Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Entitled to what?

Paul, maskless, brings up a very good point in the comments for the aging post below.  He states "Since I have found wide and interesting interpretations of the Lanterman Act I want to start where I hope we can agree. Client or families [SIC] goals are not implicit entitlements under the Lanterman Act."

I'm inclined to agree.  One of the challenges to the present system and any future better one is distinguishing between the outcomes of support and the results that are in the control of the end user.  It is fairly clear and I suspect uncontroversial that the entitlement is to service and support for the purpose of moderating the affects of developmental disabilities on the lives (goals) of the individuals served.  I might argue the proper outcome measurement for a service provider or regional center is a process measurement for the end user.  The quality support may not have to result in a person with disabilities experiencing success, but in their succeeding or failing the same way a person without disabilities would.

And yet, much disenchantment is with the event that people with disabilities are still unhappy and/or unfulfilled after receiving services.  Here lies one of the problems with using client satisfaction as an outcome.  Another lies in the fact that achievers are rarely satisfied.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.  Especially yours, Stanley, you old crank.

Incidentally, Monday marked the fourth anniversary of this blog even if I didn't.  Thanks to all of you have joined the conversation over that time.

39 comments:

Ariel the Thief said...

I love that picture. I suggest everybody to click on it and see the big size.

This is a real good blog, Doug!

Doug said...

Thanks, Ariel. I did an image search for "Moon and stars" and really liked this photo.

Doug The Thief

stanley said...

[ariel say] love that picture. I suggest everybody to click on it and see the big size...This is a real good blog, Doug!

agree, great pic (big is better) and blog...thanks, doug.

[doug say] Paul, maskless, brings up a very good point in the comments for the aging post below. He states "Since I have found wide and interesting interpretations of the Lanterman Act I want to start where I hope we can agree. Client or families [SIC] goals are not implicit entitlements under the Lanterman Act."

The broken record: KISS.

1. Interdisciplinary team determines needs.

2. RCs find cost effective programs to meet needs.

3. Legislature funds programs...or tells those w/ special needs...cheap Hummer plates are a higher priority.

All else is sounding brass and tinkling cymbals...wide and interesting interpretations are rationalizations to thwart the intent of Lanterman (Love)

Client or families [SIC] goals are not implicit entitlements under the Lanterman Act...they are if agreed to in an IPP.

stanley seigler

Doug said...

First, Stanley, thank you for the kind words.

Now to your last comment, is the goal promised in the IPP or support towards that goal?

stanley said...

[doug say] Now to your last comment, is the goal promised in the IPP or support towards that goal?

That you ask the question...is the problem...they should be the same...your question is a rationalization (whatever, not sure of appropriate word)...and you are one of the best...one of the good guys...what can we expect of the fred chapas who seem to be in a majority...

Look forward to your pauls, jeffs, the andyman’s, ariel’s, etal insights re this crank comment.

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Actually, Stanley, that's a fair comment. Touché. But since I stopped reading IPPs 6 years ago when I realized I had an easier time recognizing the people we serve by their fingerprints, I'm curious: (this is a question question, not a rhetorical one) Would the IPP state "The Regional Center will assure that Stanley becomes a famous online flamer" or "The Regional Center will provide adaptive technology to digitize Stanley's fiery breath in pursuit of his goal to become a famous crank?"

paul said...

First, and foremost: I want the label “glutton for punishment” attached to this thread…

“’Client or families [SIC] goals are not implicit entitlements under the Lanterman Act’...they are if agreed to in an IPP.”
-Stanley-

I would make another change/deletion/interpolation here:

Client or [family] goals are not implicit entitlement under the Lanterman Act….[but ] they [may be] if [they are in] an IPP.

Or

My answer to Dougs question is the latter – the promise in the IPP is Support towards the goal/entitlement.

I would argue that:

1. “agreement” is not necessary for the production of an individual program plan. Often plans are formed without the agreement of the family. Sometimes they are formed against the agreement of one, or more members of the I.D. team. The only consent needed in the absolute is the consent of the Regional Center.

2. Consumers are ENTITLED, through the Lanterman Act, to services that enable him to live a more independent and productive life in the community.*

3. The IPP procedure IMPLEMENTS those entitlements to each consumer and the the corresponding obligation it imposes on the state.*

So – in a perfect world I think that Stanely’s comments would be pretty much correct in that the IPP would, as intended, contain ALL the services required for the implementation of entitlements under Lanterman and ONLY those services required for the implementation of entitlements under Lanterman. However, this is not a guarantee, and therefore I cannot agree with Stanley’s comments completely.

So – Corollary:
What is contained in the IPP is not implicitly an entitlement under the Lanterman Act.

