Friday, January 29, 2010

Who will reward the far-seeing?

OK, so this post was either not prescient or very prescient. I doubt we're done with cutting.

So, here's a topic for discussion. Immanuel Kant distinguished between phenomena, things that are observed, and noumena, things as they are in themselves. One thing I believe strongly about our system (and most others) is that the phenomena we describe when we talk about support to people with developmental disabilities, are almost entirely process. That makes sense, considering that support is initially a verb. But process is hard to defend and, really, if all we do is do, and nobody gets anything of value in itself, then it may be right that we have trouble defending. My question, regarding what our system produces, is what do you all think the noumenon is? What is the thing in itself that people with disabilities receive from all the work that goes on.

Just to handicap the discussion, "dignity," "sovereignty," "choice" or "safety" sound too abstract to me. Is there something people get from being supported that they would know they lacked if the system went away? What are those things?

So how is everybody?

44 comments:

stanley said...

[doug say] What is the thing in itself that people with disabilities receive from all the work that goes on.

The DD thing itself is not acceptable...it’s mostly all talk and little walk...ironically,

the work (talk/facades) expended/built to provide the unacceptable noumena...is adequate to provide the quality care we talk about (the Lanterman dream)...eg;

cheats and crooks could do almost as well for the same energy expended in a honest profession...

so what is the missing factor...or what are the factors that add nothing to an acceptable noumena...indeed prevent the Lanterman dream from becoming a reality...

perhaps cottages industries: consultants, lobbyists, who game the system for personal gain...ditto providers...and of course good people who will not call them on their games.

if we will not, kant not, call the gamesters on their crap...if we will not, kant not, hold those (eg, DDS) authorized by law to take all actions necessary accountable...if we continue to believe all are as responsible as DDS...THEN:

perhaps the far seeing should look to Nietzsche, not Kant, for advice and practice the "beyond good and evil" compassion of his superman...or perhaps take Swift's “Modest Proposal” satire verbatim...over the centuries, his satire has done little to shame society into caring.

stop kidding those with special needs...and ourselves that society really cares...

stanley seigler

Doug said...

OK, but what is it we want?

Doug said...

And nice puns.

paul said...

“Is there something people get from being supported that they would know they lacked if the system went away? What are those things?”
Doug

The substituted judgment of the system and its advocates, and low expectations

“if we continue to believe all are as responsible as DDS..”
Stanley

I disagree that we are “all are responsible as DDS”. This is the first time I have heard such a statement.

We are of course ALL responsible in our own way as defined by Lanterman and established, and agreed upon, relationships, duties, and responsibilities.

Lanterman, and a contract with the state along with applicable law, defines the duties and responsibilities of the Regional Center.

Lanterman, and service contracts with Regional Centers, define the duties and responsibilities of our providers.

Lanterman describes the responsibilities of the consumer.

Arrangements between Regional Centers/Providers and their board of manager’s define the duties and responsibilities of those managers.

A consumer is not responsible AS a provider, and a provider is not responsible AS a regional Center, a Regional Center is not responsible AS DDS.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that, we are “all are as responsible as DDS”

stanley said...

[paul say] Therefore, it is incorrect to say that, we are “all are as responsible as DDS”

for sure, for sure, echoing the valley girls...too bad many want to excuse the inaction of DDS saying we all are responsible...DDS, to repeat ad nauseam, is required by law to take ALL necessary actions to support regional centers to successfully achieve compliance with this section and provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families.

[stanley say] if we continue to believe all are as responsible as DDS...THEN: [status quo is accepted]

the operative “believe” was overlooked...it is most incorrect to say “all are as responsible DDS”...ALL can call DDS on its failure to take action...but as mentioned all too many excuse vice calling DDS on not taking necessary action.

stanley seigler

paul said...

"the operative 'believe' was overlooked..."
Stanley

Sorry - I will rephrase

I have NEVER heard anyone state, (at the very least on this list) that he or she "believes" that we "all are as responsible as DDS..."

stanley said...

[paul say] I disagree that we are “all are responsible as DDS”. This is the first time I have heard such a statement...We are of course ALL responsible in our own way as defined by Lanterman and established, and agreed upon, relationships, duties, and responsibilities...I have NEVER heard anyone state, (at the very least on this list) that he or she "believes" that we "all are as responsible as DDS..."

certainly, as mentioned, agree ALL NOT AS RESPONSIBLE AS DDS...also agree all responsible in own way...guess I was wrong in my belief many believed all as responsible as DDS...or, at least, excused DDS for not taking “ALL NECESSARY ACTION”...the excuse: all are responsible...then DDS and no one is responsible for unacceptable status quo...

not sure the importance of whether/not noman anywhere said “all are responsible as DDS”...the point is DDS was/is excused for NOT taking all necessary action..."worser yet still", DDS leadership praised for, at best, maintaining statue quo.

