Mental Health Association of Portland

Guest Column for The Oregonian, September 18, 2012

By Jenny Westberg, representing the Board of the Mental Health Association of Portland

We applaud the Department of Justice’s acknowledgement of the problem we have been talking about for years, but its recommendations to the Portland Police Bureau will only serve to extend that problem. They continue a long tradition of patchwork remedies and promised change. They repeat the City Hall mantra: blame the unfixable mental health system, blame the now-unfixable victim, add a little training, add a little policy, do anything but face the problem and make real change.

There is a way to end police brutality in Portland. Zero tolerance for killing a civilian. Kill a civilian and turn in your badge – regardless of the scenario, regardless of threat or perceived threat, regardless of your fears or prejudices against fellow Portlanders who happen to have a mental illness.

Zero tolerance is the only way to stop dangerous cops; it’s the only remedy to impunity.

Most Portland cops serve with compassion and valor. But all the training in the world won’t help those who will never learn. Zero harm is an unrealizable goal. But separating officers who kill civilians at least assures us nofuture harm will come from them: nothing short of zero tolerance will protect us from another Chris Humphreys or Kyle Nice.

Zero tolerance sets a high standard, but not an unmanageable one. It will not handcuff police, but force new thinking and greater reliance on non-lethal responses.  There will, unfortunately, be cases where an officer is unfairly penalized. But if we have learned anything from the past, it’s this: we cannot make exceptions. Inevitably they expand to accommodate all situations.

Should there be an exemption when killing is justified? According to our District Attorney, that’s always the case. What if the officer’s safety is at risk? According to police reports, that too is always the case.

Instead, to mitigate unfairness, we suggest in cases where the officer is not criminally prosecuted, they stay in city employ, fast-tracked for a meritorious civilian position, with no loss of pay, benefits or seniority.

We are living under threat of imminent harm. Besides the harm to the person with mental illness, their family and friends, and the city at large, cops have been harmed – some with permanent psychological scars. Cops have plenty of motivation to stop killing persons with mental illness. And they will – eventually.

But we who live with mental illness can no longer wait for “eventually.” We can no longer sit by and watch the body count rise. We don’t need promises, or best efforts, or court actions. We need an immediate cease-fire.

For ten years we’ve watched our friends die, while the state, county and city push out cosmetic non-solutions, and the usual suspects hem and haw about how to fix the problem. We hear fantastical proposals that often rest on the assumption that we have fewer constitutional rights. “Make it easier to lock them up!” “Force them to take medication!” “Build a new warehouse to put them in!” We get interminable what-if sessions that breed apathy and infighting.

We originally chose to direct our advocacy at police for two reasons. One, the mental health system (which has plenty of blood on its hands) didn’t kill our friends; cops did. Two, we believe cops are capable of understanding the problem and fixing it. They don’t shrink from outside scrutiny and work hard to get better.

We still believe they will be diligent in their application of the Department of Justice recommendations. But systemic change comes slowly. The system grinds, and perhaps ten years from now, we will no longer be under siege.

Slow remedies are unacceptable remedies.

We require nothing less than an immediate cease-fire, an end to unnecessary harm to persons with mental illness and other minorities.

We expect police – and future police commissioners – to embrace zero tolerance as an opportunity. We expect officers to recommit to the ideals of “protect and serve,” and remember why it was they became cops in the first place.

Guest column by Jenny Westberg, published in The Oregonian, July 18, 2012

An arbitrator’s decision last week to overturn 80-hour suspensions against Portland police officers involved in the 2006 death of James Chasse will further erode community confidence in the police, particularly among those affected by mental illness.

Although the police union considers the ruling vindication, I believe most Portlanders are convinced that the police haven’t learned a thing.

When Christopher Humphreys, Kyle Nice and Bret Burton (who was working for the Multonomah County Sheriff’s office) chased, kicked, punched and used a Taser on Chasse, who was not committing any crime and who was crying out for mercy; when police leadership coolly justified their unconscionable, lethal acts; when city leadership continues to treat the involved officers like adorable but frisky pets; when every move to discipline any officer is defeated, our disbelief in justice expands.