In other words: There have been times when Judge(s) have basically said, “yeah – I know it is in the IPP, but it should not be in the IPP” or “Yeah – I know that it is not in the IPP, but it should be”

Some may claim that I am splitting hairs with words like “guarantee”, but I would disagree. But – I would agree that the real crux, the real question, the bard’s rub is how often does the IPP not implement entitlements under Lanterman and/or how often does the IPP Implement services that ARE NOT entitlements under Lanterman? In effect – how well are the Regional Centers doing with step three (step 1: locate people with disabilities or people at risk, step 2: establish eligibility, step 3 develop an IPP of needed supports and services, step 4 broker those services)

I believe that this subject is the horse before the cart of accountability, and outcome evaluations of programs and policies, self-determination, and self-directed services. Simply – why discuss accountability, and outcome if the service is not an entitlement? Conversely, how can we discuss accountability and outcome if a consumer is NOT getting services as required under the Lanterman Act?

Accountability and Outcome is step 5.

This does not mean that I think that discussions about quality and accountability is not worthwhile. Oh contrar! I just believe it should take a back burner – for a bit. But – I understand that I am in the minority and the points I raise here are usually considered the red-headed step child of our reality.


*Over the last year I have tried to ‘fit in’ with the advodiva community by ceasing to provide any support whatsoever for my comments [incessant heckling by Andy has helped as well..]

However, since I cannot bring myself to donate to the Shinola I will provide a smidgen of footnote and direct people towards those portions of the ARC v. DDS cherry tree that has not been picked and Welfare and Institution Code sections 4620, 4630, 4646-4648, 4651.

“That you ask the question...is the problem...they should be the same...your question is a rationalization (whatever, not sure of appropriate word)..."
-Stanely-

Stanely,

I believe Doug is closer to the mark, if not spot on, in regards to the law than what you have presented here. If you disagree please explain, and argue “why” – with reasons… Please.

If you truly believe Doug is one of the best, and respect Andy as much as you say then you will present more than, “That you ask the question...is the problem...” Questions should never be problems, so here is a question.

How are you so sure that everyone else is from the Red Planet and you have two feet firmly planted on this big blue marble?

stanley said...

[doug say] "The Regional Center will assure that Stanley becomes a famous online flamer" or "The Regional Center will provide adaptive technology to digitize Stanley's fiery breath in pursuit of his goal to become a famous crank?"

The question relates to andys questions/comments from: Thursday, May 15, 2008 Well, that was kind of sensible, mostly (which I never responded to, or to which I never responded)...and to a multitude of comments from the CAL-DD list before I was kicked off.

[andy say] it’s time for you to come inside or, at least, play on the porch where we can see you...I think it would be nice to know what realistic ideas and suggestions you may have...helpful contribution would be well worth the artistic sacrifice...Yet we dare not ask the same of you in terms of the ideas and suggestions you provide this discussion...because of the protagonist you’ve created in your work it has gained you a reputation but, sadly, no influence...If your desire is the significant improvement of services for people with disabilities, your effectiveness towards this aim has been no different than your depictions of the impact of those “leaders” you so frequently reproach (i.e. draw and quarter)...I hope you can now plainly see that you have, like all, some responsibility and that canning your ass would do nothing to help...(caning it might, though). When all are responsible, then...all are responsible! And all must do something to help.

For the record so we can move on...agree fully with andy...I am an ineffective crank and a gadfly...have contributed little, if any, to the cause...probably wont ever contribute much, if any...have no influence, desire none

(weel would like to be king so I could make significant improvement of services for people with disabilities w/o having to suck up)

have no desire to have famous precede any of the above...

I am just the mean little kid from Red Skelton’s cast of characters that “calls em the way I see em”.

stanley seigler

paul said...

Stanley,

I am curious - If you tried to hold your neighbor’s kid accountable for driving his 4x4 over your lawn and he responded with"

“Yeah, yeah – I am a young whipper snapper that will not amount to anything, and will always be a bum” would you feel that he is seriou? Would you feel that he has any respect for you or your concerns?

If you tried to hold a provider accountable and they responded,

“Yeah I know we have contributed little, if any, to your daughter’s life...probably wont ever contribute much, if anything to her life and do not desire to contribute anything”,

would you feel that they are serious, have any respect for you?

Or – in both cases, would you feel that they may be flipping you the proverbial bird?

paul said...

I have experienced enough to know, in this and similar cases that “so we can move on...” means “Don’t ask me anymore questions…Doh” and don’t comment after the big &^%*($ Y*U

But just in case…

Stanley,

I believe Doug is closer to the mark in regards to the IPP than what you have presented here. If you disagree please explain, and argue “why” – with reasons… Please.

Oh yeah…please….pretty please..sugar on top.
I promise to tell both Andy and Doug’s moms that they are picking on you…please.

Anonymous said...

Apologies for the “mean little kid ” post...should have known better than to give paul a straight line to his favorite topic...wont happen again, will just ignore comments/jabs re my shortcomings.

the missed point (not well communicated) was/is: This blog...discussions in general...are about the issues not stanley’s rotten character...not sure why pauls continues to point out my admitted flaws...it was his favorite crowd pleasing topic on CAL-DD as well...easier than addressing issues maybe.