THEN TO REPEAT:

if we will not, kant not, hold those (eg, DDS) authorized by law to take all actions necessary accountable... THEN:

perhaps the far seeing should look to Nietzsche, not Kant, for advice and practice the "beyond good and evil" compassion of his superman...or perhaps take Swift's “Modest Proposal” satire verbatim...over the centuries, his [swift’s] satire has done little to shame society into caring.

NOTE: “if we continue to believe all are as responsible as DDS...” removed from my opine/conclusion...apologize for causing unnecessary discussion re semantics (poor communications)...will try to improve.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“…to repeat ad nauseam, is required by law to take ALL necessary actions to support regional centers…”
Stanley

Stanley,

What is it the DDS should being doing “to support”
regional centers, that it is not doing "to support"
regional centers, and that you believe that it ought to be doing "to support" regional centers?

If you feel so strongly perhaps you should speak with an attorney?

Perhaps you could take action as an individual citizen and get a court order that will force the Department to do what it is you think it ought to do “to support” regional centers and it is currently not doing, as required by Lanterman.

stanley said...

[paul say] What is it the DDS should be doing “to support” regional centers, that it is not doing "to support" regional centers, and that you [stanley] believe that it ought to be doing "to support" regional centers?...Perhaps you could take action as an individual citizen and get a court order that will force the Department to do what it is you think it ought to do “to support” regional centers and it is currently not doing, as required by Lanterman.

Perhaps I could...and if I had the funds and time would...while perhapsing...perhaps intelligent advocates (IAs) could cease excusing DDS for not taking ALL NECESSARY ACTION.

What is it I think...well as a start DDS could (as pointed out in CPF v DDS): provide additional funds to each Regional Center to assist the Regional Center in arranging for a case worker to attend Individual Program Plan (IPP) meetings of persons residing in Developmental Centers (DC s)...and tho not in suit...insuring:

community IDTs and IPPs are implemented as intended by Lanterman...further, DDS could submit budgets based on needs vice historical bureaucratic cost...but guess they are waiting for Stanley’s suit.

Sadly the CPF suit applies to DCs...DDS could take all action to assure the suit settlement for DCs applies as appropriate for the community...but sadly suppose they are waiting for Stanley to file suit...and;

It wouldnt hurt if DDS implemented 2001, Draft Service Delivery Reform (SDR) recommendations...2001???...its 2010 an no action.

IT IS not what stanley should do...it’s what intelligent advocates (IA)...stakeholders...should do...why do IAs think its what stanley should do...

Oh my sigh, stanley has to take all action necessary, not DDS, NOT IAs...so much on a not too bright, old man’s plate...thought assuring my daughter had 24/7, 1:1, support might be enough...

If not, thenthen as said guess

if we (IAs, stakeholders) will not, kant not, call the gamesters on their crap...if we will not, kant not, hold those (eg, DDS) authorized by law to take all actions necessary accountable...THEN:

perhaps the far seeing should look to Nietzsche, not Kant, for advice and practice the "beyond good and evil" compassion of his superman...or perhaps take Swift's “Modest Proposal” satire verbatim...over the centuries, his satire has done little to shame society into caring.

stop kidding those with special needs...and ourselves that society really cares...

stanley seigler

For info on CPF v DDS goto: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDRIGHTS/message/4702

paul said...

Well said Stanley

"IT IS not what stanley should do...it’s what intelligent advocates(IA)...stakeholders...should do...why do IAs think its what stanley should do..."
Stanley

Stanley,

I will correct myself:

"If you feel so strongly perhaps you may wish to speak with an attorney?"

I understand a "stakeholder" to be a person or group that has an investment or interest in something. Is this correct?

What qualifies, or defines, a person or group as an "intelligent advocate"?

is there some conscripting force that decides which person or group is an IA, or is it a personal choice?

If a person is NOT a stakeholder or IA is there then no obligations - "to do" anything?

stanley said...

[paul say] is there some conscripting force that decides which person or group is an IA, or is it a personal choice?

the conscripting force:to be a member of a compassionate society...or as said:

“look to Nietzsche [for justification] advice and practice the ‘beyond good and evil’ compassion of his superman... stop kidding those with special needs...and ourselves that society really cares”…cease practicing hypocritical compassion.

a personal choice…

stanley seigler

paul said...

the conscripting force:to be a member of a compassionate society...or…”

“a personal choice…”
Stanley

Ah – OK.

You stated above that, “IT IS not what stanley should do...it’s what intelligent advocates (IA)…[…]...should do...” and, “why do IAs think its what stanley should do...”

Wont/can't disagree – but to be sure that I understand that which I cannot disagree

While English is officially my second language this seems to indicate that you do not consider yourself an IA. Why not?

Is it because you do not consider yourself intelligent? [I would have to disagree]
If so – is a person off the hook by designating himself or herself too obtuse?

Are you not an IA because you have not been conscripted by “a compassionate society”, have been conscripted yet refuse to serve, or simple have not made, as you state, the “personal choice…”?

paul said...

