Messages, Poems, Photographs, 
Letters, Opinions, etc., from Members.

SHOULD OUR "MEMBER" ADVOCATE
               BE A MEMBER? 

Dear Blurbers,

One of our Members, Cha' Kaula, brings up an idea that is actually shared by a number of our Members but, unfortunately, is not talked about openly because it is one of those "sensitive" topics.  Cha' brings up this idea in the form of an email to me and I respond to Cha' by email.  I have included both of our emails below for your review and comments..

Before I present the emails, I want to encourage the readers to PLEASE respond with your opinions or thoughts - one way or the other.  Unfortunately, The Blurb often lacks dialog (conversation between two or more persons) when a topic such as this is presented, and there are many of you fellow Members who have valuable opinions to share.  So, please contact me and I will post your comments.  Remember, if you desire, you may request that your opinions be posted anonymously, and I will certainly honor that.

One more thing before I get to the emails.  Remember, I said that this topic might be a little sensitive or even controversial.  It is important that the readers know that neither The Blurbnor it owner harbor any ill will directed at the Home's Member Advocate, Dorothy Eliason.  In fact, The Blurb respects Dorothy as a person, but there are concerns about the way her position is staffed and that is the topic of the following entries.  Again, please email me and share what you think about the Member Advocate position and be sure to let me know if you want your name withheld.  My email address is: Miles@VetsOrg.org.  If you do not have email access, you may send me your comments by In-Home Mail: Miles Whitley, Section D.

Cha' Kaula, Home Member, writes the following on January 24th, 2010:

Hi Miles... Thanks for the Updates.  I've been thinking about an issue for a few months and thought I'd "run-it-by you" for addition to the MEMBERS MATTERS section.  I'm sure the "Members' Advocate" position presently in place has some merit and provides valuable services.  HOWEVER... shouldn't a member advocate be a Member?  How come Home Members don't have their own advocate?  A position designated as a "Member Advocate" that is paid by the State, disconnected from the daily concerns of Home Members and necessarily cautious about being outspoken and committed to Member concerns seems to be contrary to the position’s purpose!

A Member Advocate position is different from an Allied Council position.  For example, if a Member feels they are being prescribed the wrong medication or wants to have additional medication, but is denied - he or she has to get an Ombudsman involved and set up an appointment in the future with various parties.  A Member Advocate can be involved in the resolution of that kind of issue.  Behavioral problems in the sections could more easily be resolved with the help of a MEMBER "Member Advocate".  Member concerns and frustrations in many areas could be alleviated.  Of course, there would be a learning curve process to the position ... what situations can and can't be addressed, the organizational aspects of the position...record-keeping (who, what, where, and when)...creating a column in the Observation Post, The Blurb or an independent newsletter, etc.

   I believe there is a necessity for:
     - A "real" Member Advocate who has the
        mindset to "fight" for members rights!
     - A "real" Member Advocate without hidden
        agendas and non-member loyalties!
     - A "real" Member Advocate that listens,
         communicates effectively and tells
         the truth to Members, administration
         and other involved parties.
      - A "real" Member Advocate with "conflict
         resolution" skills and insightful
         interpersonal communication abilities.

I'm sure these ideas can be developed further and actualized with nothing more than Member desire; what do you think?   

Cha' Kaula,  Section D 

--------

Reply by Miles Whitley, Owner of The Blurb, 1/24/2010:

Hi Cha’, I think your idea is an excellent one!  I have had similar thoughts as yours and I have always had problems with our Member Advocate being a state employee and having her office near Marcella.  (Let me go on record here and say that I like Marcella and I have a lot of respect for her.  In talking with some Members who were here during previous administrators … well, I guess some of them were not at all well-liked by the Members.  I also like Dorothy and she has helped solve a couple of issues for me.) 

However, for an “advocate” to be a true Advocate for us, I think that person should be a Member.  As you know, we Members come in from ALL walks of life.  Did you know that we have a physician in our building?  We had a dentist in our building until he moved into a private room.  A husband and wife downstairs, I am told, both hold psychology doctorates.  When I was in Holderman a year or so ago, my roommate was an attorney who had served as a Superior Court Judge.  

I could go on and on, but the point I am trying to make is that the Members, in total, have more education and experience than the staff, yet somehow we tend to lose our “rank” when we come here.  (In my opinion.) 

Due to politics and the budget, I doubt that the Member Advocate could be paid a salary, but they could get the stipend like our Veterans’ Services Officer gets. 

I think Dorothy probably knows a lot of what it is like to be a Member, BUT she has NOT lived here, had roommate challenges, been a patient at Holderman, lived in a room with broken air conditioning, etc., etc., etc.   