In any event...pick all you want...but picking on issues is more profitable than picking on a mean little kid...who will continue to call the issues the way he sees them...and will attempt to answer all questions re the issues...your call as whether or not i am serious re the issues.

re an issue: Provider Honesty...System Illusions

[paul say] If you tried to hold a provider accountable and they responded, “Yeah I know we have contributed little, if any, to your daughter's life...probably wont ever contribute much, if anything to her life and do not desire to contribute anything”, would you feel that they are serious, have any respect for you?

As always not sure your point (except a real reach to point out a stanley flaw)...but perhaps there is an issue (point) hidden here...provider honesty...system illusions...worth looking at.

I would have respected that provider for telling the truth and immediately removed my daughter from his Potemkin Village...sadly;

in real life the provider (fred chapa) continued to extol the values his excellent program...backed his bs with volumes of gundecked paper (2500 pages of pure bs) work to justify RC funding...and;

if I had not been a pain in his butt he would have let my daughter vegetate for the rest of her life in his excellent paperwork program...ie, he kicked my daughter out for all the wrong reasons...and lied about it;

after extolling virtues and appropriateness of his program for years, suddenly decided it was not appropriate.

go figger the moral or point of your stanley flaw comment and my address to the issue of system illusion...

Oh, thanks for the opportunity to tell the old story again...i think it epitomizes much of what is wrong w/ the system.

As always, with loving concern for the well-being of all.

stanley seigler

ps. [paul say] I believe Doug is closer to the mark in regards to the IPP than what you have presented here. If you disagree please explain, and argue “why” – with reasons...

not sure what your mark is...but will try...next time

stanley said...

[paul say] I believe Doug is closer to the mark in regards to the IPP than what you have presented here. If you disagree please explain, and argue “why” – with reasons...

[paul say] If you truly believe Doug is one of the best, and respect Andy as much as you say then you will present more than, “That you ask the question...is the problem...” Questions should never be problems, so here is a question...How are you so sure that everyone else is from the Red Planet and you have two feet firmly planted on this big blue marble?

Not sure what the mark is...or who is from the Red Plant...but believe doug-etal agree the system sucks...

have you looked at the system...is it close to any ideal Lanterman intended...doug, andy, jeff, are the best...sadly they are a minority...the chapas rule and the best go along or probably go out of business...you know this...ones feet would have to be planted in antimatter not to see it.

[paul say] What is contained in the IPP is not implicitly an entitlement under the Lanterman Act. In other words: There have been times when Judge(s) have basically said, “yeah – I know it is in the IPP, but it should not be in the IPP” or “Yeah – I know that it is not in the IPP, but it should be”

not sure the judge said “yeah I know”...but yeah I know the current state of the IPP is shitsville...orders of magnitude from the Lanterman intent...this is a major system deficiency...all needs should be in the IPP and it should be continually updated to insure they are.

a caring professional IDT, a for real IPP and its implementation has to be job ONE...actually it’s the only job.

Not sure what else you want to hear from me re: If you disagree please explain, and argue “why” – with reasons...

Not even sure there is disagreement...but adding implicit to the discussion seems to confuse the intent of the IPP...is there a true intent and an implicit intent...

stanley seigler

stanley said...

[doug say] Now to your last comment, is the goal promised in the IPP or support towards that goal?

Oops, oops and oops...boy did I miss read dougs question...wont further show my stupidity by saying how I mis-read the question...but

most humble apologies for most of my comments re the question...

OF COURSE

SUPPORT TOWARDS the goal is the entitlement promised...further lack of progress toward the goal may not mean a provider has failed...it may have been a wrong or impossible goal...review, evaluate, revise...the IPP must be dynamic contract...dynamic as in continuous and productive change

IPP goals checked off for years and not met are a criminal disservice to those w/ special needs...providers and RCs and DDS should be condemned to a lower ring of the pit for this paperwork crap.

BTW opinions on this blog (and in general) should also be dynamic.

stanley seigler

paul said...

SUPPORT TOWARDS the goal is the entitlement promised...”
-stanely-

What if the goal that the IPP supports does NOT allow a consumer to move towards a more independent and productive life in the community?

What if the goal that the IPP supports will move the consumer away from a more independent and productive life in the community?

Is the SUPPORT TOWARDS [that kind of] goal [an] entitlement promised?

Wordsmith question:
Can a question of the non-rhetorical kind ever be a rationalization?

Note: that above is NOT a rhetorical question.

Doug said...

Paul, as I asked Stanley, it would help a lot if you could use bold, italics and normal text to make it easier to follow which part of the post is a quotation, which part is your response and which part is new thinking. I welcome long comments and quotations, but I think the quality of the discourse is best when people know what they are responding to.

OK, so I think it is not quite correct to say that the RC imprimatur is the essential qualification since, in theory, the leading participant in the meeting is the end user and there exists an appeal process but I do agree that imprecise contracts are the devil's ID team. When IPP think and talk big picture exclusively it sets up a perfect lose-lose situation in which everyone can end up aggrieved. When IPPs end up saying "Janie's goals are to maintain optimum health and to live according to her wishes" you have to assume that everyone involved in the IPP development has righteous complaints as their own goals.

