Opposition supporters walk towards the Kolubara coal mine
in support of striking miners October 4, 2000.
| Date: | Fri, 6 Oct 2000 22:27:40 -0700 |
| To: | "MHOCCA List" <mhocca@egroups.com> |
| From: | "Andrew Phelps" <starfish@northcoast.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [MHOCCA] Chesboro |
I believe, as Andrew wrote awhile back on this LIST, that we could (and possibly should) work with Chesbro to create controls (guidelines) for the mental health courts that protect our interests. Chesbro is very amenable to input from clients. The Client Forum is a good place for him to hear clients’ concern about mental health courts. (We are planning a question and answer period following his speech.)Well thank you for the explanation. But it doesn’t quite speak to the thrust of my concern. “Don’t know enough to make an educated decision,” “simplify the issue,” “see them as backdoors” perhaps reflects the actual character of the Network’s internal discussion. My point is that given the seriousness of the threat, the fact that the discussion went on at this level is the hallmark of incompetence. When the house is on fire, do you argue about whether the fire is
Finally, the CNMHC did not take a position on mental health courts. We have looked for consensus on the positions we have taken. There was not a consensus on mental health courts. Many people feel they don’t know enough about them to make an educated decision. Others simplify the issue: jails are bad places for anyone and this gets our folks out of jails. Others see them as backdoors to outpatient commitment.
| scarlet | or | vermilion | ? I don’t think so. |
The CNMHC Public Policy Committee is studying mental health courts this year, and hopefully, will recommend a position.I know my argument is a tired old argument, that the process of the Network is so exclusionary & top-down that important matters are forever being put off. Or handled mechanically in the spirit of ‘same-old’, ‘same-old’. That the big problems like why large numbers of clients don’t participate are perpetually ignored/treated lightly. I saw the same thing happen in Berkeley and the result now is that we have PACT in Berkeley. This is highly uncool IMHO.
My deeper concern is that despite my heartfelt arguments for moving the Network in a direction that brings the reformers into meaningful involvement in the strategic planning of the Network, the 2000 Forum has been constructed in an exclusionary way which I feel is designed to perpetuate the divisions in our movement.
I don’t know if this is behind why Sylvia is questioning the invite of Chesbro to the Forum, but I guess it could be.
Respectfully
Andrew Phelps
