(cross-posted from Beyond VSH blog, here)

vtdigger: Closing the Vermont State Hospital’s Canteen the “last straw” for mental health advocates (here)

Advocates, employees and former patients are outraged by Douglas administration’s decision to close the Canteen at the Vermont State Hospital. They say it’s the only place left for patients to get a break from the hospital’s locked down wards.

In order of appearance: Malcolm Sawyer, former VSH patient; Joe Yoder, a psychiatric technician for VSH; Sarah Lunderville, executive director of the Vermont Center for Independent Living; Curtis Sinclair, Canteen coordinator; and Michael Sabourin, a patient advocate.

(via YouTube, here; posted by anneegalloway (November 7, 2009); length: 10:31 minutes/seconds)

Check out the blog post where the video was originally blogged up and also to read comments that have been posted concerning it (including mine, which is posted below), here (via vtdigger).

My Reply to the vtdigger video post:

Although I am among those who have long been working to have VSH closed down as well as at the same time working to have built and putting into place a very different system of providing for the actual needs of those either currently or previously as well as in the future who could be incarcerated there and, will not shy away from continuing to do so at all; while it does remain open, I have come down on the side of opposing the closure of the VSH canteen out of respect for each and every one of those currently as well as formerly incarcerated at VSH who it is reported have indicated the canteen is needed for the time being as their one small bright light at the end of the tunnel, even if only a glimmer of hope is provided by such.

These needs include real, safe, decent and affordable housing, income, training, employment, transportation and other such supports and services that allow one to live independently where and how they may choose to reside.

This is of course versus what has basically been the sole focus of the commissioner and his supporters to chiefly replace the role of VSH and merely moving what is done there in the form of institutionalization elsewhere in one form or another, while mostly providing poor lip service to providing truly community-based opportunities and real inclusion for people that too many within our society would rather keep out of sight out of mind, unless the plan is to allow them to rot on the street or in jails and prisons, etc., which already happens often enough already.

The fact is that dumping people without their being offered basic housing as well as independent living opportunities and supports or services they can freely choose from when they are without such is no solution either. Not everyone has the means to provide for and support themselves after being released from such incarceration, particularly right away or so easily.

The current administration in office and the commissioner of mental health and his supporters have their priorities mixed up and have been headed in the wrong direction for quite some time.

Even though closing VSH and, not merely moving its functions elsewhere, is highly desirable and sorely needed in order to move ahead with what will be required, the closure of the canteen while the facility remains open is not, certainly not by those who are incarcerated there, nor those of us who stand in solidarity with them anyway.

That is my opinion, what is yours?

( – promoted by odum)

(cross-posted from Beyond VSH blog, here)

From an advocate’s e-mail concerning a press conference, followed by a protest, planned for Friday, November 6, 2009 at the Vermont State House beginning at 12:15 PM:

On Friday, Nov. 6 at 12:15, a coalition of organizations opposed to the closing of the Vermont State Hospital canteen will hold a press conference at the Statehouse in the Cedar Creek room, after which there will be a demonstration outside the Statehouse. Advocates, former patients and VSH workers will speak out about the impact of losing the canteen and why it should be saved.

The co-sponsors of this event have endorsed the following:

Joint Statement by Vermont Psychiatric Survivors; Disability Rights Vermont (formerly Vt. P & A); Vermont Center For Independent Living;

Vermont Association for Mental Health; Vermont State Hospital Workers;

Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights; Another Way, Inc.; National Alliance on Mental Illness-VT; National Association of Social Workers-VT

The Vermont State Hospital canteen has been serving patients, visitors and staff for over four decades. Last month the Department of Mental Health announced that as part of planned budget cuts, the canteen would close on December 5. We oppose the planned closing of the canteen and ask that this decision be revisited.

The canteen is integral to the quality of life for patients and significant to the quality of care they receive. It is also vital in reducing the pressures on the hospital wards by providing a positive incentive and a humanizing and integrated setting where patients can get away from the crowded, volatile ward environment. It is a place where patients can meet with visitors off the ward, and for some patients, the canteen has also provided vocational training.

In the past seven years, the hospital has become an increasingly restrictive setting as patients have lost access to the gym, the library, the Hideaway (an off ward social space) and Father Logue’s camp in Duxbury. Now the State is taking away the only place patients have left outside the confines of the secure area.

