tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post5649439362639474066..comments2023-09-16T05:17:59.903-07:00Comments on Developmental Disability System Reform: Who will reward the far-seeing?Doug The Unahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-57847051432782172062010-03-25T11:33:30.167-07:002010-03-25T11:33:30.167-07:00[doug say]I'm a bureaucrat who depends on the ...<i>[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.</i><br /><br />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;<br /><br />you already know your responsibility is to those you serve: NOT to suck up to the gov who appointed you and pays your salary.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />you would KISS...you would implement 2001 SDR, etc...see, its not as difficult as this blog’s ink makes it seem...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <br /><br />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:<br /><br />DDS takes all necessary action to suck up to the gov...feels more obligated to the gov than those it serves...<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-87218386720895530752010-03-25T06:59:27.043-07:002010-03-25T06:59:27.043-07:00Stanley,
Thanks for the nomination, but when cons...Stanley,<br /><br />Thanks for the nomination, but when considering your responses to my comments I think I might dissappoint you.paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-85024545330411932372010-03-23T11:33:41.805-07:002010-03-23T11:33:41.805-07:00Stanley, thanks for the nomination but I'm afr...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.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-59942567659422730702010-03-23T11:31:26.468-07:002010-03-23T11:31:26.468-07:00[doug say] who should the governor appoint?
cons...<i>[doug say] who should the governor appoint?</i> <br /><br />consider:<br />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...<br /><br />avoid:<br />bureaucrats who depend on system for their livelihood...<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-32649825697849795832010-03-23T06:42:39.585-07:002010-03-23T06:42:39.585-07:00Stanley, who should the governor appoint?
True, ...Stanley, who should the governor appoint? <br /><br />True, Paul. I make my way through the world left-hand, right-hand, prehensile tail.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-20267937548728386332010-03-23T06:40:15.092-07:002010-03-23T06:40:15.092-07:00“but why should they when they are praised for the...<i>“but why should they when they are praised for the system status quo.”</i><br /><b>Stanley</b><br /><br />I don’t think that we can conclude that Doug is praising <i>“the system status quo”</i> because he believes that, <i>“the <b>biggest</b> problems aren't administrative, but systemic.”</i><br /><br />Doug has never been so dichotomous.paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-37265360107002080332010-03-22T19:21:44.220-07:002010-03-22T19:21:44.220-07:00vCORRECTION
[stanley say] blame the system anothe...vCORRECTION<br /><br /><i>[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. </i><br /><br />Should read: we are all responsible so NO one is...<br /><br />BTW my non verbal autistic daughter is a great teacher...she helps me understand the bureaucratic bs.<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-10370094687783716812010-03-22T11:14:13.488-07:002010-03-22T11:14:13.488-07:00[doug say] it is important to remember that the fi...<i>[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.</i><br /><br />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 <br /><br />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;<br /><br />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...<br /><br /><i>[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. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[doug say] Besides, if the governors fire DDS directors until the system performs, the job will go vacant. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[doug say] biggest problems aren't administrative, but systemic</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />LATimes sums up my feelings: <b>“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”</b><br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-30379335125946638692010-03-22T06:18:04.435-07:002010-03-22T06:18:04.435-07:00Stanley, that's a good metaphor about coaches ...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.<br /><br />Paul, it's obvious to me that the anonymous commenter is not you. And, yes, that's Godwinesque.<br /><br />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.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-65657836638057725422010-03-21T19:24:58.330-07:002010-03-21T19:24:58.330-07:00[paul say] The rights and obligations of the contr...<i>[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.</i><br /><br />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”...<br /><br />believe 4434b instruction to DDS is similar to instructions to Ike: WIN THE WAR...and might ask why all action not included in contract.<br /><br />Still opine DDS is excused (evidenced on this blog) when they should be called.<br /><br /><i>[paul say] I do not recall saying such things</i> <br /><br /><i>[stanley say] anon echos pauls opines thus the use of [anon/paul say]</i><br /><br />apologies. assumed anon was pauls alter ego...so make it just anon say.<br /><br /><i>[paul say] If DDS terminates a contract what happens to the vendor contracts? Do they also terminate?</i><br /><br />no. procedure is covered in Lanterman...short story, DDS functions as the RC til arrangements made for another RC.<br /><br /><i>[paul say] Goodwin Corollary?</i><br /><br />Could be. not familiar with goodwin or his corollary...<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-22391626745509367792010-03-21T11:18:24.230-07:002010-03-21T11:18:24.230-07:00"BTW seems i heard similar argument before......<i>"BTW seems i heard similar argument before...something to do with using defination of murder to excuse abuse/murder in Lanterman DC."</i><br /><br />Goodwin Corollary?paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-46411145075197730802010-03-21T11:14:55.054-07:002010-03-21T11:14:55.054-07:00"Evidently one of us doesnt understand contra...<i>"Evidently one of us doesnt understand contractor, sub-contractor relationship"</i>.<br /><br />I think that the <i>"one of us"</i> is likley me.