Stanley, I appreciate your participation both here and in the community at large. I would gently agree with you and Andy that basic behavior modification demands that people be rewarded for good behavior as well as tortured for bad behavior, so I do think making change requires the readiness to be nice when people do the right thing and, as Niebuhr put it, the wisdom to know the difference.

Paul, my mom will ground me for a month with no blogging.

Stanley, I agree that your flaws are not the point here. The point is to work out what we would change so that people like your daughter live better. I think Paul's frustration might parallel both yours and mine: Do we know what we want well enough to name it, much less get it?

By the way, I certainly admit and agree opinions here are dynamic and we're all more or less cranks. From my perspective, though, another reason IPP goals aren't met is because the "I" in IPP doesn't actually want he or she purports to wanting. I don't only blame the end user for this.

Paul, your wordsmith question is a superb one. To the extent that "to rationalize" means to measure, certainly. One of the things I think we need to be honest about is that choice, inclusion and safety sometimes conflict. Here's an oldie on that topic. I think the next topic here might be a discussion of whether it is beneficial to have a prior, perhaps regulatory, hierarchy of the three.

paul said...

“OK, so I think it is not quite correct to say that the RC imprimatur is the essential qualification since, in theory, the leading participant in the meeting is the end user and there exists an appeal process”
-doug-


I disagree, and I believe that the Lanterman Act and the limited case law supports my position. However, I will freely admit that the prevailing culture with urban legends attached do not support my statement.

To start with an analogy. The “leading” stockholder of Company X does not necessarily own a controlling share (51% or greater) of Company X.

To follow with something that we have already agreed upon – A consumer cannot demand and receive a jaguar when a Honda will suffice.

One of the primary intents of the Regional center is to balance the wants, needs, and desires of the consumer vis-à-vis the entitlment under the law as spelled out in the Lanterman Act. While one consumer may be entitled to 1:1 support another may not, even though each consumer requests, wants, and desires 1:1 support.

A consumer has the legal right to determine where he or she will live. (Welfare and Institution Code Section 4741) This is the case UNLESS it is determined that there is immediate danger to health and well of the consumer in which case the regional center may remove the consumer. This is true regardless of his or her want need or desire to live where they live, and his or her position as the “leading participant in the [ipp]”

As you have stated, an appeal process exists, as well as other avenues, to challenge a Regional Center's decision. However, the courts have stated that since it is the Regional Center’s responsibility to make placement and other decisions the Legislature intended those decision to be effective unless it could be clearly demonstrated to be erroneous. What this means is that the burden of proof rests any consumer that opposes the Regional Centers initial* IPP to establish that the recommendation should not be honored.

Having the consumer shoulder the burden of proof is consistent with the Regional Center having the ultimate power of approval in regards to the IPP.

(Note: the Regional Center usually has the burden should it attempt to CHANGE services previously agreed upon in the IPP)

Doug said...

Paul, it is my understanding that the fair hearing and notification process that no one follows anyway is statutorily initiated not only when the regional center wants to alter an existing service but also when it declines to fund something that the client wanted to put in the IPP. I think regulatory language like "with the client in the leading role" is exactly the kind of vague promise that must have been written to aggrieve all stakeholders.

stanley said...

[paul say] What if the goal that the IPP supports does NOT allow a consumer to move towards a more independent and productive life in the community?...What if the goal that the IPP supports will move the consumer away from a more independent and productive life in the community? Is the SUPPORT TOWARDS [that kind of] goal [an] entitlement promised?

Probably mis-reading or missing the point...but seems we try to make it a GPP...General Purpose Plan...ie;

The goal (support of same) is determined by the IDT...the consumer is a prime IDT member...any goal the IDT agrees to is an entitlement...why the continued question as to what's an entitlement...

A caring, professional IDT must be developed...we have a PIP to develop advocates...and half ass programs to train DCP...a program is needed to develop IDTs.

[paul say] Wordsmith question: Can a question of the non-rhetorical kind ever be a rationalization?

Will leave wordsmithing to the blog intellectuals...hope their discussion will contribute to: “entitled to what”

[doug say] I do agree that imprecise contracts are the devil's ID team

another reason to develop professional, caring IDTs

[paul say] While one consumer may be entitled to 1:1 support another may not, even though each consumer requests, wants, and desires 1:1 support.

Still another reason to develop a professional, caring IDT...determine true needs.

what is it we dont get about IPP entitlements...the original intend of the IPP must be the supported goals and entitlements...the farce the IPP has become cannot be the basis of entitlements...unless;

we want to continue the illusion of a model system others strive to achieve.

stanley seigler

stanley said...

[paul say] One of the primary intents of the Regional center is to balance the wants, needs, and desires of the consumer vis-à-vis the entitlment under the law as spelled out in the Lanterman Act. While one consumer may be entitled to 1:1 support another may not, even though each consumer requests, wants, and desires 1:1 support.

needs are needs...wants/desires are to be balanced...this is the function of the IDT...not RC...once agreed to and placed in the IPP they are entitlements...

sadly the administration (DDS) and the legislature with budget trailer (traitor) bills program cuts...disguised as quality improvement, etc....can eliminate entitlements.

stanley seigler

paul said...