Chasse did not go gently. He was not another unknown vagrant passing through. He was a loved member of a community — our community. His many friends stood vigil and waited for some truth to emerge. Nearly six years have passed, and we’re still waiting. And wasted time has a cost.

First the city and the county fought the civil suit — in the media, in court, in council hallways, in public meetings, in legal documents, on street corners and at cocktail parties — although both the city and county eventually settled the suit with Chasse’s family. Cops fought too; their lawyers fought; their apologists fought; their union fought; their public relations reps fought; all on behalf of those who made Chasse’s last moments a nightmare of pain and fear. And, as usual, they won.

They won in the courts. They won at City Hall. They won at the contract negotiating table. They won with government policy writers. They won with commanding officers. And now they have won with an employment law arbitrator.

But they lost a battle they don’t understand in the area between right and wrong. They kept their jobs, but they lost their honor, lost hearts and minds, lost respect and trust.

Mayor Sam Adams and Police Chief Mike Reese reframed the problem. They acknowledged mistakes and made quick apologies. They invited the community to speak at City Council meetings and in the backrooms of City Hall. They listened attentively to their constituents. They met with community leaders. They promised things would change.

And they have changed. Only one person, Brad Lee Morgan, shot dead while pondering suicide, has been killed by the Portland police so far this year. The statistical turnaround deserves acknowledgement. But how do we heap laurels so long as any of these men are Portland police officers?

Of course, Chasse’s death in custody was not due to his mental illness, nor were his ribs broken by the state and county mental health system. However, part of Chasse’s ongoing legacy is an improved system of care for people with mental illness who live in our community. But the changes — some of which were forced by court judgments — are an insufficient patchwork. Moreover, they are not changes to the police union contract with the city. This has given us neither transparency nor justice.

Yes: Changes were made, positive changes that better protect citizens with mental illness. But changes aren’t justice. And if one can measure the success of a community by how it communicates with its most vulnerable people, then the changes that have been made don’t go far enough.

Jenny Westberg is a board member of the Mental Health Association of Portland.

This editorial opinion is by Jenny Westberg and represents the Mental Health Association of Portland.

The only relevant issue in the 2012 mayoral campaign is police accountability.

Other issues can wait. Jobs and schools and bike paths are only useful if we’re alive to enjoy them. Only one issue is life-and-death: police officers who shoot citizens and are never held to account.

There was a slight hiccup of accountability in November 2010, when Ronald Frashour was fired for shooting an unarmed man, Aaron Campbell, in the back the previous January. Now that brief almost-consequence has been nullified by state arbitrators. Mayor Sam Adams and Chief Mike Reese have tut-tutted about the decision, while asserting they are helpless to change it. Frashour will almost certainly be reinstated, if only to an empty desk.

Firing an officer, even temporarily, was unique; Campbell’s death was not. Less than two months later, Jack Dale Collins was shot and killed by police. Officers faced no discipline. Several weeks passed; then police shot and killed Keaton Otis. No discipline. Thomas Higginbotham, Craig Boehler, Darryel Dwayne Ferguson, Marc Lagozzino — all shot that same year, to the resounding echo of nothing. In 2011 and 2012 Portland area police went on to shoot Anthony McDowell, William Monroe, Brad Morgan and Larry McKinney. In no case thus far have officers been held accountable.

All these individuals — and, according to recent information, the latest victim, Jonah Potter — had one commonality: Each was in acute mental illness or addiction crisis.

There is only one relevant question for the candidates for mayor: As police commissioner, what will you do with Ronald Frashour? Or put broadly: As mayor, how will you reflect Portland’s values when police officers harm innocent persons?