Further off topic…

Stanley,

4434(b) was added to Lanterman via s.b. 1039 back in 1997. An April 1998 State Audit (Report 97024) indicated that the department was in full compliance with this section of Lanterman.

I would have no trouble believing that the department is NOT in compliance today. However, do you disagree that DDS was in compliance with 4434(b) at this particular time [April 1998]?

According to the Department, back in 1998 its “proactive monitoring efforts [authorized by 4434(b)] will be expanded if the Governor’s existing FY 1998-99 budget proposal for additional staffing to implement SB 1039 is approved.”

Was additional funding approved?
Does it matter?
Should we expect the Department to comply with 4434(b) regardless of funding?
Can we expect the same of Regional Centers and providers?

SB 1039 was one of several bills.

SB 391 required the department to monitor the regional centers actions to correct violations of client’s legal, civil, or service rights.

SB 391 was the genesis of the “life quality assessments” that I am sure that you remember. SB391 certainly found some of genesis in placating the concerns of those fearful of transitioning into the community. Regardless, on its face it that the regional centers cannot be trusted to “correct violations of client’s legal, civil, or service rights.”

While SB 1039 gave us your beloved 4434(b), which on its face indicates that regional centers cannot be trusted to “comply with federal and state laws and provide high quality services to their clients”, it also gave us 4434(d)

4434(d) requires the department to ensure that clients receive the services identified in their program plan.

Other provisions expressly micro-manage the make-up of RC boards because of the failure of the regional centers to manage the boards independently.

For several years several regional centers knowingly used invalid regulations to deny consumers services. I suppose SB 1039 should have also added a provision that required the department to review every denial of services? Probably.

If the most recent audit indicates that Regional Centers “base the needs and program plans of consumers on the socio-economic status of the consumer, or his or representative” should we pass a law that requires a “hall monitor” from DDS at each regional center?

If the most recent audit indicates that regional centers employ intimidation tactics should we pass a law the mandates that the department provide a BOUNCER, at each regional Center? Perhaps.

The past 12 years of legislation has all but announced the failure of the 21 private non-profits called “regional centers”. Yet – at that time, as today, few even suggests that our regional centers are anything less than stellar. I do not think that I have even heard the slightest of criticism of a Regional Center in ANY CDCAN report or telemeeting (note: I read such things much less these days and will be more than happy to be corrected).

While I cannot disagree with Stanley’s angst re: 4434(b) I strongly disagree its use as a mantra. Such a mantra maintains the status quo by keeping the sycophant’s focus away from our weakest link – The Regional Centers, and upon the ever growing PARENT.

When the department has 21 middle aged children still living @ home there is little money can do…

Doug said...

Please continue as you are, gents. I just wanted to hold up this sentence: "When the department has 21 middle aged children still living @ home there is little money can do…" for acclaim.

stanley said...

[paul say] Wont/can't disagree – but to be sure that I understand that which I cannot disagree

this is developing into a paul/stanley boring to most discussion...but to try to explain my position as simply as possible...without boring the hell out anyone who reads this blog...

Apologize for introducing IA and other terms...back to basics:

Law says DDS shall take all necessary action...either we believe they have or they have not...I believe they have not...as does CPF...see CPF suit.

Further believe many excuse the fact they have not by saying all are responsible or DDS doesn’t have the authority/funds...

Quickly if funds the reason DDS should advise the legs...not go along with historic bureaucratic budget inflicted on them by the gov who pays their salary...

think fact gov appoints director pays their salary is why they don’t...probably not.

What more authority can they ask for than legislation that states: take all necessary action...

The excusers, ignore 1998 SFChron and HFCA reports and 2006 Broken Homes articles...ask those in the community Broken Homes and in DCs where they are stomped to death if DDS has taken all necessary action...

actions/results speak volumes...not several bills...cya bureaucratic laws...used by excusers as justification for the status quo...used by DDS to avoid taking all action...

To repeat (the point):
if we (society) will not, kant not, call the gamesters on their crap...if we will not, kant not, hold those (eg, DDS) authorized by law to take all actions necessary accountable...THEN:

perhaps the far seeing should look to Nietzsche, not Kant, [for justification and] for advice and practice the "beyond good and evil" compassion of his superman...or perhaps take Swift's “Modest Proposal” satire verbatim [an actual plan]...over the centuries, his satire has done little to shame society into caring.

stop kidding those with special needs...and ourselves that society really cares...

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Stanley I'm all for eating the Irish, children and bloggers. Come to think of it, I'm kind of hungry right now.

stanley said...

[doug say] Please continue as you are, gents. I just wanted to hold up this sentence: "When the department has 21 middle aged children still living @ home there is little money can do..." for acclaim.

[paul say] I strongly disagree its [4434(b] use as a mantra. Such a mantra maintains the status quo by keeping the sycophant’s focus away from our weakest link – The Regional Centers, and upon the ever growing PARENT

tho cutting funds will not improve the situation, believe most agree money not the total answer...leadership is required...DDS is authorized by law to provide the leadership.

what mantra is suggested...the ever growing parent should be held accountable for the middle aged child...the parent should not be excused/praised due to improper actions of the child...

stanley seigler

stanley said...