”Needs are needs (nanananana)
Labadab dab dab needs (nanananana)
Neeeeeds (nanananana)

When we all give the power
We all give the best
Every minute of an hour
Don't think about the rest
And you all get the power
You all get the best
When everyone gets everything
And every song everybody sings

And it's needs (nanananana)
Needs are needs (nanananana)
Needs are needs (nanananana)
Labadab dab dab needs (nanananana)”
-Stanely-
Opus


Well – maybe for those of us that see with such clarity (opps am I sucking up…sorry Stanley), but in reality I am not so sure.

How is it that one consumer gets an apartment, capitol impovement, added to a family home so as to live in the “community”, while another is stuck in Happy House, a local ICF, 24/7 with a manual wheelchair while yet another at Happy House gets an electric wheelchair, and a 1:1 M-F to get outta Dodge? Is it because I do not understand or don’t have all the information? This is what I used to believe/presume. However, after the various tête à têtes and shoulder rubs with our advocrates and advodivas throughout the years I have concluded that other forces are in play even if I do not fully understand those other forces.

Is it because needs are not so easily determined? Is it because the guidelines to determine those needs are at best, as Doug states, a “vague promise?” If needs are not so easily determined and the promise is vague then what is the catalyst that creates the entitlements contained in the IPP?

paul said...

Doug,

Thanks for the "Glutton for Punishment" label

I feel that I have taken my first step in our GPA meeting.

stanley said...

[paul say] Is it because I do not understand or don’t have all the information? This is what I used to believe/presume. However, after the various tête à têtes and shoulder rubs with our advocrates and advodivas throughout the years I have concluded that other forces are in play even if I do not fully understand those other forces.

You, as do we all, understand all too well...life is unfair...the rich get richer...po folks get that other end of the stick...

however you talk apples... we talk the basic intent/concept of Lanterman...ie, entitled to what...entitled to what is agreed to by an IDT and written in the IPP...butbutt;

You make still another point for a professional, caring, IDT and perhaps the function of advocate should be added to the IDT...so that all get an apartment, capitol improvement, added to a family home so as to live in the “community”...

BTW I know of a teenager who is still pushed around in a baby stroller...who would love to have a manual wheel chair...and bet there are untold numbers of people with autism in the homeless ranks

...our compassionate conservative society sucks...and sings cheap plates for hummer owners...read their lips...labadab dab dab

stanley seigler

paul said...

This thread has taken a nice turn [relatively speaking], and I should probably enjoy the blessing, fresh air, and smell the rose. However, since I am probably giving the calm much more credence than it deserves, the peace is likely to be short lived anyway, and the thread now has the label, “glutton for punishment” – So….

“This blog...discussions in general...are about the issues not […] rotten character”
-Stanley-



Stanley,

As I think it has been agreed, with you as the only dissenter, everyone is responsible and that “everyone” does not mean “nobody” is responsible. It means EVERYONE is responsible. You might not agree, and your replies certainly reflect that belief, but I agree and I hope that my responses reflect that belief. Therefore, I will respond accordingly.

It is my belief that part of everyone's responsibility is to encourage and support healthy discourse. That includes, amongst other items, discouraging group think with healthy dissent, encouraging the truth, and promoting the ‘why’ of what we present. Dissent for the sheer act of it can be helpful, but in most cases healthy dissent means dissent that is supported by something. Anyone that responds to everyone and everything with shibboleths, rhetorical questions, and statements that seem to label and accuse anyone with a different viewpoint/reality/opinion as ‘part of the problem” is not supporting constructive dialogue, the 'this is my character' tactic notwithstanding.

I do admire your ‘character’ strategy regardless of its not so helpful and somewhat non sequitur quality. You seem to claim that every argument or comment you present is part of your ‘character’ [of Red Skelton’s ilk that “calls em the way I see em”.] Therefore, any issue, or attack upon your comments or argument, by transitive property, becomes an issue or attack upon your character. Et viola – any and every dissent or disagreement with the Blogocider is an ad hominem attack upon his character – SHAME ON US!

Since ‘all are responsible’ is a viable issue, and we are responsible for our exchanges and responses, then anyone’s response or post can be an issue.

So let us start here:
...not sure why pauls continues to point out my admitted flaws...
-stanley-


This comment quite frankly baffles me. Are you saying that if a person ‘admits’ his or her flaws, rotten character, vices…etc. he or she gets a free pass from admission point forward? Are you now beyond reproach for any of your ‘admitted flaws’ [ass-u-ming your admission is genuine]? If I admit that I am an ad hominem flamer does that give me a kinda carte blanche to respond to anything that Andy says with, “what do you know – you are a for profit, rationalizing, compassionate conservative provider that obviously does not care about anything but you bottom line. AND - your mom dresses you funny?”