Importantly, most of the people shot by police in recent years were innocent; they were not engaged in crime. They were sick, not sinners — and not criminals. Often they are painted as such by police apologists, and each time it’s a shameful exercise that magnifies our grief. We’re invited to imagine the crimes Brad Morgan might have committed if not shot by a police officer — but he committed no crime. We hear James Chasse urinated against a tree and therefore deserved a brutal, lethal beating by trained and trusted officers — but he was an innocent man. We’re asked to believe Officer Jason Walters could not retreat and was forced to shoot a dazed, shuffling Jack Collins for holding the knife he used to cut his own throat — Collins needed a paramedic, not bullets.

Elected and appointed officials are responsible for holding police accountable, but the news media also have a responsibility, to hold those elected — and those who aspire to be elected — accountable. We expect members of the Fourth Estate to cut through the endless debates on potholes and magical job creation, and demand candidates provide strategies to resolve the seemingly impossible disconnect between our police officers and the citizens in their crosshairs.

Unasked, the three main mayoral candidates remain uncommitted, staking no position. Unless these candidates present clear, unequivocal answers, we are in for the usual: Routine harm to citizens, routine civil suits with resulting multi-million dollar awards, and routine, continuing mistrust of police.

Both elected and appointed officials have neglected their responsibility to hold police accountable, and our news media have failed in their duty to hold those officials answerable. We need the press to sift through the verbiage regarding composting and “clown-houses,” and get officials on record with meaningful answers to real questions.

In 2010, as we mourned Aaron Campbell, Jesse Jackson visited Portland, and before addressing the congregation at Maranatha Church in NE Portland, he met privately with local ministers. Jackson said he’d spent time in many cities: in Los Angeles, where community leaders have given up solving homelessness; in Washington, D.C., where a great public school education is beyond reach; in Houston, where gang violence is an accepted fact of life. He appreciated Portland, he said, because we maintain the belief that we can solve hard problems; pride, power and prejudice have not destroyed our ability to learn and trust. Not yet.

It’s our responsibility to keep hope alive — hope that our children won’t run from police in fear; that persons with mental illnesses won’t be shot when they ask for help; that routine police contact isn’t a death sentence.

Why is this so important, now, today? For persons with mental illness, it’s a question of life or death. But it’s not just we people with mental and addiction illnesses. Anyone who calls the police in crisis is at risk, and it could be you next, or someone you love.

For mayoral candidates, it’s time to step up and answer the one question that matters: Will you hold police officers accountable for their lethal actions?

By: Women Survivors of Sexual Trauma, for The Lund Report, February 14, 2012

A new, weekly peer-facilitated support group, Women Survivors of Sexual Trauma, will hold its first meeting Wednesday, March 7, and thereafter it will meet every Wednesday from 7-8:30 p.m. at Empowerment Initiatives, 3941 SE Hawthorne Blvd. in Portland.

The group will be open to all women, including transgender persons who identify as women, who have undergone traumatic sexual experiences.

“We refer to ‘sexual trauma’ rather than saying the group is for survivors of rape, or abuse, or words like that, because often we have such shame that we tell ourselves it wasn’t really rape, it wasn’t really incest, and so on,” said co-facilitator Jenny Westberg.

“We don’t want women excluding themselves. If you’ve had sexual experiences that were traumatic, you’re welcome in this group.”

Approximately 1 in 4 Oregon women (1 in 5 nationally) have been victims of rape and/or other forms of sexual violence, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but locally there are few resources. The groups available through the Portland Women’s Crisis Line, for instance, rarely have immediate openings. The new group will be one more resource for Portland-area survivors.

Organizers want the group to be a safe place to share, listen, and discover common areas of experience.

“In sharing our stories, we reclaim the parts of ourselves we lost in the trauma. This has an empowering effect and it connects us to others. When we release the secretiveness and shame, we reclaim our voices.” said co-facilitator Chaya Grossberg.

The group will be free of charge, with donations appreciated.

Co-facilitators Jenny Westberg and Chaya Grossberg are survivors and mental health activists who both work with the Mental Health Association of Portland.

The group is sponsored by Portland Hearing Voices, which has been running a successful Extreme States and Voices support group for the past three years. Portland Hearing Voices director Will Hall also provided facilitation training.