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It has been a while since I have read an RC contract. I will defer to you. You have likely read more recent contracts.<br /><br /><i>"[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl."<br />"[anon/paul say] It is easy game to blame the system...just doesn't make sense to me."</i><br /><b>Stanley</b><br /><br />I do not recall saying such things <br /><br /><i>"if RC cant comply, DDS terminates contract."</i><br /><b>Stanley</b><br /><br />Stanley,<br /><br />If DDS terminates a contract what happens to the vendor contracts? Do they also terminate?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Thanks for your time.paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-55058367152539347512010-03-21T11:09:29.568-07:002010-03-21T11:09:29.568-07:00[house keeping: pauls questions are on newer post,...[house keeping: pauls questions are on newer post, but seem more appropriate here]<br /><br /><i>[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 ...”?</i><br /><br />not intentional...the devil made me do it...apologies... certainly don’t believe in thumbscrews so, in future, will always use full <b>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.</b><br /><br />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...<br /><br />continuing the with the nits and avoiding issue: <i>[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.</i><br /><br />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...<br /><br />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...<br /><br />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”...<br /><br />BTW seems i heard similar argument before...something to do with using defination of murder to excuse abuse/murder in Lanterman DC.<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-20519872619408632832010-03-20T16:02:07.287-07:002010-03-20T16:02:07.287-07:00[doug say] I think most of our conversation should...<i>[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.</i><br /><br />These are determinations/questions DDS (the contractor) should make/ask RCs (their subs)...then assure RC comply with contract terms. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />I bet in essence contract say: provide high quality services and supports to consumers and their families...<br /><br />if RC cant comply, DDS terminates contract.<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-30223461980120838522010-03-20T14:56:30.136-07:002010-03-20T14:56:30.136-07:00[paul say] Regional Centers manage 85% of the fund...<i>[paul say] Regional Centers manage 85% of the funding, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,</i><br /><br />CEOs, football coaches, baseball mgrs, contractors, directly control/manage less than 10% total allocated funds...yet they are fired if their team loses...<br /><br />and/oh...Ike probably directly controlled a miniscule amount of WWII D-Day funds...yet he would have been replace if it had failed...<br /><br />Evidently one of us doesnt understand contractor, sub-contractor relationship. My understanding: the contractor (DDS), is responsible for the performance of the subs (RCs)...<br /><br />AND: is given authority to act on this responsibility: TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTION.<br /><br />oh/and/oh, perhaps LATimes suggestion an analogy...<br /><br />Their suggestion for the Department of Children and Family Services Director:<br /><br /><b>”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?” </b><br />http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDRIGHTS/message/5715<br /><br />LATimes also ask: <b>“just how long we're going to go on sacrificing some of our most vulnerable children on the dubious altar of bureaucratic convenience”</b><br /><br />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...<br /><br />repeating<br /><br />[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl. <br /><br />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<br /><br />and see CPF v DDS,...just look at these howlings...forget what stanley thinks is broken...it’s not personal...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-34055326778443940462010-03-20T11:36:53.103-07:002010-03-20T11:36:53.103-07:00Paul, you're right. It isn't the asking t...Paul, you're right. It isn't the asking that makes a hard question hard, surely.<br /><br />But I would disagree somewhat with this: <i>"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."</i><br /><br />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.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-67241528037100658772010-03-20T11:11:16.435-07:002010-03-20T11:11:16.435-07:00"the horse that feeds all"
Sorry - lol
...<i>"the horse that feeds all"</i><br /><br />Sorry - lol<br /><br />The hand that feeds allA gift horsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-65587066254086129432010-03-20T09:39:26.741-07:002010-03-20T09:39:26.741-07:00I think the more interesting, and surely more impo...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]<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i>“those who fail to ask hard questions...”</i> <br /><b>-Stanley-</b><br /><br />Hard questions are EASY. It is asking the hard questions to the proper audience that is commendable.<br />Hard questions to other audiences likely serves a different purpose.paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-46301384087024437632010-03-19T10:00:43.926-07:002010-03-19T10:00:43.926-07:00Stanley, I think I was in a study like that at Emo...Stanley, I think I was in a study like that at Emory, although there were no doctors.<br /><br />If I can, I think Anonymous' point might be better explained this way:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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.)Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-40790801855979946472010-03-19T09:14:23.933-07:002010-03-19T09:14:23.933-07:00anon echos pauls opines thus the use of [anon/paul...anon echos pauls opines thus the use of <i>[anon/paul say]</i>in the following...<br /><br /><i>[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</i><br /><br />Such as EVERYTHING else...except the actual needs of the disabled.<br /><br />To repeat: <b>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?</b> <br /><br />And excusers don’t even ask why...eg, why doesnt DDS submit budgets based on needs...as intended by Lanterman...