Cutting costs is the stated reason for closing the canteen. But at one time it was reportedly breaking even, and it might do so again. Just how much would be saved is open to question; what would be lost is clearer. Regardless of whether the canteen is considered directly connected with patient care, its loss would have a serious negative impact on that care, and on the living and work environment at the State Hospital . We urge the administration to reconsider the planned closing and to maintain this unique and invaluable service.

[…]

*Update*: After blogging this post up I was sent the following information as a follow-up by the same advocate who had sent the above item:

the latest list of endorsers, below. […]

Vermont Psychiatric Survivors; Disability Rights Vermont (formerly Vt. P&A); Vermont Center For Independent Living; Vermont Association for Mental Health; Vermont State Hospital Workers; Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights; Another Way, Inc.; National Alliance on Mental Illness-VT; National Association of Social Workers-VT; Mental Health Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid; Vermont Psychological Association; Rep. Warren Kitzmiller; Rep. Anne Donahue

Back to original post content:

From Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights (VCDR) on the subject:

To: VCDR Alert List

From: Deborah Lisi-Baker, President VCDR

Coalition to Save the VSH Canteen Holds Press Conference Friday

A coalition of individuals and organizations are working to save the VSH canteen, a key resource for patients and visitors at the state hospital and for state employees. A press conference has been scheduled for  Friday at 12:15 in the Cedar Creek room at the Statehouse. Afterwards people will gathering on the street outside for a demonstration. Coalition members include Vermont Psychiatric Survivors, Disability Rights Vermont, Vermont Center for Independent Living, Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights, VSH Workers, Vermont Association for Mental Health, Another Way.

Background Information:

The Vermont State Hospital canteen has been serving patients, visitors and staff for over four decades. Last month the Department of Mental Health announced that as part of planned budget cuts, the canteen would close on December 5. We oppose the planned closing of the canteen and ask that this decision be revisited.

The canteen is integral to the quality of life for patients and significant to the quality of care they receive. It is also vital in reducing the pressures on the hospital wards by providing a positive incentive and a humanizing and integrated setting where patients can get away from the crowded, volatile ward environment. It is a place where patients can meet with visitors off the ward, and for some patients, the canteen has also provided vocational training.

In the past seven years, the hospital has become an increasingly restrictive setting as patients have lost access to the gym, the library, the Hideaway (an off ward social space) and Father Logue’s camp in Duxbury. Now the State is taking away the only place patients have left outside the confines of the secure area.

This blogger will be on scene for the event as well.

If you are concerned by the pending closure of the VSH canteen, please consider attending as a public show of support. Keep in mind that protest signs or banners are not allowed within the state house, so please save them for use outside during the protest after the press conference. Buttons are permitted however.

(cross-posted from Montpelier Matters blog, here)

The Montpelier water budget overpayment mess as well as the lack of much earlier full and open public disclosure by political leaders smells rather fishy. However it is also too bad that fish as a species end up getting such a stinky rap due to what is actually the stench of Vermont politics at among its worse[worst], particularly at the local level.

Although it is most likely that citizens would have been angry with city officials concerning the initial error(s) that led to as well as followed the overpayment and the matter not being found for two years or so after the original error had been made, if it was properly disclosed to the public as well as pursued differently than was the case and, if political ambitions had not been a potential factor as it would appear it could have been, people would have eventually understood and forgiven those involved at the city level.

Except for merely more of the same old tired empty promises to do better next time around and that are not of a good enough standard, it is the apparent lack of trust, honesty and transparency when as well as how it mattered most, repeated breaches of which not easily forgotten or forgiven — especially when not fully admitted and truly owned up to, which appear to be irking certain concerned citizens and voters the most.

Thus, as a concerned resident of the city of Montpelier, it is my opinion that Mayor Mary Hooper as well as each and every city councilor who at any point supported nondisclosure of this matter to the public should resign asap or otherwise be voted out of office when their next term comes up for re-election.

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

fyi:

Vermont Public Radio (VPR) Vermont Edition show for Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at Noon and 7:00 PM regarding Government Transparency, here.

(cross-posted from Beyond VSH blog, here)

The very nature of self-determination as well as independence would seem to dictate not merely having freedom of choice, but rather also include both the freedom and the right to ensure one’s self-defined and self-expressed wishes, choices and decisions are not defined, limited, narrowed or controlled by outside influences, no matter how well-intended or well-meaning.

Each person needs to decide as well as do what is best for themselves and, as such, they are the only one who actually knows what that is during any given moment or circumstance.