Questions?

Contact: portlandhearingvoices@gmail.com
413.210.2803 — www.portlandhearingvoices.net

‘Like’ this Posting on Facebook

By Jenny Westberg, Portland Mental Health Examiner

The device manufacturer swears it’s effective.  The FDA approved it.   But is there any evidence for vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for treatment-resistant depression?

Depression affects over 100 million people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. (Photo: Flickr.com/sacks08)

Susan Ricketts contacted me after reading “Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for depression: Does it work?” on this site.  Now, in an exclusive interview, Ricketts describes her experience as Project Coordinator on the D-02 clinical trial of VNS for depression.  It was the single randomized, controlled trial submitted to the FDA, but one Ricketts says was so poorly managed she ended up walking away from the job, minus a paycheck, but with integrity intact.

Before the excerpted interview,  some background information:

What is vagus nerve stimulation?

In VNS, a device is surgically implanted in the patient’s neck and connected to the vagus nerve.  When switched on, the device shoots electrical impulses through that nerve and into the brain.

VNS has been shown to be effective in controlling seizures in severe cases of epilepsy, but there has never been solid evidence it works on depression.

Even so, it was approved by the FDA for treatment-resistant depression in 2005, over loud objections from FDA staff and the consumer group Public Citizen, among others.  The approval process raised so many red flags it was the subject of a U.S. Senate investigation.

“To make [people with depression] think VNS is scientifically proven to help them?  It’s an atrocity.”  – Project Coordinator Susan Ricketts

Many people think VNS is a radical but effective last-ditch treatment for depression that responds to nothing else.  That belief is due largely to long-term and continuing marketing efforts by Cyberonics, Inc., the device manufacturer.

Cyberonics has managed to get its own press releases and a few vaguely scientific studies onto high-profile health websites.  Unfortunately, that’s where many people go for health information, not realizing these sites are often used as free advertising space by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers with a serious financial stake in moving product off the shelves.

Understanding scientific studies

To understand why the evidence falls short, it’s important to know a few buzzwords.

In a randomized, controlled clinical trial, scientists compare the effects of a treatment on two randomly populated groups of patients, one group receiving the treatment being tested and the other group, called a control group, not getting the treatment.  The control group receives a placebo  or “sugar pill” (in the case of VNS, an inactive device), because patients who know whether they are being treated or not might be subject to the “placebo effect” and show improvement (or not) due to their own expectations.

Researchers try to eliminate every possible variable that could influence the results other than the treatment itself.

To envision this, imagine you are trying to find out if orange popsicles melt faster than green popsicles.  You lay the popsicles out in two groups and observe them, and note that the orange popsicles do, in fact, melt much faster than green ones.  Then you realize the group of orange popsicles was in direct sunlight.  Oops!  That’s an example of a variable affecting your results.  Good thing you didn’t rush an article to the scientific journals.

Most VNS trials for depression were decidedly of the hot-popsicle type.  In one study, for instance, subjects were allowed to use treatments other than VNS during the study, and to switch between the additional treatments.  Even if the results of such a trial showed depression was relieved, it would be impossible to tell whether it was due to VNS, the add-on treatment, the combination – or pure chance.

Behind the scenes

Four years after VNS’s approval for depression, a report to Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Evidence Based Policy still found only one randomized, controlled study in the literature, and that study showed no benefit for VNS.

As it happens, that single trial, the D-02 study, was the one Susan Ricketts worked on.  What she saw shocked her.

Susan Ricketts:  “When I started on the D-02 VNS trial, I’d had long-term research jobs, including eght years at Dartmouth and two and a half years at Regents Hospital.  But I lasted six months [on the VNS trial], because it was the most poorly run trial I’ve ever seen.

“I was the Project Coordinator. The patients had already been recruited, and randomly assigned to receive the VNS implant.  The implants were either turned on or turned off during the course of the trial, and we followed their progress and symptoms throughout.  I was the unblinded person on the trial, which means I was the one who knew whether a person’s device was turned on or turned off.  I actually manipulated the software to turn it on or off.