Anyway, I could go on because I totally agree with you.  I think I heard that Dorothy is close to retirement, so why not transition that position to a Member after she retires?  Have you thought about presenting this to Bob Heiss so he could present it to the Allied Council?  I think it would have to be done tactfully because a lot of people like Dorothy and some might consider the idea to be an attack on her and we would not want that. 

May I put your email in the Members Matters section?  I can also forward it to Bob H if you want.  Just let me know regarding both of those. 

The last time I had strong feelings about the Advocate needing to be a Member was when they announced the prices for the storage units.  The prices did not reflect a significant discount for the Members, in fact, some sizes were more expensive than you could get in Napa.  I am told that Dorothy (and Marcella) were not sensitive to that.  They apparently felt that having the units on campus was the benefit for Members, not the price.   

I could go on and on, but I won’t! 

Thanks, Cha’, for sharing your idea about the Member Advocate position actually being filled by a MEMBER – it is a good one and it makes sense!  Time will tell regarding how this pans out. Take care and keep in touch,
~Miles

--------

To Cha',

I support strongly your suggestion that one or more Home members be advocates for members. Dorothy has done well in many ways but any state employee in that position is compromised by not knowing who her or his next supervisor will be.

The Member Advocate when I arrived years ago made no secret of his support for a previous administrator. He used to attend Allied Council Advisory/Executive Board meetings and when he heard a member complain he immediately "circled the wagons" to defend the administrator. Some delegates complained that he was probably reporting what was said to the administrator and he stopped attending the meetings.

It's important to keep in mind that state employees may be assigned to positions for which they are not trained or have little or no aptitude. This is one reason why we Home members should regularly evaluate the performance of state employees whose decisions and actions most affect our lives.

I have long been involved with the Allied Council, in appointed positions and elected positions, and believe that delegates are overwhelmed by their other responsibilities.

The most effective member advocates will have a bit of a need to challenge authority, and be open to persuasion by other Home members to limit her/his need to challenge authority. Communication and interpersonal skills will be important, as will mediation or conflict resolution skills.

Tom Sarbeck
--------

To: Miles Whitley, Editor of the Blurb, Section D

From: Lou Collier, Section M, 944-8248 or 339-0452

Date: January 30, 2010

Re: Member Advocate

I consider Dorothy Eliason a friend of mine, so I offer my thoughts with this knowledge.

For a very long time I have actively sought more member input into the policies of the Veterans Home. 1 persisted until the Observation Post became a publication with information for the members. I resigned as Editor because the leadership of the Allied Council at the time decided to eliminate any controversial articles or editorials questioning decisions of the Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Legislature.

The Member Advocate position is a problem. It is not the same as an Ombudsman. The Administration wants to provide an office the members may come to when problems exist for them that may not be solved at the Section level or the issue is one that affects many members. In these broader issues we need an Advocate with the intent of altering the rules that affect all of us in an adverse manner.

The Administration needs this position if only to relay the problems of a member or members. There is little doubt the Member Advocate because of the close ties with the Administration can be effective in solving some problems that involve Plant Op,, Section Leaders, the ACC, medical problems and other Departments of the Veterans Home.

However, the members need additionally an Advocate who is not a State Employee and certainly not directly under the influence of the Administration. The only recognized organization that it seems is equipped to furnish such an individual or committee is the Allied Council.

I, as a member in regular communication with the new Chairman of the Allied Council, would like to be a part of any committee formed for the purpose of creating an Advocacy position.

/s/: Lou Collier, Section M

--------
Okay, you have read the articles.  Please take a moment to send me your thoughts, ideas and what you felt as you read the articles.  Let me know if I can include you name in the article, or if you would like it withheld.

Send your comments to: Miles@VetsOrg.org.
Thanks for participating in the informal survey regarding whether or not the Member Advocate should be a Home Member.  The results of the survey show the following:

No. I would want a State employee - not a Home Member. (13 votes)  54%.

Yes. To be truly effective, the Member Advocate needs to be a Home Member who knows what it is like to be a Member. (11 votes) 46%

The results speak for themselves.  While the vote was close, it does fall in favor of having a State Employee in that position.  (Again, this was an informal, unofficial survey.)

Thank you, Orlando, for this thought-provoking message that calls all of us to take action!  You are so right - ALL of us have unique skills, talents and abilities that should not be retired just because we have retired.  We can all help our fellow Members like others are doing.  The nice thing is that we can do as little or as much as we wish.  We can be part of the Volunteer Member Helper Program and put in full-time hours, or we can spend just a couple of hours a week visiting Members in the hospital, helping out the Garden Club ... the options are boundless.  So, I encourage all us to follow Orlando's example to get out there and be part of "We the People" here at our Home.  All of us can make a positive difference! ~ Miles

                                     **********