I disagree when you say 'I am not the issue'. You, me, Doug, Andy, et al. are not the MAIN issue, but we you are an issue as a parent, Doug and Andy as providers, and me as...well nobody.. and yet you, on most occasions, hold me more accountable for our failure to fix our system than yourself.

“...it was his favorite crowd pleasing topic on CAL-DD as well...”

This sounds kinda pathetic, but I will accept the accountability if you can base it on ANYTHING

Offline is probably best, as I would have posted this offline if not for the need to explain to everyone that I will continue to hold ANYONE accountable, when time permits, for responding to posts with little more than rhetorical questions, unexplained and unsubstantiated accusation of rationalization, and implications, without explanation, of ‘being part of the problem.'

If you do not explain yourself then with all due respect and love I will henceforth refer to you as Brer Blogocide, and inform your local RC that you have successfully reached your goal to become, “a famous online flamer" and perhaps, that have joined the ranks of the Blogocider's as an acolytes.

stanley said...

[paul say] so

so what is the issue you address in your post...other than stanley's flaws and your rationalizations for presenting them to the blog...(well guess too cute by 1/3 put downs satisfies an ego)

suggest discussion of stanley's flaws be continued off blog, if at all...or we could just replay your advodiva pleasing CAL-DD posts...

my you do ramble on...

stanley seigler

paul said...

"so what is the issue you address in your post"

My issue is that paul's flaws of rationalization, Stanley's flaws of labeling every at accountability a rationalization for a person attack, flaw's of the IDT team of not functioning as intended, the flaws of a provider for not providing, the flaws of Regional Center of not understanding eligibility standards...etc. are viable issues if they inhibit potential improvement to our sevices system. Again - we are all responsponsible.

behavior that inhibits healthy dialog inhibits potential improvement to the service system.

That is my issue/point

stanley said...

[paul say] My issue is that paul's flaws of rationalization, Stanley's flaws of labeling every at accountability a rationalization for a person attack

as said paul/stanley flaws are personal issues best discussed off blog...why “do” paul insist on discussing them here...

[paul say] behavior that inhibits healthy dialog inhibits potential improvement to the service system.

insistence on discussing personal flaws is NOT healthy! what has it accomplished...again suggest this unhealthy personal flaws discussion be off blog...

[paul say] flaw's of the IDT team of not functioning as intended, the flaws of a provider for not providing, the flaws of Regional Center of not understanding eligibility standards...etc. are viable issues if they inhibit potential improvement to our sevices system. Again - we are all responsponsible.

so lets stick to: the flawed IDT; the provider not providing; and RC not understanding...and how we all we all are resp (so no one is)

would be interesting to know how paul is resp: that one consumer gets an apartment, capitol improvement, added to a family home so as to live in the “community”, while another is stuck in Happy House, a local ICF, 24/7 with a manual wheelchair while yet another at Happy House gets an electric wheelchair, and a 1:1 M-F to get outta Dodge.

perhaps...it would help if (for now) we stuck to the issue of “entitled to what”...the subj of this specific blog...we are all resp (vice DDS) was kinda beat to death (as in a dead horse) in another blog topic...

[paul say] behavior that inhibits healthy dialog inhibits potential improvement to the service system

soo, let stop discussing personal flaws...I know it difficult for you to resist discussing stanley flaws...but try, it’s healthy for you...and;

if you insist on beating a dead horse or a mean lil kid...you can always go back and read your CAL-DD posts.

stanley seigler

ps. [paul say] Offline is probably best [agree!!!], as I would have posted this offline if not for the need to explain to everyone...[and] If you do not explain yourself then with all due respect and love I will henceforth refer to you as Brer Blogocide

why the need...ego maybe...and sticks and stones...but too cute by 1/5 put downs have little effect and hard to see how they contribute to a healthy discussion...another need maybe.

paul said...

"Entitled to what?"

358: Social Engineering

Governments are always looking for ways to change behavior—stopping people from driving drunk, or encouraging them to recycle. This week, we have stories of social engineering on a smaller scale.

Act Three. Educated Guess.

When Amy Silverman's daughter was born with Down syndrome, she followed the advice of all the parents she met: she signed her daughter up for "early intervention" therapy. But her daughter's progress had unexpected consequences, forcing Amy to make a choice she'd never predicted. (9 minutes)

[cut and paste - add ".mp3" to end of file if missing]
http://www.geocities.com/pes37262/sounds/Educated.mp3

Song: "I'm Gonna Change The World," The Animals

Full Credit to "This American Life" WBEZ Chicago. See link

stanley said...

[paul say] "Entitled to what?" Social Engineering

talk about no easy answers...impossible parent decisions that must be made...the result of a flawed system with arbitrary requirements that define a person for life...

another strong argument for a caring, professional, IDT with an added advocacy function...

in this ref piece, the indiviual, parent, principal, therapist, etal, could have been the IDT vice bureaucrats interpreting arbitrary, meaningless requirements...

brings to mind the requirement changes recommended by ARCA, passed by the legislature with little opposition from advocates.

stanley seigler

paul said...