“One of the first things that happened was when I went in, in my estimation the records that patients had filed were very disorganized, in disarray. So one of my first goals was to get the records in order.

“It casts doubt on all clinical trials, all drug trials, all device trials.” – Project Coordinator Susan Ricketts

“In a clinical trial – let’s say someone’s having a symptom, even a cold or flu symptom – you have to follow those symptoms very carefully, and track pain, severity, how long it lasted – because that’s how you track side effects, or adverse effects.

“Because they’d already been through three project coordinators, the tracking of patients’ histories throughout the trial was really atrocious. I called up patients to verify information; I went back with patients through their charts to make sure all the information was complete.

“The principal investigator should be on top of these things, and certainly the people from [device manufacturer] Cyberonics, who come through and review the records – they should have been on top of this.  It never should have been as bad as what I saw.

“Another thing, during a study when the language in a consent form changes, you have to make sure that every person in the study reads that new consent form and signs off on it.  That was not being done consistently.

“Cyberonics should have been there on a regular basis, making sure those records were clean and complete, and making sure those consent forms were signed.”

Q. Because ideally, they want an absolutely flawless study ?

“Exactly! They’re having to report to the FDA. And my feeling was, if the FDA had come in and done an audit, they would have failed it.”

Q. Reading about the FDA approval, there were reports that Cyberonics people were bullying the FDA. Did you see any of that behavior?

“That’s actually what brought me to your article. And those later reports – it just brought back that feeling, that this was a company that was literally shoving its way through approval. Cyberonics was a bully; the people that worked for them were bullies.”

Q. What were your concerns regarding the integrity of results?

“Before I left, when I made the decision to leave, I just kind of looked at the records and reviewed people’s scores.

“I could see, even without a statistical analysis – and by the way, I do have training in statistical analysis – you could tell that, during the 12-week trial, there wasn’t any difference in depression scores between people who had the device turned on, or not.  The 12-week efficacy study was just not going to show any results.”  (Ricketts was right.)

“I was trained in research, worked in research all my life, and I have great respect for the way people conduct research. And to see Cyberonics get away with this – it just casts doubt on all clinical trials, all drug trials, all device trials – everything’s suspect when something like this goes through with very little scientific evidence.”

Q. Cyberonics continues even now to say their device has been proven to be a success.

“I think there’s a great bias against psychiatry and mental health. We wouldn’t be pushing a chemotherapy drug that didn’t work;  we wouldn’t be pushing a heart stent that didn’t work.

“We’re talking about people who have treatment-resistant depression. They’ve failed at least two other methods, they’ve tried drugs, psychotherapy, even ECT.

“These are people for whom we should have tremendous compassion. And to make them think that this device is going to help them? And that it’s scientifically proven to help them?  It’s an atrocity.”

***

READ:

• Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for depression: Does it work?
• Psychosurgery, Part 1:  A chilling history, and a possible comeback
• Psychosurgery, Part 2:  From lobotomy to deep brain stimulation

Opinion by the editors of The Oregonian, December 5, 2011

Nearly two years ago, The Skanner newspaper issued a startling SOS call about, well, SOS calls.

The African American newspaper advised its readers not to call the Portland Police Bureau. “We cannot have faith that innocents won’t get caught in the firing line when trigger-finger officers arrive in force,” the editorial said. Just two weeks earlier, a 9-1-1 call had triggered a tragic chain of events.

READ – ‘Having an Emergency? Don’t Call the Police’, February 12, 2009, by Bernie Foster, Publisher of The Skanner
READ – ‘What to Do Before Your Kid is in Crisis’, July 26, 2010,by Jenny Westberg of the Mental Health Association of Portland, published in The Skanner

Portland police were called to a woman’s apartment complex to check on her and her children. Her boyfriend, Aaron Campbell, was distraught and suicidal. A police negotiator talked Campbell into coming outside — and he did so, walking backwards with his hands over his head — but he was killed, anyway.