When it comes to health care and, most particularly concerning mental health treatment and related matters, save (i.e., except for retaining one’s own) true and actual freedom of choice regarding such decisions, this means that like most anything else in this life there are truly no absolutes, nor should there be any imposed on any person(s) by anyone else.

Hence, in order to ensure true parity between health care and mental health care treatment systems (versus merely addressing how these separate and unequal systems and services are paid for under the pretense of parity), the use of force and coercion within the mental health systems needs to be completely done away with before these systems can truly become ones of empowerment for everyone involved. This would be real change, since it is what is sorely needed and because it is also very long overdue.

Whether on an inpatient, outpatient, or community basis, the use of force or coercion in mental health treatment is clearly wrong. Force and treatment do not go or work together. In fact, each works in opposition to the other.

Treatment that is free from the use of force or coercion in all forms embodies what is essential to what often becomes termed as recovery: i.e., person-hood, self-determination, hope, faith, responsibility, and independence, as well as interdependence.

Force and coercion only works to foster and enforce dependency, victimization, anger, violence, helplessness, and irresponsibility.

Force and the fear as well as the intense anger and even rage that it creates does not ensure safety or security; rather, it is the use of force that destroys them. Using force is easy. Choosing alternatives to force may at times appear to be difficult, yet it need not be impossible. Many options are available when force and coercion is not the governing paradigm.

If the force/coercion paradigm were no longer in place, the power imbalance that currently exists would cease or, at least its base — or, otherwise the basis for it — would lose its authority.

Resources currently being employed to bolster the force paradigm could be better and more readily used instead to meet the basic human needs of individuals; needs that are either not met in a way of a persons choosing or not met at all.

The varied needs of people within the mental health system include, yet are not limited to: non-segregated, non-congregate housing; tenant-based rental assistance programs; home ownership programs (designed by persons they are meant to assist and packaged to assist persons living on very low incomes); income; food; properly funded peer support programs and services; training; employment; quality health care, including dental care, etc.; and, transportation.

Meals on Wheels, personal assistance services (modeled along the same lines as someone with a physical disability would be eligible to receive), and Part B-Independent Living Services as well as other such essential programs and services can play meaningful and vital roles in supporting individuals labeled with psychiatric disabilities to live independently in communities as well as living situations of their choice.

To accomplish such however would take a major shift in resources to fund these and other much-needed programs and services. That said, the money for doing so already exists and is instead being spent in one form or another elsewhere, typically in the most costly fashion and often in a manner or mode that is too little, too late and, in addition, could be termed as well as considered deliberate indifference.

What will be required is the political will and courage to redirect funds in order to meet the needs of those the system is supposed to be serving, but is currently failing; not merely by political leaders or bureaucrats either, but by every citizen.

We must do several things, including but not limited to these:

• End civil commitment and abolish the insanity defense for persons labeled with psychiatric (or emotional) disabilities;
• Hold people fully accountable for their actions if a crime is committed and then proven within the criminal justice and correctional systems, regardless of whether or not an individual is labeled with a psychiatric disability;
• Shift resources to fund a system that helps to meet the needs of individuals labeled with psychiatric disabilities in a way of their choosing and make mental health systems completely voluntary;
• Use a voucher system to allow people real choices both in selecting care and/or service providers and the actual care and/or service that they may choose to receive.

Often there are concerns raised about what should be done if someone is out of control, troubled or in need of treatment when their state of mind and/or behavior is being questioned.

While the issue appears to be complicated by several factors, including current constitutional law regarding an individual’s rights in criminal proceedings, it is my belief that people can be held more accountable by changing how they are treated, by abolishing the insanity defense, and by ending civil commitment of individuals labeled with psychiatric disabilities.

Being out of control or labeled with a psychiatric or emotional disability should not be an excuse and violent or other criminal acts should not be tolerated if a person is proven to have committed a crime.

If no crime is proven to have been committed however, yet the person appears to be out of control or troubled, they should be offered voluntary assistance only or otherwise be left alone. In addition, more tolerance and understanding of others and their differences is actually needed, not less of it.

If an individual is not committing a crime, but her or his actions are annoying others, then they should not be detained or interfered with — just like anyone else. Being annoying, out of control, or being labeled with a psychiatric or emotional disability in itself should not be grounds for imposing society’s will.