"...the result of a falawed system with arbitrary requirements that define a person for life..."
-Stanley Seigler


Stanley,

I am curious. What particulars gave you the impression that the system in this case is flawed.?

What requirements did you see as arbitrary, and why?

What is it that you would change, and how would your changes alter the situation for Amy and her daughter (make the situation less arbitrary, less flawed, or less ?)?

If my memory is correct the system in this case allowed the parent to choose, and the record was edited accordingly. Is that a flaw?

stanley said...

[paul say] If my memory is correct the system in this case allowed the parent to choose, and the record was edited accordingly. Is that a flaw?

gawd no wonder the system is flawed if those like paul dont see the flaw...the arbitrary IQ 70 (why not 80) is the flaw...those involved saw this and could/would do nothing about it...

ditto for the CA and fed definition of disability...an IDT identity should define disability/needs...NOT bureaucrats.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“gawd no wonder the system is flawed if those like paul dont see the flaw”
-Stanley Seigler-


Why does this somehow feels like the ‘smarter than you look’ complement/insult?….doh.

“the arbitrary IQ 70 (why not 80) is the flaw”
-Stanely Seigler-


why not? How about 80? Why not 90….140?

What number would Stanley Seigler choose to eliminate the ‘flaw’ of arbitrariness?

stanley said...

[paul say] why not? How about 80? Why not 90....140? What number would Stanley Seigler choose to eliminate the ‘flaw’ of arbitrariness

there is no number...there shouldn’t be a number or any in stone criteria...only guidelines interpreted by an IDT who determine needs and provide a dynamic IPP...there are some w/ autism who have a 140 IQ who will need some support their entire life...as mentioned the principal, all involved, knew (sensed) the ridiculousness of the 70 number...as do we all in our saner moments.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“…there is no number...there shouldn’t be a number or any in stone criteria...only guidelines interpreted by an IDT”
-Stanley Seigler-


I cannot disagree, but how it that you see the IQ score as "in stone criteria" in Sophie’s story?

Sophie’s was diagnosed as retarded even though her IQ score was 83!

How do you see this as a "flaw" when somehing other than her IQ was apparently used to determine her diagnosis?

stanley said...

[paul say] How do you see this as a "flaw" when something other than her IQ was apparently used to determine her diagnosis

how do i: poor eyesight...poor hearing in this case...and poor eye/ear/brain coordination...thought it was 70 then went to 83 as a result of early intervention; so no longer retarded...anyhow regardless of my eyesight;

Point: there should NOT be a non negotiable IQ or whatever criteria...a compassionate, professional IDT with well thought out guidelines is the least flawed concept/approach.

Lanterman concepts and intent are beautiful...so sad we mucked it up...its concept and intend is a model for which other states should strive...and would hopefully be more successful in implementation.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“ behavior that inhibits healthy dialog inhibits potential improvement to the service system.” [paul], and is therefore not healthy.

“insistence on discussing personal flaws is NOT healthy!”
[Stanley Seigler]


Stanley,

What I seem to call a ‘behavior’ you call a ‘personal flaw’/’character flaw that is beyond reproach.

Do you believe that any and all behavior can be equated to someone’s ‘character’ and therefore is off limits for discussion? If not – is there ANY behavior of the online interlocutor that you believe can be reproached? Is spin a character flaw that is beyond reproach? Lying?

“would be interesting to know how paul is resp:”
-Stanley Seigler-


I think that it is safe to assume that this is a rhetorical question? After all, if Stanley Seigler is NOT an issue, but paul’s IS an issue that would be hypocritical to say the least, and I will assume that you are not a hypocrit.

However, Since Doug has given us permission to go off topic I would like to treat it as a literal question. Stanley, it would be helpful if you could somehow separate your rhetorical comments/questions from your literal ones. Would it be easier for everyone to assume that everything is rhetorical unless you indicate otherwise?

“would be interesting to know how paul is resp:”
-Stanley-


Who is paul?

I did work for 7 years in an ICF, pilot SLS, Group homes, and day programs, and about 2 years as a legislative policy consultant for a stakeholder organization. All work done in the last 2 years was done without compensation.

Currently:
I do not have a family member that is a consumer in California, or any other state.

I do not work as, or for, a provider, Regional Center, DDS or any related stakeholder organization, group, junta, or cabal.

In short – I do not make ANY revenue/living (or much satisfaction if I add a personal perspective) from the system that services people with developmental disabilities.

YET – I DO think that I have a responsibility.

I have a general responsibility to assure that my government is being responsible, caring out public policy, and spending public resources wisely, equitably, and according to public policy, AND, maybe most importantly..

When discussing the above I have a general responsibility to discuss the issues in a civilized, cordial and respectful manner.

That means: being reciprocal, supporting my comments or accusations with something and if I cannot support my comments or accusations then I should consider abstaining from comment, and spending a reasonable amount of time assuring that my comments and accusations are factual…etc.