READ – what happened to Aaron Campbell

“Many of us are wondering why the police ever had to be on the scene of a grieving, depressed young man who subsequently died of a … shot to the back,” The Skanner wrote. “…There is a sense in the community of desperation … This situation never seems to change because there are no consequences to the officers who do the shooting.”

Since then, there have been consequences. One year ago, Police Chief Mike Reese fired the officer who shot Campbell and disciplined other officers at the scene.

Although the police union has challenged the firing, Reese’s prompt response telegraphed that the bureau had turned a corner. In the past two years, the bureau has launched several other initiatives to improve its response to people in crisis. Looming over it as well is an ongoing federal investigation into the bureau’s treatment of the mentally ill.

Now comes another hopeful sign — a revision of 9-1-1 protocols. As The Oregonian’s Maxine Bernstein reported Friday, distress calls about someone suffering a mental health crisis will soon be winnowed in a more precise and strategic way.

When it’s deemed to be safe (which means, in part, when there’s no weapon involved), calls from those in a mental health crisis will be directed to trained professionals at the county’s Mental Health Call Center. Police will no longer be the default responder.

There are risks involved in this change, and it’s important to point out that this approach might not have changed the outcome in the Campbell case. (Police were told that Campbell had a gun.)

Clearly, how police handle themselves when they arrive at a scene will still be of paramount concern. But don’t underestimate this kind of change. “That editorial shook up a lot of people,” The Skanner’s editor, Lisa Loving, acknowledged Friday, “and I think we have seen some breakthroughs.”

Given the history here, people will still be reluctant to call 9-1-1, Loving suspects, but “you have to give them credit for trying.” The city, county and mental health community have heard — and heeded — the SOS call about SOS calls.

This new approach may have its own complications. But it’s almost certain to save lives.

Guest Editorial published in The Oregonian, February 16, 2011

Come July, Portland police officers will have some extra spending money in their paychecks, but their new contract with the city actually includes something far more valuable. For some, it’s a chance at a new life.

The “treatment-first” option packaged with random drug testing in the contract means officers with alcohol or drug addiction will get help, not punishment. This is a substantive move that benefits the officers, their families and friends, and every one of us who looks to them for safety and protection.

Punishment and discipline for people with addiction and mental health issues are well-worn paths to secret-keeping and evasion. Drug tests without the option for treatment simply lead to better secret-keeping. Treatment works, and it should be available to everyone who needs it — including police.

Alcoholism and drug addiction are medical disorders, not matters for shame, any more than cancer or an allergy to peanuts. It’s been 72 years since the co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous introduced a novel idea: “No man should be fired just because he is alcoholic. If he wants to stop, he should be afforded a real chance.” Almost 40 years ago, the disease concept was written into Oregon law. And like it or not, about one in 10 of us is born with the predisposition for a drug or alcohol problem. That includes the men and women who serve on the police force.

But officers have the added burden of a risky, stressful job. They also have guns.

Our officers must be the emblem of truth and trust — whether it’s with their kids, a judge and jury, or with a lawbreaker. With the new contract, the Portland Police Association and the city of Portland have created a terrific incentive for truth-telling and trust-building.

We know how to treat addiction. We know what works and what doesn’t work. We know the costs of not providing treatment. We know the pain and suffering someone with addiction can cause without skilled help.

Auto accidents, domestic violence, employee theft, debt, child abuse, physical, mental and spiritual damage — all are typical with untreated addicts. But what worries many addicted officers most is the prospective damage they may do to their spouses and kids. Especially the kids. Police officers have a greater risk of domestic violence and higher suicide rates than the general population. Both harm kids, and both are fueled by addiction.

Addiction can be devastating, even life-threatening. But with treatment, it’s entirely controllable. It’s our responsibility to provide treatment, and treatment that works — especially to those who provide so much to us.

Remember: Police officers are all human. Just like us, they are all fallible, mortal beings. Just like us, they sometimes misuse alcohol and drugs. And now, sometimes, those officers will fail a random drug test.