We should not be able to hold people accountable for actions that we think that they might do at some future point in time.

People should, however, be held fully accountable for proven criminal violations of the law.

In addition, the justice system should never be misused simply to compel forced or coerced mental health treatment when no actual or real crime has been proven to have been committed by an accused person either. There needs to be serious protections against such being allowed to happen as well as stiff penalities imposed and enforced upon those who falsely report someone else of a crime the person in fact did not commit in order to compel treatment for that individual.

In closing, it is my strong belief that it is possible for us as a state and society to finally rid ourselves of the terrible burden of force and coercion within the mental health system.

Doing so would be very liberating to mind, body and spirit on both an individual and collective basis, especially when sharing with and supporting each other as we journey into the unknown together.

Morgan W. Brown is an advocate, writer and blogger living in Montpelier, Vermont.

Author’s note (Wednesday, September 30, 2009): the above commentary is drawn various previous writings of mine including commentary entitled Self-determination and independence versus force and dependency published in the Spring 1991 edition of the National Empowerment Center (NEC) newsletter (here), which was drawn from original commentary that was initially written and then edited into various versions during the period of late 1986 and early 1987.

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch blog, here)

By the way, if you have not already done so yet, read Sue Allen‘s recent Talking Points column profiling me, here (via Times Argus; Monday, August 3, 2009).

Check out Senator Sanders Unfiltered:

Sen. Bernie Sanders will soon begin a weekly series of web-isodes on various topics with Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films.  This program will be available on www.sanders.senate.gov on Monday, Aug. 10 and regularly on Thursdays thereafter.

[…]

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch blog, here)

In light of pending Vermont budget cuts and, depending on what happens with the state budget and, whose budget plan(s) hold sway:

List both ten (10) things you could not manage to do without as well as ten (10) things you could manage to do without.

Then, list both ten (10) things you believe Vermont could not manage to do without as well as ten (10) things you believe Vermont could manage to do without.

While for some, this may prove to be more of a theoretical exercise and, others who are faced with such prioritizing to one degree or another, it is important to weigh the fact that there are those who do not always have such choices.

What to do about such can bring about tough questions, often ones with no easy answers, save the priorities given both when it comes to meeting basic human needs as well as properly maintaining and improving upon the basic infrastructure we as a society collectively depend upon.

Let us hope our state’s political leaders and we as a society choose wisely.

(cross-posted from Beyond VSH blog, here)

*Updated*

Food for thought:

“The key to change… is to let go of fear.”

                               — Rosanne Cash

It is high time for change! And, we are it (i.e., the very change we seek), if only we let go of our fears and move ahead together.

A glimpse back, albeit brief, concerning Vermont’s mental health system in order to help in envisioning just how much progress or rather lack thereof has been made thus far:

Week of February 23, 2007

Vermont Guardian

[former statewide weekly newspaper; since retired]

Editorial

Full-time focus

[emphasis mine]

[…]

It’s time for less talk about titles, and glossy blueprints, and more about ways to provide the right care at the right time, and put the patient, not policy, first.

Read the editorial in full and, make certain to note the date or rather year it was originally published (i.e., February 23, 2007), here.

With that duly noted, listen to Vermont Public Radio (VPR) Vermont Edition at noontime today (Tuesday, May 12, 2009) when the show features the following focus at the top of their show after the news (here):

For the second time in a year, the federal government has denied certification to the Vermont State Hospital.  We look into the continuing issues of patient care and building upkeep at the state-run mental health facility.  The continued failure to meet federal guidelines is costing the state close to$10 million a year in lost federal revenue. We check in on the state’s reaction, and on plans for alternatives to the Waterbury hospital.  Our guests include Vermont’s Mental Health Commissioner, Michael Hartman, and Republican State Representative and longtime mental health advocate, Anne Donahue.

One can listen to the show live either locally via radio or online using the VPR audio player or, otherwise, listen after the show has aired and it is posted online afterwards (click onto “listen” within right-hand sidebar on episode page), here.

(episode page includes related informational links at bottom of page)

*Update* Join live blog coverage during the VPR VT Edition broadcast concerning Vermont State Hospital (VSH), here (via Beyond VSH blog; using CoverItLive live blog tool).

*Note*: added link to live blog tool; added change quote & comments; last updated on Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 4:54 AM (ET).

