The Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) requires counties to submit three-year
Integrated Plans (IPs) for Behavioral Health Services and Outcomes. Here is the Marin County’s Integrated Plan. The first submitted to the California Behavioral Health Planning Council and the California Department of Health Care Services. Missing from this Plan, and somehing I am interested in including in Sonoma County’s Plan, is the comprehensive Departmental Budget (including all funds administered) indicating how braided revenue ources are supporting all of our programs.

Preparing for the February 3rd meeting (4-5pm in the Santa Rosa Conference Room at 1450 Neotomas Ave) of the Annual Report/Integrated Plan Subcommittee of the Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board, here are some annual reports from eleven selected California counties from FY 23-24, and several previous years from CALBHBC.org.

Return here in a week to view the full video of the meeting.

On Friday, Jan 23rd, in San Diego, the California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards and Commissions (CALBHBC.org) met, and heard presentations from multiple California State Behavioral Health agencies, and some pioneering behavioral health programs. Here are transcripts and a summary of the conversations. Return here in a week to view the full videotape of the meeting.

Last night, the Sonoma County Department of Health Services reported its disappointment in not being able to provide the Behavioral Health Board with its promised draft Three-Year Integrated Plan prior to its expected submission to the Sonoma County Executive Officer, and then to the California Department of Health Care Services. Said Jan Cobleda-Kegler, Behavioral Health Director, “Though the narrative is only waiting on one more program, the budget is still undone. I’m sorry. I’ve been waiting for this for three years.”

The Board’s responsibility is to advise the Department and the Board of Supervisors on the first-ever integration of more than $.5 billion worth of local, state, and federal funds which support homeless, mental health, and substance use disorder program for the next three years. “I don’t know how we’re going to do our job if we aren’t given time to review, gather input, and ask questions”, said Gregory Fearon, Chair of the Annual Report/Integrated Plan Subcommittee. The Committee will meet next on February 3rd in the Santa Rosa Conference Room at 1450 Neotomas Ave from 4-5pm.

The California Brown Act was passed long ago because we believe that the public decisions should be made publicly. Its purpose was to keep the conversations between members of legislative bodies from happening in private, out of sight and ears of the public. The extreme restrictions which were enacted into law actually limited the views of the decision-makers from being shared in any venue but open public meetings which were clearly publicized. This meant mostly that everyone involved in communicating during the decision-making process had to shut up unless they were sitting in the actual meetings. Making sure that the public could hear every word of the conversations that decision-makers said to each other was the primary purpose of the Brown Act. What was sacrificed was allowing the conversations between the public and the decision-makers unless it took place in the very few moments when official meetings of the legislative bodies met.

This important change to the Brown Act still forbids conversations between members of the legislative bodies even on the internet-based social media platforms. It only opens up the possibility of communication between individual members of the legislative bodies and the public. And I’m proposing that the communication be even more focused by having the discussion topic be a proposed plan document, report, or regulation. Placing these documents on an open, accessible website which allows the public to directly comment in real time, provides manageable, productive advice from the public in a greatly-expanded stakeholder engagement process.

The California Legislature, enacting reforms to its well-known Brown Act, has extended indefinitely a little known allowance for members of legislative bodies to communicate “outside of a meeting with any other person using n internet-based social media platform for specified purposes”. The allowance “shall not be construed as preventing a member of the legislative body from engaging in separate conversations or communications on an internet-based social media platform to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body provided that a majority of the members of the legislative body do not use the internet-based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”

Legislative bodies impacted by SB 707 include California counties and cities, and their appointed advisory commissions and boards, and school district governing boards.

My use of this internet-based website (www.heapa.org) to “provide information to the public and solicit information from the public” regarding the issues being discussed by the Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board is now legally allowed by this new California law. I will be posting documents for the public’s review and comment that we are developing to fulfill our responsibilities as defined by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.

Recent Changes in the Brown Act Allow Greater Public Review

The Annual Report/Integrated Plan Standing Committee of the Behavioral Health Board had its first meeting on January 6th, and agreed to conduct a three-month research project to acquire and publish all useful materials on what they are calling “The Health of Health Services” in Sonoma County. Preparing for their review of the County’s Three-Year Integrated Plan for the County Department of Health Services, effective beginning July 1, 2026, the Board feels it needs to gain the greatest insight into the capability of the County to provide an effective safety net of services. Recent cutbacks and indications of diminished federal and state funds for traditional safety net programs threaten to unravel existing support for most county services for low income residents. The Board believes that, in order to advise the Board of Supervisors on a prospective three-year plan beginning on July 1, 2026, it needs to know what damage to the current system will be done before then.

An online library of all reports from: 1) listening sessions and stakeholder meeting conducted by the Department of Health Services; 2) needs assessments gathered; 3) requests for funding submitted to any of the Department’s notice of funding available; and 4) comments and testimony from providers and recipients on their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the current system of care will be made available to the public and Committee members.

Evidence for Systemic Change – 01-04-26