<br /><br />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"...<br /><br />1970 methodology...this is NOT taking into 2010 consideration EVERYTHING.<br /><br /><i>[anon/paul say]Government cannot make your dreams come true. </i> <br /><br />try to stay on point...never thought it could/would and Not asking it to...<br /><br />POINT: only asking why/why not hold <b>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.</b><br /><br /><i>[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. </i><br /><br />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...<br /><br /><i>[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, no amount of funding would fix it. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, we would be building institutions, not dismantling them. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />In the context of broken homes existed in 1998 and still exist today: the system is truly broken...<br /><br />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.<br /><br />there are positive, welcome, appreciated, spikes...eg, the closing of agnews and the community arrangements made for its former residents...butbutt<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[anon/paul say]If the system is truly as broken as you believe, the people who work within the system would howl. </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />To be continued...maybe a part II, <i>[anon/paul say] It is easy game to blame the system...just doesn't make sense to me.</i><br /><br />say what...doesnt make sense to hold our leaders accountable.<br /><br />Who are the far-seeing?<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-54214296327684012312010-03-18T10:32:53.663-07:002010-03-18T10:32:53.663-07:00[doug say] what's an excuser? Is your argument...<i>[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?</i><br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><b>"everything"?</b>...would settle for, as a start, the implementation of 10% of 2001 SDR recommendations and maybe a budget based on needs.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><i>[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.</i><br /><br />are you talking about the excusers, those who believe DDS has the neither the authority nor funds to take all necessary action...<br /><br />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...<br /><br /> <br /><br />what makes a good DD agency: leadership. what makes a good RC: leadership. what make a good DDS: leadership.<br /><br />OTOH cutting funds provides fodder for those who use funding to excuse DDS...those who want to fix system post sufficient funds...exacerbates decay. <br /><br />for my daughter (kath) the system is partially fixed pre sufficient funds...for other some progress made, too many miles to go. <br /><br />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...<br /><br />funding cuts(IHSS and RC) hurts their financial condition...agency cut mileage allowance...cost of living or merit raises non existent...but;<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br /><i>[doug say]...expects too much of the least useful things, but the system isn't falling apart from high expectations.</i><br /><br />help, what are the least useful things...<br /><br /><i>[doug say] IQ and marbling are positively correlated. I generally only advocating eating mathematicians and Irish tenors.</i><br /><br />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;<br /><br />remember the line in silence of the lambs: "I'm having a friend over for dinner" (something like that)<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-74991587561227805692010-03-15T15:19:18.328-07:002010-03-15T15:19:18.328-07:00Oh, and anonymous, I particularly agree that it ma...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.Doug The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-10514025351068282442010-03-15T15:16:41.919-07:002010-03-15T15:16:41.919-07:00Right, Stanley, IQ and marbling are positively cor...Right, Stanley, IQ and marbling are positively correlated. I generally only advocating eating mathematicians and Irish tenors.<br /><br />Anonymous, that was well articulated. I hope you get the answer.<br /><br />Stanley, what's an excuser? Is your argument that those people who say not everything is possible are responsible for whatever's not done?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 The Unahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04753071669562594194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-6224401377833416572010-03-15T14:57:28.325-07:002010-03-15T14:57:28.325-07:00Stanley: You're arguments do not reflect how ...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400857.post-4438393377809451602010-03-15T14:27:07.941-07:002010-03-15T14:27:07.941-07:00[anon say] Stanley: do you really believe that DDS...<i>[anon say] Stanley: do you really believe that DDS has the power, authority, autonomy, and funding to do everything you think it should do?</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[anon say] How would you propose DDS deal with the countervailing needs and preferences of all the players involved in the service delivery system? </i> <br /><br />A start would be to submit budget based on needs...<br /><br /><i>[anon say] How do assumptions about accountability and lack of fulfilling 'the Lanterman dream' square with the fiscal, social, cultural, legislative, and practical realities? </i><br /><br />Broken homes, recommendations gathering dust are excuser realities...realities I guess...acceptable NO, NO ,NO.<br /><br /><i>[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? </i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[anon say] Do you believe that all people share your definition of what is the Lanterman Dream? </i><br /><br />Evidently they/you do not...but hope springs<br /><br /><i>[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. </i><br /><br />And you would be so so so wrong...you should feel compelled to call DDS on their lack of taking all necessary action.<br /><br /><i>[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? </i><br /><br />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...<br /><br />But hope springs an overman society will not evolve...excusers will take a clue from following:<br /><br /><b>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?</b> Robert Kennedy<br /><br />stanley seiglerstanleynoreply@blogger.com