Michele:

Thank you for your comments. Even though I’m not much in sync with them I do appreciate your caring and taking the trouble to address what I’m writing.

Am I missing something? Why in the world would Andrew consider these slogans divisive?

It’s not the slogans that are at issue. It’s the agenda that they represent. The question is what sort of compromise with NAMI is being strategized.

The reason why picking Choice v. Quality Services as a priority is different, is that it implies a different notion of what gets compromised how. I think in yr. adherence to ‘choice’ you have lost sight of the way the struggle for Quality Services is being neglected.

My worry is that the present strategy is oriented toward a kind of compromise around PACT that I don’t think is a good choice. But the divisiveness is in whether there is a way to work in coalition with people who don’t want the kind of compromise that seems to be envisioned here, but do agree in a general way. The process as presented here seems to challenge the concept of any bottom-up coalition of clients interested in Choice and Quality Services.

Andrew, I am interested in your thoughts, but I guess I just don’t know what you are talking about most of the time. If you wish to not participate the day would (of course) be lessened but choice is the message.

It is not my message. I think Choice is important but I think challenging the NAMI plan to dominate mental health service delivery is central. As I see it, NAMI is delighted that the CARES Coalition etc. is willing to pay attention to this other issue while they are cleaning up.

.. why do your thoughts seem to be about the division of consumers, is there some Machiavellian plot to split up the consumer focus that I don’t get?

Machiavelli counsels a kind of double-dealing scheming system. That’s too specific for here. What I see is an habituation to an approach that is not responsive to the issues of Quality Services. I will pass on the question of Mr. M.

It seems to me that we are each free to express our thoughts and concerns individually as we see fit, then we each also have the choice to participate on a variety of levels with other entities.

Yes. But we are also responsible for the choices we make. And we are specifically responsible to the question of the unity of the clients, within the general pattern of the kind of responsibilities we are taking. I have been eyeball-to-eyeball with DMH and the leaders of NAMI in my day, and I know there’s a lot of stuff going on in this kind of situation that a person does that must be accounted for. I think you have been in some of these situations, too.

.. of which one is the CA Network. There is no coercion .. there is no finger wagging .. there are no tsks, tsks if you choose not to join in this day for any reason.

This is claptrap. I feel that I don’t have a meaningful voice. Never have. Even at times/places when I’ve had some position of strength or other.

You are arguing from the perspective of voluntarism — free will as the basis of being/behaving. I don’t share this philosophy. Perhaps that explains this disconnect.

I know that there are few people in my part of the world that can match your intellectual abilities but we are all trying the best we can. If there is an enemy that you have identified, then point it out to us .. not hint and make riddles. Most of us don’t get it.

I have never met you but I’ve heard good of you, so I won’t take this as the insult that is written. I have written many megabytes worth of info, which is available on the web, detailing my thoughts about every point here. I’ve written numerous things about this general issue this last year, even. The reason I wrote what I wrote here is NOT to be obscure, but to speak to the issue in a positive way. What good is raging at those who don’t do it the way I think they should? NOT VERY MUCH GOOD.

Michelle, making ‘coalition’ means learning how to get along with those you don’t agree with. Not just in some tiresome way telling them over and over that you don’t agree with them. I know I don’t agree with most of the leadership of the Network in my Vision for the reform of the ‘mental health system’. I learned that in 1972 and in 1977 in re NAPA and although I’ve been a member of the Network since the period it began, I’ve NEVER agreed with the perspective they put forward. I’m sure they’re tired of hearing me say so. I just wish we could work together on things we agree about. When I say ‘divisive’ I mean in large part that their actions preclude me and like-minded people from productive involvement with them.

I believe at one point you quit the employ of the Network. Isn’t that so?

I want so to understand. I will do anything I can to assist the consumer groups in believing in each other and, most of all, believing in ourselves. It is the loss of choice that will cause the cruelest cut, anger between us will only be the salt in the wound.

I don’t believe in the efficacy of a ‘top-down’ coalition as your comment advocates. I believe that the people who disagree with me REALLY disagree with me and are going to keep doing so. I’m just hoping that we can find enough practical unity so that we can work cooperatively in the public sphere. As far as your projecting ‘anger’ on me, that’s really a stretch.

In general, you would do better to get to know me than to react to my comments in such a superficial and unsympathetic manner.

Respectfully

Andrew Phelps