[doug say] I'm all for eating the Irish, children and bloggers. Come to think of it, I'm kind of hungry right now.

your reward for being far seeing...and for those who stop kidding themselve they (society) really cares...the superman (overman)...

in a brave new world the excusers will be looked back on as “a laughingstock or painful embarrassment” by the overman...

perhaps a mantra: "ovens for all with less than 120 IQ and not in perfect health".

Oh! were you just talking about the irish...

stanley seigler

Anonymous said...

Stanley: do you really believe that DDS has the power, authority, autonomy, and funding to do everything you think it should do? How would you propose DDS deal with the countervailing needs and preferences of all the players involved in the service delivery system? How do assumptions about accountability and lack of fulfilling 'the Lanterman dream' square with the fiscal, social, cultural, legislative, and practical realities? Do you truly believe that there isn't one iota of good provided through the efforts of regional center and/or provider staff? Are all services and supports genuinely of such poor quality as you would seemingly suggest? Do you believe that all people share your definition of what is the Lanterman Dream? If I take your comments seriously, I would feel compelled to advocate for cessation of all funding for the developmental disability service delivery system. I would find it necessary to conclude that all RC, DDS, and provider staff are cheats and crooks and that noone is accountable or monitoring or compassionate. I admit to not understanding all the quotes and references to dead white male philosophers but am wondering which of them would suggest you are posing straw man arguments?

stanley said...

[anon say] Stanley: do you really believe that DDS has the power, authority, autonomy, and funding to do everything you think it should do?

EVERYTHING? Would settle for 10% ...or some evidence of leadership vice bureaucratic golong , or eg, 10% implementation 2001 SDR...or working with one RC to implement Lanterman as intended...implement a compassionate, professional IDT team and meaningful IPP with meaningful follow up.

[anon say] How would you propose DDS deal with the countervailing needs and preferences of all the players involved in the service delivery system?

A start would be to submit budget based on needs...

[anon say] How do assumptions about accountability and lack of fulfilling 'the Lanterman dream' square with the fiscal, social, cultural, legislative, and practical realities?

Broken homes, recommendations gathering dust are excuser realities...realities I guess...acceptable NO, NO ,NO.

[anon say] Do you truly believe that there isn't one iota of good provided through the efforts of regional center and/or provider staff? Are all services and supports genuinely of such poor quality as you would seemingly suggest?

Not suggested ...the suggestion is there are miles to go...and we will never get there as long as anons/excusers ask do you really believe that DDS has the power vice holding DDS responsible for NOT taking all necessary action...ie, excusing them.

[anon say] Do you believe that all people share your definition of what is the Lanterman Dream?

Evidently they/you do not...but hope springs

[anon say] If I take your comments seriously, I would feel compelled to advocate for cessation of all funding for the developmental disability service delivery system. I would find it necessary to conclude that all RC, DDS, and provider staff are cheats and crooks and that no one is accountable or monitoring or compassionate.

And you would be so so so wrong...you should feel compelled to call DDS on their lack of taking all necessary action.

[anon say] I admit to not understanding all the quotes and references to dead white male philosophers but am wondering which of them would suggest you are posing straw man arguments?

None because there is no straw man...only the excusers who in a brave new world will be looked back on as “a laughingstock or painful embarrassment” by the overman...

But hope springs an overman society will not evolve...excusers will take a clue from following:

There are those [excusers] who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not? Robert Kennedy

stanley seigler

Anonymous said...

Stanley: You're arguments do not reflect how budgets and statute are actually developed. DDS does not submit a budget in isolation. The budget reflects what the Administration feels it can support, taking into consideration EVERYTHING else that needs to be taken into consideration. Such as education, prison funding, transporation, IHSS, etc. Budgets are not the Sears Wish Book. Most of the state general fund is non discretionary because of action taken by voters to protect various budgets, such as education, or action taken by voters to support certain social policy, such as 3 strikes. Government is a balancing act and the real responsibility for government are the people. The people who vote and the people who don't vote. The people and corporate people who contribute to campaigns. The people who vote for term limits. Government cannot make your dreams come true. I find it particularly ironic that in your litany of arguments that the system is broken your fundamental argument is more funding for the broken system. If the system is truly as broken as you believe, no amount of funding would fix it. If the system is truly as broken as you believe, we would be building insitutions, not dismantling them. If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl. It is easy game to blame the system. The 'system' is amorphous by definition. It is much harder to take responsibility and accountability for our personal role. It is also much harder to acknowledge the constraints within with regional centers, legislators, governors, directors, etc, must take 'all necessary action'. I do not excuse contemptible actions. I will continue to work to move our system foward to better realize the civil rights of all people. But to do so withoutacknowledging the reality of how our service system functions...just doesn't make sense to me.

Doug said...

