I really don’t agree with Gerald’s formulation:

The most important thing though, in Captain Backward’s code, is we have to learn to respect and listen to each other. We have to work together, in harmony and in consensus, because we’re all on a sinking ship.

We will either learn how to swim together, or all drown together. Considering last year’s battle, and today’s challenge, there is still a lot of work to do. If we fail to do our part, others will make decisions for us, that we well have to live with. And the current state of affairs speaks for itself.

I think it is well-meant but I guess I’m too skeptical about the prescriptive accuracy of this hopeful way of thinking. I don’t think we are about to “work together in harmony and in consensus.” I don’t think we know how to do this even if we put our minds to it. But I guess I do agree that this is a kind of target, or thing to work towards.

What is needed is a negotiated framework for working together, NOT merely a general intention to be nicer or more respectful with one another. Only if we get ‘into the habit’ of trying to listen and be respectful, will things start to happen that way, whatever we WISH would happen.

The Network is a ‘stakeholder’ in the system and beholden to DMH in many ways, funding not being the least of these. They are not in a good position to challenge the agendas of DMH even if they privately and personally think ill of them. The present political arrangement requires us to follow the lead of the Network, despite this conflicted situation. This absolutely won’t do, and any enlightened Network leadership (Carol Moss comes to mind, as an example; John M. Hood III, as another) would IMHO make a determined effort to FOLLOW rather than lead the work of the independent client activists.

We should set up an independent client coalition that is understood NOT to be run by the Network, NOT to be the agent of its public policy priorities. But also one that the Network activists participate in AS INDIVIDUALS. It has to be a LOOSE COALITION where different groups/individuals with different focuses can do their different things. This coalition would provide a framework for them to LISTEN and to support one another as much as practical/possible.

In DIVERSITY we have strength. The Network currently is pushing the clients to get on the bandwagon of fighting the ‘OPC pilot’ proposed by NAMI/Helen Thomson. Many of us support this objective and feel strongly about it. The problem with the present political arrangement is that the Network is also trying to monopolize the strategic approach and seems to be hostile to anybody working at this problem from any way but theirs: At a minimum, they are totally not supportive. Can’t say that ice rather than fire is any bonanza here.

Gerald is vague about this, at least in the way he says it, but I’m not. The pivotal thing is NOT individually resolving to do better, it’s ‘cutting a deal’. One so that a lot of people of different persuasions can feel that we have constructed a situation that affords a reasonable hope that we can work together cooperatively.

Don’t know how to do this, but have some notions.

In my mind I call it the Choice and Quality Services Coalition. That’s because we all pretty much believe in choice/oppose forced treatment and we all pretty much believe in quality services/oppose traumatizing treatment. The reason this is a loose coalition is because (1) NAMI is pushing on both these fronts and (2) these objectives of ours tend to get in the way of one another. Specifically DMH is determined to keep any noise about ‘quality services’ WAY DOWN. They lie up and down and round about every day about this stuff, because they stand for jobs for mental health providers AHEAD of services for clients. Yet there is also the need to work collaboratively with DMH in despite of this, especially if some deal on an ‘OPC Pilot’ is to be hammered out. This is a CONFLICT.

If we have a working coalition, we can make the best of this conflict, and be the most productive ourselves. If we solve the problem in the way Gerald says we SHOULDN’T, by bashing one another, or to the extent we go that route, we are acting more weakly, like he says. Yet we are not in the short run going to agree. The COALITION is the vehicle for making the best of outcomes for us, and the most possible unity among us.

There’s a question of leadership. Can’t have the Network or the Public Policy Committee running things, overtly or behind the scenes. Can’t have anybody else myself included thank you very much running things, overtly or behind the scenes, EITHER. But we probably need some kind of diverse Coordinating Committee and some kind of communication vehicle more civil than the teleconference thank you very much in order for this to be real.

And it has to include meaningful representation from the Network and from other groups like People of Color Clients Network, NEC-West, Accountability Caucus, local networking/self-help arrangements, maybe even SOS, who am I to say? And a lot of individuals who may not represent anything but their experience. Key is where many different voices are seriously represented and not tokenized because somebody is “calling the shots.”

Difficult to do? No doubt, especially since the clients aren’t used to being cooperative at this kind of level. But OTHER MOVEMENTS DO IT, this is nothing but where there’s a lot of experience in what goes & what doesn’t go.  :-)

We can learn.

Respectfully

Andrew Phelps