Email to SM 10 Feb 2017 hidden page
Update 20 Feb
Consolidated emails
18 Feb There is no point in holding this
meeting unless RMC and I work under normal MO.
Please bulletpoint your agenda.
Please add an overview agenda for the planning meeting and who is speaking when and on what.
acknowledge that carers need to start interaction away from carees and in Week 2.
I will be able to demonstrate a sample of the kit I have spent £300 on for 30 mins.
answer the Qs I put to the PG this week.
end of update
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Dementia Meeting Centre
Planning meeting - 15 Feb 2017
((((((((( time was short when I raised questions as far as 9. I provided answers to most Qs. )))))))))))))
Staff are asked to respond to the following, some assumed to be prefaced with please:
1. Give a brief overview of “Meetingdem” and the sums of money involved.
2.
3. Elaborate the differences between its “Meeting Centres” and the Ross DMC.
4.
5. Explain how “DIY” makes Ross DMC different from these.
6.
7. Explain why Leominster DMC is going through extreme financial difficulties and how Ross DMC has been set up to minimise these.
8.
9. Explain the term “stakeholder” and how it relates to the Ross DMC.
10.
11. Explain the various behind-the-scenes groups and committees within Ross DMC.
12.
13. Explain how the management of Ross DMC will be available to public scrutiny.
14.
15. Explain its philosophy, ideals and information on its operation and the difference between those presently set out on my website.
16.
17. In particular, how the public can find answers to questions of concern as set out on my Frequently Asked Questions page.
18.
19. Will there be separate sessions for carees and carers and if so, how will they differ?
20.
21. Do staff understand the function of the groups “Knit and natter” and “Shed-talk”? If so, will their principles be applied within Ross DMC?
22.
23. Do staff understand the difference between carees and independent carees and in relation to the latter, what considerations will be applied within Ross DMC?
More in the Ross Gazette, 1 Feb, p4, 8 Feb 2017 and on the website.
The website included above can be found via carerworld.info
Alan F Harrison, Ross DMC founder
I explained this within the DIY aspects of Ross DMC.
Update 12 Feb here 13 Feb 2a.3
more to come
the immediate priority is at 1.15 below update 1727 - latest call is from " I am a retired GP whose husband has a degree in psychology and is a good listener . . . . . . " and I'm sure both are good listeners. ref 1.3 below
Dear SM - 10 Feb 2017
Section 1
- During the MHSG event on Weds eve, within a conversation with AP, I said that Teresa and I will be going to the Leominster DMC and not the RDMC. Her reply was that it is my choice. I refrained from saying that it is definitely not the case. DC has excluded me from the decision-making body and has told me to go to Leom and help with running it. That has been dealt with elsewhere. It is not my choice at all. Why would I subject a frail OAP with mutiple ailments to 90 min journeys in the cold (at present)?
- Simon has passed patients and their carers on to me and I am seeing them in their home settings. They will be encouraged as well as the following people to attend the Weds meeting. I have seen the one volunteer arising from the pre-Xmas publicity. I will see two others who have phoned since the Weds publicity. One woman is interested in kitchen aspects. The other is a semi-retired MH social worker who can also help with LPA. see update 1727 above
- Without my two publicity pieces, all these would not have known about the RDMC.
- There are behind-the-scenes events going on within the MHSG. The Chair asked me to say what I should be billed as on screen at the meeting as he understood I was not involved. I replied emphatically that the answer is AFH - Ross DMC. On the evening the billing was, if you remember AFH - Advisor to Ross DMC. (my underscoring) That is unacceptable.
- Anyone with insight will see that there is competitive publicity going on. My exclusion led to a local publicity article during pre-Xmas week. DC responded on Feb 1 within which the unneeded cholesterol debate took up 25%. My latest, as you must have seen, came out on Weds 8th Provisional (I hope) results prove that was the right action. DC will respond this coming Weds corrrecting the opening statement and giving info on the CC meeting at 2 on that day. She is likely to request that anything I send in will be referred to her first. That ensures I will be publicly muzzled locally.