Right, Stanley, IQ and marbling are positively correlated. I generally only advocating eating mathematicians and Irish tenors.

Anonymous, that was well articulated. I hope you get the answer.

Stanley, what's an excuser? Is your argument that those people who say not everything is possible are responsible for whatever's not done?

Anonymous, I think in between there is a lot of room. A lot of things that have been worked on at DDS like some miniscule level of valid outcomes monitoring and SDS have been sitting on shelves, even though they are responsive to clients, person centered and efficient. I'd agree that Stanley expects too much of the least useful things, but the system isn't falling apart from high expectations.

Any of the important and productive reforms I would choose, DDS would have to run past provider groups including CDSA, ARC and maybe even whatever PAI is calling itself now. But I do agree with Stanley that we all need to own up to our failures whether or not we have been challenged.

Doug said...

Oh, and anonymous, I particularly agree that it makes no sense to ask for funding for a broken system. The most maddening advocates to me are the ones that want to fix the system after funding has been made sufficient. I hear that as a clarion call for continued decay.

stanley said...

[doug say] what's an excuser? Is your argument that those people who say not everything is possible are responsible for whatever's not done?

"that those people..." not xzactly...mo like, those who fail to ask hard questions...who praise (suck up) to DDS leadership for at best maintaining the decaying status quo...eg, there has been little or no improvements from 1998 til present...see SFChron and HCFA 1998 report and 2006 Broken Homes articles...only change is the dates...yet, DDS director during that period was promoted by gov and praised by advocates.

mo like those people who believe DDS does not have the authority, funding, etc to take all necessary action...those who accept Broken Homes as taking all necessary action.

"everything"?...would settle for, as a start, the implementation of 10% of 2001 SDR recommendations and maybe a budget based on needs.



[doug say]The most maddening advocates to me are the ones that want to fix the system after funding has been made sufficient. I hear that as a clarion call for decay.

are you talking about the excusers, those who believe DDS has the neither the authority nor funds to take all necessary action...

absolutely, money is not the answer...if effective, accountable, leadership not provided...even WHEN (if ever) sufficient funding is provided, it only means a more expensive Broken Homes and decay...



what makes a good DD agency: leadership. what makes a good RC: leadership. what make a good DDS: leadership.

OTOH cutting funds provides fodder for those who use funding to excuse DDS...those who want to fix system post sufficient funds...exacerbates decay.

for my daughter (kath) the system is partially fixed pre sufficient funds...for other some progress made, too many miles to go.

WHEN sufficient funding provided my daughter’s staff (friends) can be paid sufficient wages...now they work two jobs or are two, three income families...

funding cuts(IHSS and RC) hurts their financial condition...agency cut mileage allowance...cost of living or merit raises non existent...but;

to antidotally prove your point (money aint everything), daughter’s dear friends have been with her 8-10 years and will stay with her regardless of pay cuts or lack of raises...took leadership to bring this group together.

funding will never be sufficient to pay them what they are worth...but a living wage would be nice...fair...i hear a clarion call for justice: sufficient funds! sufficient funds! sufficient funds!

[doug say]...expects too much of the least useful things, but the system isn't falling apart from high expectations.

help, what are the least useful things...

[doug say] IQ and marbling are positively correlated. I generally only advocating eating mathematicians and Irish tenors.

positively correlated confirmation: a bright friend (IQ 120 plus) and i were the subject of a study at emory to confirm...he won all my marbles...the study ended on a st pat day and we had an irish tenor over for dinner...oh/and;

remember the line in silence of the lambs: "I'm having a friend over for dinner" (something like that)

stanley seigler

stanley said...

anon echos pauls opines thus the use of [anon/paul say]in the following...

[anon/paul say]You're arguments do not reflect how budgets and statute are actually developed. DDS does not submit a budget in isolation. The budget reflects what the Administration feels it can support, taking into consideration EVERYTHING else that needs to be taken into consideration. Such as

Such as EVERYTHING else...except the actual needs of the disabled.

To repeat: There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I [rfk]dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

And excusers don’t even ask why...eg, why doesnt DDS submit budgets based on needs...as intended by Lanterman...

SCDD pointed out: "Regional center budgets are not built upon the collective needs of their consumers, but on a 1970*s funding methodology based on historical expenditures and caseload growth"...

1970 methodology...this is NOT taking into 2010 consideration EVERYTHING.

[anon/paul say]Government cannot make your dreams come true.

try to stay on point...never thought it could/would and Not asking it to...

POINT: only asking why/why not hold DDS accountable to take ALL necessary actions to support regional centers to successfully achieve compliance with Lanterman and provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families.

[anon/paul say]I find it particularly ironic that in your litany of arguments that the system is broken your fundamental argument is more funding for the broken system.

you are changing the argument/issue (try to stay on point)...the issue is the refusal of stakeholders to call DDS on their lack of action...NOT FUNDING...

[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, no amount of funding would fix it.

to clarify once and hopefully for all time: i do not believe funding is the fundamental cause of the broken system/homes...tho i do believe funding cuts exacerbate vice improving...it's hard but try to stay on point.