(cross-posted from Beyond VSH blog, here)

Jointly Signed Letter from Members of Vermont Mental Health Advocacy Community to Legislators re: Relooking at Mental Health ‘Futures’ Project:

Vermont Protection & Advocacy, Inc.

141 Main Street, Suite 7

Montpelier, VT  05602

VP&A is the Protection & Advocacy System for Vermont

(800) 834-7890 (Toll-Free)

(802) 229-1355 (Voice)

(802) 229-2603 (TTY)

(802) 229-1359 (Fax)

[… (e-mail address omitted)]

Date:  April 15, 2009

To:   Members of the Vermont General Assembly

From:   Vermonters concerned with mental health services.

Regarding:  We need a new look at the “Futures Project”!

A number of advocates for mental health issues have expressed very serious reservations about certain parts of the “Futures” project proposal to replace the various services that are currently delivered at the Vermont State Hospital, with the ultimate goal of closing the facility.

Doubts have been expressed about the expense involved in the proposal to build a new facility as part of Rutland Regional Medical Center because of its complex financing scheme that replaces capacity for VSH and replaces their current unit for RRMC. There is also concern that making it, in effect, the initial ‘triage’ point of the system is not consistent with progress towards a community-based system and will also discourage deeper participation by other community hospitals, making the closure of VSH a more distant possibility. This is especially true since the other local hospitals will still need to serve patients NOT served at Rutland when the beds there are filled – and they need to be filled to make the financing package viable. We will be left needing VSH for the foreseeable future!

There has been considerable support for the development of community residential recovery resources and peer-run alternatives as well as support for the development of secure residential capacity, though without consensus on location and the final form a facility might take. There is also considerable concern that current planning has not accounted for such factors as the stress that the community mental health system is under and the particular need for housing options for people with mental health issues.

Yet most would agree that the state hospital should close sooner rather than later and ask what is the answer or answers to the replacement of its functions! Here are some thoughts that may be of some use.

The Futures project started with a large number of interested individuals with a broad range of interests and experience being brought together to devise a solution. Five years later VSH is still operating with a 54 bed capacity.

With all that has happened since the process began it seems clear that if we are to close the facility several things need to occur:

• Whatever plan is adopted needs to have the clear goal of closing VSH, with a target date!
• There needs to be leadership that is willing to put together a plan based on the values expressed in the early “Futures” legislation that include being community based, Recovery oriented, and trauma informed,
• That plan should be presented to and discussed with a broad range of “interests” and leadership should be willing to work WITH the community to refine and modify when appropriate,
• Under-served areas and a reasonable geographic distribution of services should be considered,
• The mental health needs of inmates who currently lack meaningful access to inpatient services require greater consideration,
• The plan should not hinge on diminishing civil rights or due process for people facing involuntary treatment.

Is such a course of action possible? We believe it is if there is an understanding of the goals and if it is clear that solutions rely on the broad community and not just the willingness of one particular player to participate. All of the designated hospitals, and in all likelihood some other community hospitals, need to be involved in meeting the needs of their local areas. We need to rethink the idea of responsibility at the local level. This means that some new version of a “no-reject” policy needs to be worked out so that evaluation and clinically appropriate services can be delivered without the VSH as a “safety-valve”. And solutions need to be developed for individuals with long term needs.

There are a number of possibilities for partnerships that ought to be considered, that could lead to closing VSH and that may, together, create a more promising system in Vermont. Some of these have been discussed and cursorily rejected; some of them have not received serious consideration. All of them present challenges, but none should be rejected without further consideration with a problem-solving orientation:

• St. Johnsbury – in an area of the state underserved in psychiatric inpatient services a unit could be developed either by the hospital or the state that could serve up to 16 patients,
• St. Albans – the Northwest Medical Center has potential for developing 3-4 beds within their facility, if they could do so with support of the state,
• Bennington – the Southwest Medical Center used to have a facility that could serve 12, perhaps that could be redeveloped without great capital expense,
• Springfield – the beds closed at the Windham Center could be re-opened adding 6-10 new beds, again without capital expense,
• Burlington – could FAHC develop a small, specialized unit within its current footprint to serve medically complex patients, adding 6-12 beds of capacity to the system?
• Rutland – could the Medical Center utilize some of their current licensed capacity or develop a unit less reliant on the state than the current plan and serve 6-12 new patients?
• Berlin – locating a state facility near the Central Vermont Medical Center has been proposed. This could be a potentially better choice than the VSH “campus” for a secure residential facility serving 15 clients,
• Brattleboro – The Retreat is likely a willing partner with the state and could possibly increase capacity by 6 beds without great capital expense.