- More re next Weds at 2. I will bring all the boards shown this Weds at the P of W pub. I will bring examples of activities which include a new form of billiard table which allows one disabled person to play alone. (Was seen at the PoW pub.) It can also, of course, be used normally by that person and others more active. I will bring song sheets for one song from here.
- The small p value for members of the public who turn up having read my RDMC website has not been attempted. I will answer questions. I might read pages therefrom. Any controversial Qs and I will endeavour to defer to DC.
- I take my carer role very seriously and used to attend lots of meeting in the capital city until Teresa became worse re frailty and, more recently, suffered this. One recent example is paying £55 for a dom-care agency to look after Teresa while I went to a MHSG meeting. Another is attending the HC Autism Group - £35. I cannot care for my wife if I go down hill.
- Teresa and I have two daughters, the elder of whom is my main support. I trust you have seen the following email before today. You are best advised to join me in conversation before Weds noon. That leaves it too late for action on your part. One way is for AS (CC bookings sec) to sit with Teresa during the Sunday service and hold the hymn book while you and I talk elsewhere. Monday is a possibility but I need time to arrange a carer to come in, even if we talk in the spare room. Tues is Leom day this week.
Section 2
2a -Dear DC
- I don’t normally read my emails at the weekend, as a way of coping with working at home Mon-Fri. However, I did open them today to look up the venue of my client meeting tomorrow – then saw your three emails. Thank you for keeping me in the loop. I don’t mind the number – so did not take it as a bombardment. Mediation is not one of my skills or professional practices, and it certainly sounds as if this situation would benefit from professional mediation.
- Having read all your emails and the link to my father’s latest web page (which was somewhat unintelligible), I visited him this afternoon and asked him questions about the whole DMC situation before revealing that you had BCC’d me into yours to him in which you set out what was happening and when. This became necessary because he claimed to know nothing, so I had to point out that you had explained it all very clearly and that I had seen the email in which you did so. I did manage to obtain an assurance that he would not email everyone on the MHSG today or any other day, nor will he disrupt the meeting on Wed. (By AFH - 13 02 - I am 90% sure but lose sleep over the 10%. A response to my latest email may save the day.)
- Following the discussion and your emails, I offer the following analysis from a semi-outside perspective. The problem between you appears to be a fight over control of the DMC and/or leadership of it. He wants recognition and a place at the planning/management table. If given this, he might stop seeing it as ‘his project’ and be encouraged to recognise it as ‘our project’ by working together with the other planning/management group members. At present, he feels that the project has been ‘taken over’ by other people and he is being excluded. If he were included as part of it, he should then not need to resort to his present tactics of shooting arrows into the castle from the outside, which arise from his feeling of exclusion. Also, there would be a number of people to ‘manage him down’
whenif needs be, rather than it being a him-versus situation, which it seems to be much of the time. - If, after attending several planning/management group meetings, he proved not to be a team player or be contributing, then he could be asked to leave as per whatever protocols the group had for its own governance. I am not clear that he has been invited to any such meetings. I appreciate his behaviour may be off-putting to potential volunteers for the centre, but I do not understand why he cannot be part of the Planning Group or the Management Group for the DMC. How do people get onto these groups? I would have thought that such a group of people could accommodate one difficult member and manage to keep him away from scaring off potential volunteers.
- I am not ignoring his difficult behaviour but suggesting a way to harness his energies by including him in the planning/management group at the heart of the project. I was, until your email, unaware that there was any such group (indeed two groups). I advised him from the outset that such a project would need to have a structure and governance such as that, plus an accountable body (which is now CC).
- Thank you for keeping me in the loop.
Best regards,
RH
2b - Update 10 Feb by AFH
You and I may need to use texts by phone - 07952 060 505
2a 5 is the central problem.
2a 7 - I am not clear that he has been invited to any such meetings. - - - RH knows the truth since.
2a 9 - I advised him from the outset that such a project would need to have a structure and governance.
Section C
What is going to happen to £300 worth of equipment and aids I have bought?
Some of them are here.