[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, we would be building institutions, not dismantling them.

not sure the/your definition of truly broken...snake pits as once known no longer exist...so there is progress...in this context (comparison to snake pits): I do not believe the system is truly broken.

In the context of broken homes existed in 1998 and still exist today: the system is truly broken...

this does not mean NO progress...only that it's so slow as to be almost imperceptible...so many die waiting for the change...lead lives of abuse and neglect waiting for DDS to take all necessary action.

there are positive, welcome, appreciated, spikes...eg, the closing of agnews and the community arrangements made for its former residents...butbutt

if the system was not broken there would have been no need for special funding to provide community placements...they could have just moved into the community.

[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl.

Are you deef...don’t you hear the howling: 2001 SDR, the lil hoover commission, the SCDD Plan, the Blue Ribbon Commission, etc...sadly all gathering dust waiting for the DDS to take all necessary action.

To be continued...maybe a part II, [anon/paul say] It is easy game to blame the system...just doesn't make sense to me.

say what...doesnt make sense to hold our leaders accountable.

Who are the far-seeing?

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Stanley, I think I was in a study like that at Emory, although there were no doctors.

If I can, I think Anonymous' point might be better explained this way:

Before we see what DDS wants in terms of funding and authority, their own wishes are truncated by the priorities of the administration and state revenues. After we see the DDS budget, there are negotiations in which DDS may or may not even be a party. We should be careful not to assume that the funding and authority that come to DDS reflect the desires of the director and other employees of the department. This has the ring of truth. It would be unusual for a government body (or regional center, vendor, parent, client) to not want more funding and more authority than are provided regardless of that level of funding and authority.

My own reaction to what you have said is as follows: The model in which all of us but one share the responsibility of holding the last to account for the performance of the collective strikes me as much too easy and unreliable except for the person for whom it is impossible and all too predictable.

I know you think DDS has more legal authority than it claims and more moral responsibility for the state of things than it claims. For now I won't dispute your view of the law. But I will say that if you are right, that would be the first thing I'd change. An individualized social service system must be doomed (and should be eliminated) if one agent can be blamed for the failure of the others.

(I don't know if there's a dead white male philosopher to quote in support, but lets attribute this to Wittgenstein because I always liked his name.)

paul said...

I think the more interesting, and surely more important, question is whether or not the system is simply broken. It need not be as broken as Stanley believes it to be broken. However, I think few agree about the degree of interest and importance I place upon my question. [present comp...well...Doug excluded]

Regional Centers manage 85% of the funding allocated to our system and broker 100% of the services provided to our consumers. The Lanterman Act contains three times as many words re: regional centers as it does to describe the general responsibilities of DDS. Taken alone this playing field would seem to indicate that most, or at least a little, of our conversations would involve those regional centers, how well they are spending the money, how well they broker services, and how well they follow the letter of the law. But our reality is not so one dimensional. More factors are in play. Those factors must be responsible for the fact that we rarely hear, or see, discussions regarding our Regional Centers. We rarely hear, or see, such discussion EVEN when internal policies and procedures of a given regional center are patently in violation of the Lanterman Act or Title 17.

One factor is the fact that the Regional Center is the horse that feeds all. That fact does make it hard, if not impossible, to conduct any arms length discussions about our service delivery system. But – WHY we are broken is another subject.

“those who fail to ask hard questions...”
-Stanley-

Hard questions are EASY. It is asking the hard questions to the proper audience that is commendable.
Hard questions to other audiences likely serves a different purpose.

A gift horse said...

"the horse that feeds all"

Sorry - lol

The hand that feeds all

Doug said...

Paul, you're right. It isn't the asking that makes a hard question hard, surely.

But I would disagree somewhat with this: "most, or at least a little, of our conversations would involve those regional centers, how well they are spending the money, how well they broker services, and how well they follow the letter of the law."

Well. I would agree with "at least some" but I think most of our conversation should be about why do regional centers do what they do no better than they do it and why does nobody have any idea whether they do it well.

stanley said...

[paul say] Regional Centers manage 85% of the funding, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

CEOs, football coaches, baseball mgrs, contractors, directly control/manage less than 10% total allocated funds...yet they are fired if their team loses...

and/oh...Ike probably directly controlled a miniscule amount of WWII D-Day funds...yet he would have been replace if it had failed...

Evidently one of us doesnt understand contractor, sub-contractor relationship. My understanding: the contractor (DDS), is responsible for the performance of the subs (RCs)...

AND: is given authority to act on this responsibility: TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION.

oh/and/oh, perhaps LATimes suggestion an analogy...

