|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Two agenda items related to mental health in Alameda County took center stage during last Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting.
The first was a vote to continue funding mental health programs through the adoption of the Mental Health Services Act Three Year Program, which would see continued and additional funding for programs related to elder Asian American groups, refugees, African American communities as well as other programs that address mental health issues across the county.
Proponents of funding the Mental Health Services Act included a refugee who had escaped the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"When we came to the United States, we had a lot of problems, especially mental problems," the speaker said.
"We needed a lot of help," she added.
She also cited the Afghan Coalition, a local nonprofit which offers mental health counseling and is partially funded by the act, as being especially useful to stand on her feet.
Funding for the act was unanimously approved by the board.
A more controversial vote was on a resolution seeking to delay the county's implementation of Senate Bill 43, which was set to go into effect Jan. 1 of next year, until January 2026.
The law will in effect expand the definition of what constitutes "gravely disabled" with regards to conservatorships, thus allowing for involuntary treatment.
A conservatorship is when a person, official or an institution can take over another person's legal rights.
The new definition would allow conservatorships to cover people suffering from alcoholism, reoccurring mental health disorders and substance abuse issues.
A reason the resolution cited for seeking to defer enacting SB 43 was what they see as racial disparities in psychiatric holds, in which a disproportionate amount of Black and Hispanic Californians are involuntarily detained, according to state data.
Faith Battles, who works in the county's Department of Adult & Aging Services, added that the county needs a thoughtful implementation, which she said an early implementation will not allow, and called for the county to delay enacting the law until January 2026.
Not everyone agreed with the delay, however.
"I strongly believe in the urgent need for this legislation to be enforced without delay," said Joanna Lai in support of immediate implementation of SB 43, reflecting on her son's struggles with mental illness. "The situation escalated where he posed a danger to himself and others," she added, recounting obstacles in getting him assistance.
Molly Shirk, a proponent of implementing SB 43 immediately, also touched on cases she has seen personally in her life as well as professionally working as a registered nurse.
"It would be considered unethical to not implement life-saving measures," she added. "We're living in Groundhog Day. Nothing ever changes."
Some speakers, such as Toni Veglia, questioned why the county could not implement the new law in stages as she said other counties have planned to do.
Thirty out of 58 counties have also sought to delay following through on the new law.
Across the Bay, San Mateo County's Board of Supervisors likewise voted to defer implementation of SB 43 until 2026 during last week's board meeting. Monterey County also voted to defer.
San Francisco, however, has elected to immediately implement the new law beginning Jan. 1.
Both agenda items were approved by the board unanimously.