I believe I have a specific responsibility when certain issue fall within my line of sight and/or hearing.

E.g.
If I see a person with a disability being physically abuse I have a responsibility to report that incident even though I AM NOT a mandated reporter.

If the fact that a regional center has improperly implemented public policy makes its way across my desk I probably have a limited obligation to respond if I have the knowledge and the ability to do so.

If I discover, from a friend, that a provider is embezzling money from the taxpayer, I may have a responsibility to alert the authorities.

I do not think I have a responsibility to expend personal resources to hold the system accountable, although I have.

What is your ‘two-cents’ about my responsibility?
Can I comment on your two-cents or is your ‘two-cents’ implicitly part of your character, and beyond comment?

What is Stanley Seigler’s responsibility?
If you have any how does it compare to the paul archetype (taxpayer with limited/past experience but no affiliation today)

stanley said...

[paul say] whatever

i agree

bet other bloggers agree nuff bout paul and stanley...see you off blog.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“nuff bout paul and stanley”
-Stanley Seigler-


I am sorry Stanley, I did a poor job of communicating my point. Moving too fast.. I do not even recall saying the word, “Whatever”!;>)

It was NOT my intention to focus on paul, Stanley, or any other individual for that matter, but rather the ‘archetypes’

One archetype is the person that has some past experience in the field, but no affiliation or association today. Another archetype might be someone that has no association whatsoever beyond that he or she is Joe or Jane taxpayer. How might Stanley describe the parent – conservator of a consumer / board member archetype? If an attempt at a description gives you the vapors then we can skip it…

What responsibilities does the person that has some past experience in the field, but no association today, have towards people with disabilities, and the system that serves consumers?

Perhaps an anecdote will help illuminate my thoughts (not spot on):

Person A, an attorney, gets a call from Parent about a lousy day program that her Son (a consumer) has been forced to endured for years.

After about a 30 minutes discussion Parent asked Attorney what can be done. Attorney describes the possible courses of action. All courses of action involve both Parent and/or Son. However, Parent does NOT want to be involved, and Son does NOT want to get involved. Attorney explains that she has NO authority to do anything about the lousy program, and that Parent and Son are the only people that have the authority to act.

Parent, not convinced, begins to scream at Attorney for not caring about the obvious dangers to her Son, and other consumers in his shoes. Parent informs Attorney that the provider should be closed down, and states that Attorney refuses to help because she does not care.

Is the Attorney shirking her responsibility? I would say not, because A has NO authority to act. Is Parent outta line? I think so.

Stanley,
How would you respond in regards to the Attorney’s responsibilities? What and Why?

“would be interesting to know how paul is resp: that one consumer gets an apartment, capitol improvement, added to a family home so as to live in the “community”, while another is stuck in Happy House, a local ICF, 24/7 with a manual wheelchair while yet another at Happy House gets an electric wheelchair, and a 1:1 M-F to get outta Dodge.
-Stanley Seigler-


I would respond to this question in the same manner. Paul has no authority to act and therefore has no responsibility. If this question was not literal but rhetorical then it can only mean that you imply that I have a responsibility in this scenario. I would love to hear what you think that it is?

So – in a nut shell I guess I agree with Doug. Responsibility exists when there is the authority and the ability to act. Of course that does mean that responsibility can not exist outside of this formula.

I would imagine then that Joe and Jane taxpayer have little responsbility since they have not authority beyond petitioning the government [perhaps to change regulations or statute], or publicizing the inequities of our system. I would not recommend the latter [publicizing]. Publicity of our inequities might lead to something like Purchase of Services Standards. If that happens then Joe or Jane taxpayer might feel the wrath of those more responsible. From my experience publicizing ANY inequities that have not been given the green light by the blue bloods brings the wrath of the blue bloods and their acolytes.

Does the Director of DDS have the authority to close a lousy provider, or remove a consumer without his or her consent?

Does a Regional Center have the athority to close a provider, or remove a consumer without his or her consent?

Does a Consumer, or his or her Conservator or parent, have the authority to close a lousy provider, remove him or herself from a lousy provider, or protest the decisions/conclusions of a regional center?

Does the archetype that is paul have the authority to close a lousy provider, or remove a consumer without his or her consent, or protest the decisions of a Regional Center?

Stanley,

I am sorry that I am directing these questions at you. I do so because I have read and understand both Doug’s position and Andy’s position in regards to responsibility. I have no questions, misunderstandings that I am aware, or issues with either of their positions or opines.

I do understand that I may have treated some of your rhetorical questions literally (a character flaw of mine). In my opininon it is more respectful to presume that your questions are literal and serious rather than rhetorical or sonorous. I also understand that answering my quesitons in any depth may be too much work and/or responsibility. ;>)

Anonymous said...

I think Stanley and Paul should have a more private email discussion. This blog is getting bogged.

stanley said...

[anon say] Stanley and Paul should have a more private email discussion

agree

tried to tell you paul...you wouldnt listen.

stanley seigler