Their suggestion for the Department of Children and Family Services Director:

”Here's a suggestion. Why don't the five county supervisors and new County Counsel Andrea Ordin go over to the morgue and ask the coroner to walk them through his autopsy of Viola Vanclief? And after they've had a good look at her battered and now dissected little body, why don't they call Trish Ploehn [director] in front of a public session of the board and ask her to explain exactly what's "complicated" about this case -- and precisely why she should keep her job?”
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDRIGHTS/message/5715

LATimes also ask: “just how long we're going to go on sacrificing some of our most vulnerable children on the dubious altar of bureaucratic convenience”

and I ask how long will you go on ad nauseam excusing DDS for at best maintaining an unacceptable status quo...accepting broken homes and DC abuse/murder as taking all necessary action...

repeating

[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl.

Are you deef...don’t you hear the howling: 2001 SDR, the lil hoover commission, the SCDD Plan, the Blue Ribbon Commission, etc...sadly all gathering dust waiting for the DDS to take all necessary action

and see CPF v DDS,...just look at these howlings...forget what stanley thinks is broken...it’s not personal...

my experience with DDS (paul carleton) was most rewarding...resulted in 1:1, 24/7 support for our daughter...RC said she was not autistic and denied 1:1support...perhaps others should hold DDS responsible for its subs (RCs)...worked for me.

stanley seigler

stanley said...

[doug say] I think most of our conversation should be about why do regional centers do what they do no better than they do it and why does nobody have any idea whether they do it well.

These are determinations/questions DDS (the contractor) should make/ask RCs (their subs)...then assure RC comply with contract terms.

This is in effect what happened when we called DDS to ask why RC would not provide support for our daughter as agreed to in IPP.

I bet in essence contract say: provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families...

if RC cant comply, DDS terminates contract.

stanley seigler

stanley said...

[house keeping: pauls questions are on newer post, but seem more appropriate here]

[paul say] Why has “The department shall take all necessary actions to support regional centers to...”turned into: The department shall take all necessary actions ...”?

not intentional...the devil made me do it...apologies... certainly don’t believe in thumbscrews so, in future, will always use full 4434b verbiage: The department [DDS] shall take ALL necessary actions to support regional centers to successfully achieve compliance with this section and provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families.

tho dont believe this nit pick changes fact advocates excuse DDS for inaction which helps assure current status quo will remain the status quo...just adds ink...

continuing the with the nits and avoiding issue: [paul say] A law that authorizes me to “take all necessary actions to support my son” does not also place blame upon me when my son gets a speeding ticket”...Sure – I could punish my son after the fact, but 4434(b) is not the law that would authorize me to do so.

it does if it tell you to take necessary action to support teaching your son the law...besides you have a moral obligation to teach your son right from wrong...you should be called for nor doing so...and morally you bear responsibility for his death or death of others due to speeding...but re 4434b and DDS...

would settle for those of your feather calling DDS on their inaction based on 4434b...for that matter for just doing the right thing regardless of law...

doubt fine feathered friends or DDS have broken...will break... any law...they just “sacrifice some of our most vulnerable children on the dubious altar of bureaucratic convenience”...

BTW seems i heard similar argument before...something to do with using defination of murder to excuse abuse/murder in Lanterman DC.

stanley seigler

paul said...

"Evidently one of us doesnt understand contractor, sub-contractor relationship".

I think that the "one of us" is likley me.

The rights and obligations of the contracting parties, as well as the relationship between the parties is defined by the contract with the mandates of Lanterman considered.

It has been a while since I have read an RC contract. I will defer to you. You have likely read more recent contracts.

"[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl."
"[anon/paul say] It is easy game to blame the system...just doesn't make sense to me."

Stanley

I do not recall saying such things

"if RC cant comply, DDS terminates contract."
Stanley

Stanley,

If DDS terminates a contract what happens to the vendor contracts? Do they also terminate?

If the vendor contracts remain then how is the RC to pay the vendors if DDS is no longer paying the RC? Is this scenario discussed in any of the DDS/RC contracts for which you are familiar? What does the Lanterman Act have to say?

If DDS terminates a contract with a Regional Centers who/what then brokers the services to those consumers within the catchment area? DDS? Does it get passed to another RC? What does the Lanterman Act say?

Thanks for your time.

paul said...

"BTW seems i heard similar argument before...something to do with using defination of murder to excuse abuse/murder in Lanterman DC."

Goodwin Corollary?

stanley said...

[paul say] The rights and obligations of the contracting parties, as well as the relationship between the parties is defined by the contract with the mandates of Lanterman considered.

agree. believe section 4620 plus is the boiler plate contract...it probably negates my contention DDS has authority to “take all necessary action to support”...

believe 4434b instruction to DDS is similar to instructions to Ike: WIN THE WAR...and might ask why all action not included in contract.

Still opine DDS is excused (evidenced on this blog) when they should be called.

[paul say] I do not recall saying such things

[stanley say] anon echos pauls opines thus the use of [anon/paul say]

apologies. assumed anon was pauls alter ego...so make it just anon say.

[paul say] If DDS terminates a contract what happens to the vendor contracts? Do they also terminate?

no. procedure is covered in Lanterman...short story, DDS functions as the RC til arrangements made for another RC.

[paul say] Goodwin Corollary?

