Future Uncertain
Toolbox
Morgan W. Brown - Published: September 22, 2005
An article within Thursday morning's edition of the paper reported on how during its meeting yesterday the Vermont State Hospital Futures Inpatient Work Group urged the state to change its plan on how to proceed in replacing the ailing Vermont State Hospital (State urged to replace state hospital with 2-3 sites; TA, 9/22/2005).
While the article roughly summarized the plan put forth by the Douglas administration earlier this year, readers may be interested in reading the actual document as well as another one supporting it.
These are available on a page offering such mental health reports online, under the heading of VSH Futures, here [via Vermont Agency of Human Services site].
To my recollection what had previously gone somewhat under reported, if at all reported, was the huge controversy the plan caused; especially in light of the hard work mental health advocates and others concerned had put in and came to generally agree was needed back at the time, agreement on which is much on what was reported in today's article that advocates were urging on Wednesday.
The point being that what mental health advocates and many others had been calling for was nothing new and had also come about after a long, arduous process. In fact the problem was the administration did not agree and, thus said consensus could not be reached on these matters. Many took this to be the gospel.
Yet the administration's plan had been conceived mostly within a certain bureaucratic and administrative vacuum without the type of public debate, input and public hearing one would expect for so crucial and expensive an undertaking whose impact will shape the mental health system for decades to come; that is as I understand it anyway and, I mean absolutely no disrespect intended to its author, Charlie Smith, either -- someone whom I value and highly respect -- especially for the excellent work he brought about with the Agency of Human Services Reorganization Project (AHS Reorg). No small feat either.
That said, the administration chose to address VSH and the mental system much differently and it irked many in the mental health community.
All to mention however that the AHS, Vermont Department of Health, Division of Mental Health and the administration should have learned from the process, forums and effort they did with the AHS Reorg and then applied it to what needs to happen within the state's mental health system, with all its complexities. In fact they were urged to and I should know, because I was one of those doing so.
Some of this complexity has been brought to light recently with various news articles, like for example the controversy over child transport restraints, which was only finally dealt with and, made public, once an outraged parent had had enough, insisting on the practice be halted (here; TA; 8/31/2005).
Then there is the issue that state legislators and advocates exposed and brought out in the open concerning how the state has decided to not include the treatment of children and families as a priority on par with other mental health treatment delivery, something one would believe unthinkable, here (TA, 9/20/2005).
Another article, this one published within yesterday's (Thursday) edition of the Rutland Herald (here) brings news that "Springfield Hospital has scrapped plans to turn part of the old Rockingham Memorial Hospital into a satellite facility for the Vermont State Hospital."
This when only last month another article was much more hopeful, reporting that plans were well under way and looking rather promising, here (TA, 8/17/2005).
What is going on here? Plenty! Certainly enough to make one want to pay attention, since it is public tax payer dollars paying the freight for failure after failure.
When it comes to what to do in replacing VSH however, what the advocacy community and others reached over a span of two years or more and, then the administration pretty much on its own in short order earlier this year -- being on separate tracks and seemingly going in different directions as it was -- should have sent off alarms bells and created a public outcry all over the state.
Certainly after the last two years, with what has been evidenced with the problems at the state hospital and with mental health service delivery in corrections, along with the long standing and dire needs of the community mental health system as well (which seems to have been forgotten or placed on the back burner now), helps to illustrate that not everything is what some would have us believe.
Yet the controversy over the plan was virtually allowed to remain under the radar and, was not reported -- not that I recall anyway -- either that or, there were people not paying enough attention, that is until now.
What is extremely frustrating to endure is all the time, effort, energy and resources that have been wasted in the meantime.
What is urgently needed now is not simply for the Governor and the state legislature to embrace what the VSH Futures Inpatient Work Group called for yesterday, but for it to go instead through the same, major process and undertaking that the AHS Reorg went through, while at the same time doing what we can and must do now to ensure a strong delivery system in the meantime.
Yes, there are definitely many serious events happening all around us, whether locally or statewide as well as through the nation and the world at large in need of our attention and resolve, however if we neglect what is happening in our backyard, especially when it involves people whom are among our most vulnerable and in need as well as the many good people who work to help them through such times in their lives; then shame on us, shame on us all.
We can do better and we must, as far too much is at stake not to do so.
17