This list has the potential for 70 or 80 beds to assist in the closure of the 54 bed VSH and, in the case of units that may be developed by the state, meet the needs of people with serious mental illness who are currently spending shameful amounts of time in segregation in our correctional institutions.

No one of these possibilities is the be all and end all solution.

No one of these could happen without a real consideration of obstacles like corporate structures, IMD rules, staffing challenges, and re-imbursement hurdles.

None of these suggestions will occur without active engagement with community players, respecting their financial challenges and their view of the local community’s needs.

No one community should provide such a significant part of the solution that the state concentrates so much of its resources that other parts of the plan becomes impractical.

What is “the community” and who needs to be part of the solution?

• Individuals who have lived with mental health issues,
• their families,
• local hospital leaders,
• designated mental health agencies,
• advocates,
• the state administration,
• experts in Medicaid and Medicare,
• the medical profession, and
• the public at large!

Vermont is capable of developing services that respond to our citizens’ needs. We would never have closed Brandon without the imagination to build a community based system different from what went before.

We have developed Second Spring and are in the process of developing Meadowview in Brattleboro, as well as a peer run respite center. We now need to look at our larger institutional partners, the community hospitals, across the whole of the state, as part of a coherent delivery system. Our system for physical health has evolved in that way and we should consider no less for individuals with mental health issues.

Respectfully Yours,

Laura Ziegler, Plainfield

Morgan W. Brown, Montpelier

David Fassler, M.D., Charlotte

Michael Sabourin, Marshfield

Ed Paquin, Executive Director,

Vermont Protection & Advocacy, Inc.

Sally Parrish, South Burlington

Bethany G. Knight, Northern Knights Consulting, Glover

Xenia Williams, Barre Town

Marty Roberts, Montpelier, Vermont Psychiatric Survivors,

Adult State Mental Health Standing Committee

Larry Lewack, Executive Director,

National Alliance on Mental Illness of Vermont

Gwen Budd, Montpelier

Jack McCullough, Project Director,

Mental Health Law Project, Vermont Legal Aid

fyi: Vermont Protection and Advocacy, Inc.

For some of us, there are times when we need these very public servants — also known as state employees — and, others elsewhere whom they coordinate with, in working together in a team effort with us as we either seek or attempt to maintain what it takes to acquire or keep housing, employment, supports and services in helping us meet the various, yet different basic human service needs we may individually need assistance with.

If anyone thinks this is easy or simple accomplishing, I can personally attest via years of personal experience and observation to the fact that it is far from being so.

The truth is this matter is also about much more than purely being an issue concerning money, funding or revenue or, having enough of these to meet basic human needs. This is particularly the case when it comes to those of a highly vulnerable population at an increased risk of living on the street, staying in a homeless shelter longterm or, either in jail, prison, the state hospital or, some other psychiatric unit or institution elsewhere.

It is also about those being in such positions who have the necessary breadth of knowledge, experience and institutional memory required to get the job done, as well as also having an array of contacts all across the state at various levels and maintaining communication and relationships with each and every contact, whether the person is in the mental health, housing, homeless or other such field in a hands on fashion rather than just being focused more on policy matters concerning such.

The committed and dedicated state employee, who has for years served as the VT DMH housing coordinator and, just like their predecessor has performed their work across all Agency of Human Services (AHS) populations as well, is such a person.

This position is more crucial now than ever. As such, it is the type of position definitely deserving to be spared from the budget ax.

If you agree, please contact your local state representative and state senator(s) as soon as is possible in order to urge them to not allow positions like these to be cut from the state workforce. 

Otherwise it could be too late down the road for many of my peers as well as myself in our hopes to find or maintain safe, decent and affordable housing of our own and live independently within our communities as we may choose.

[cross-posted from Norsehorse’s Home Turf, here (original post includes video version)]

A Happy New Year Wish

May the coming twelve months be much better for you and yours than was the case during this year.
Affording for greater opportunities and quality time to put painful or bad experiences within the past,
In an effort to plant and nurture seeds of charity, joy and hope where once existed loathing, grief and fear.
Thereby offering an inspiring example to help others keep faith in continuing on as well as to hold fast,
Working together to build communities with meaningful futures and better chances for them to last.

Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier, Vermont
December 31, 2008

Happy New Year!