups.com
From: Andrew Phelps <dis_course@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 16:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [cnmhc] Re: Local Boards and Commissions
Hi
The below comment is a-historical. Before 1990 or so there was no official recognition of advocacy groups except as required by law (PAI, e.g.). When the new power took over DMH (rooted in the local M.H. directors), they promulgated a "partnership" idea. So what you call "complementary" (sp.) organization is really DMH's notion. Arranged for the purposes of DMH not by the advocacy groups themselves.
This relationship is also written into MHSA, somewhat at least. But does the CNMHC represent 'clients'? Does NAMI represent 'families'? These questions do not have automatic answers, they have to do with the critique of advocacy.
Practically speaking the concern for this 'partnership' agenda was presented as something useful for DMH in its relationship to the legislature. It helps DMH with "constituency management."
Zab wrote:
I thought NAMI was a complimentary organization to CNMHC. But according to some folks on this list, they are the Great Satan of Mental Heath.
"Great Satan" is an over-statement. Are you Iranian-American? It's just that the primary role they play with clients AND with families is - in my opinion - divisive.
Andrew Phelps
Berkeley