Could be. not familiar with goodwin or his corollary...

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Stanley, that's a good metaphor about coaches and D-day, etc., but it is important to remember that the firing of the person in charge usually is a matter of failure compared to expectations, not absolutely. How many Americans died in the D-Day invasion? How many losses did Sparky Anderson run up? In the case of DDS and the regional centers, there are court rulings that limit DDS' ability to end contracts or take over regional centers. As Paul suggests, cancelling the contract is a much more complex thing than firing a person in charge. Besides, if the governors fire DDS directors until the system performs, the job will go vacant.

Paul, it's obvious to me that the anonymous commenter is not you. And, yes, that's Godwinesque.

Stanley, I hear what you're saying about making excuses for DDS and even sympathize, but I still think the biggest problems aren't administrative, but systemic.

stanley said...

[doug say] it is important to remember that the firing of the person in charge usually is a matter of failure compared to expectations, not absolutely.

No one talking absolutes...only that DDS is called vice excused for not following 4434b...for not insuring terms of its RC contracts are implemented

advocates should have much higher expectations than broken homes and DC abuse/murders from a department that has authority to take all action to support RCs...ie, do what 4434b say...and;

ask DDS why/why not...why not implement SDR 2001...why IDTs not used as intended...why IPPs just paperwork vice real working documents...why budgets not based on needs vice 1970 methodology...

[doug say] court rulings limit DDS' ability to end contracts...or take over regional centers...canceling the contract is a much more complex thing than firing a person in charge.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...but actually take over not suggested as first step...actually suggesting DDS hold RCs responsible for terms of their contract...take over lealally only if all else fails...take over procedure described in Lanterman.

[doug say] Besides, if the governors fire DDS directors until the system performs, the job will go vacant.

No. only if gov keeps appointing political hacks...and keeps promoting them for maintaining broken homes...and if advocates keep praising them for maintaining the broken homes and excusing DC abuse/murders.

[doug say] biggest problems aren't administrative, but systemic

blame the system another version of we are all responsible so one is...administrators can change the system...probably the only ones who can...but why should they when they are praised for the system status quo.

LATimes sums up my feelings: “just how long we're going to go on sacrificing some of our most vulnerable children [and adults] on the dubious altar of bureaucratic convenience”

stanley seigler

stanley said...

vCORRECTION

[stanley say] blame the system another version of we are all responsible so one is...administrators can change the system...probably the only ones who can...but why should they when they are praised for the system status quo.

Should read: we are all responsible so NO one is...

BTW my non verbal autistic daughter is a great teacher...she helps me understand the bureaucratic bs.

stanley seigler

paul said...

“but why should they when they are praised for the system status quo.”
Stanley

I don’t think that we can conclude that Doug is praising “the system status quo” because he believes that, “the biggest problems aren't administrative, but systemic.”

Doug has never been so dichotomous.

Doug said...

Stanley, who should the governor appoint?

True, Paul. I make my way through the world left-hand, right-hand, prehensile tail.

stanley said...

[doug say] who should the governor appoint?

consider:
doug, paul, andy, anon, marty, tony, paul carleton, nancy weiss, an ARC pres/dir, a TASH pres/dir, art bolton, a cesar chavez, someone who will do what 4434b say...take all etc...

avoid:
bureaucrats who depend on system for their livelihood...

stanley seigler

Doug said...

Stanley, thanks for the nomination but I'm afraid I'm a bureaucrat who depends on the system for his living. Andy would be great, though. I've been to his office and the man's no bureaucrat.

paul said...

Stanley,

Thanks for the nomination, but when considering your responses to my comments I think I might dissappoint you.

stanley said...

[doug say]I'm a bureaucrat who depends on the system for his living. Andy...the man's no bureaucrat...[paul say] I think I might disappoint you.

Bet you would do the right thing once you stopped arguing with stanley and realized you had the authority to take all action necessary...ie, do what 4434b say...and;

you already know your responsibility is to those you serve: NOT to suck up to the gov who appointed you and pays your salary.

you would submit budgets based on actual needs...you would insure RCs abide by terms of their contracts to: provide compassionate, professional, ID teams functioning as Lanterman intended; and make sure IPPs goals were met or more appropriate ones established.

you would KISS...you would implement 2001 SDR, etc...see, its not as difficult as this blog’s ink makes it seem...

believe a lot of your comments are just to argue with stanley...for surely you don't believe DDS has taken all action necessary...the same action any effective leader would take to insure he/she had a profitable business or wining team.

by a long shot Broken Homes are NOT, are not, the results of taking all action necessary...a degree of taking all was shown in readying the community for the former agnews residents...and

sadly speaks volumes to the fact all action has been and is lacking for those already in the community (or there would be no need for special funding)...neither was the acceptance of ARCA’s recommendations to further restrict the definition of disability taking all necessary action...quite the opposite:

DDS takes all necessary action to suck up to the gov...feels more obligated to the gov than those it serves...

stanley seigler