Instead of being surprised when this happens, instead of pointing a finger of judgment, instead of declaring them menaces, let’s make sure they get the care they need. Inside every intervention is the light of opportunity, and inside every addict there is hope.

Instead of saying, “she failed her drug test,” let’s offer a prayer of thanksgiving: “We arrived before the worst happened, before the addiction was out of control. Now we can help.” And help means providing effective, outcome-driven treatment for addiction regardless of the drug — whether it’s lorazepam or heroin, whether it’s a case of beer or a snort of methamphetamine.

Keeping our cops clean and sober will make Portland safer – and in the process, turn some lives around.

Jason Renaud and Jenny Westberg are board members of the Mental Health Association of Portland.

Will Hall, director of Portland Hearing Voices. (Photo: Chris Shelamer-Terry)

Around 70 people packed the small performance space at the Someday Lounge in Northwest Portland last night to listen to poetry, explore the concept of madness, and support Portland Hearing Voices, a pioneering local group that challenges stereotypes about mental illness.

The event, organized by Ashley Toliver and Will Hall, featured Portland poets James Gendron, Emily Kendal Frey and Zachary Schomburg, who delighted, inspired and startled the crowd with evocative renderings of the English language.

The performance raised approximately $400 for Portland Hearing Voices.

Toliver said, “Art and poetry are about communicating what it means to be human, right now, in our bodies, from our experiences, in this world. It’s about forging a connection based on the honesty, originality, tension and authenticity of that transmission. If any facet of human experience is shut out of the conversation, we all lose.”

Schomburg also reflected about the relationship between poetry and madness.

“When I write a poem,” said Schomburg, “I try to detach myself from the logic of my reality. I try to create a space for myself that operates without a common logic, a dream-logic more specifically–I try to steer a lucid dream. I suppose in this way I can feel mad, glazed over, indistractable, hypnotized. I’m not as interested in finding the poetry of the real world, or shared logic and narrative, as I am in finding the poetry of the imagination, of impossible but recognizable logic.

Myriam Rahman. (Photo: Chris Shelamer-Terry)

“So, that space I go to is an extremely personal and intimate space, one that only I have access to or will ever have access to. In a way, writing a poem for me is a way of getting to know myself. My madness is personal, consistent, and productive. Finishing a poem is like snapping out of something, and back into the world. I would think that this experience isn’t too much unlike a more clinical definition of madness (to be separated from the light of the world for a moment).”

Hall, the director of Portland Hearing Voices, introduced the poets and talked about the group. He also shared some of his experiences as a schizophrenia survivor. From a background of homelessness and hospitalization, Hall has emerged as an internationally recognized advocate for people diagnosed with mental health issues. He has been recovered for over a decade. Among his activities, he has a therapy practice in Portland, writes prolifically, and hosts Madness Radio on KBOO-FM.

Also speaking were Jenny Westberg, Myriam Rahman and Anusuya StarBear, who shared personal experiences and explained why Portland Hearing Voices is important in their lives.

One of the featured poets, James Gendron – according to his bio on Reading Local: Portland – is from the sun. His “Number One Country” begins with the words: “Lately my hand is an alligator.” Gendron teaches writing at Portland State University, and his new chapbook, “Money Poems,” will be published by Poor Claudia next month.

Emily Kendal Frey’s poems include “Sorrow Arrow,” which starts with the words, “Sometimes I want fewer choices / Asparagus or a baby with wings.” She teaches at Portland Community College, and her recent publications include “Frances” and “The New Planet.”

Poet Zachary Schomburg. (Photo: Chris Shelamer-Terry)

Zachary Schomburg is the author of works such as “Scary, No Scary,” which, according to a review by Timothy Henry, “attempts to find the thin line (if it even exists) between terror and pleasure.” Other publications include “The Man Suit” and “Little Blind Thing.” He teaches at Portland State University and Portland Community College.

Also scheduled to read, but unavailable at the last minute, was Sara Guest, a poet, novelist, William Stafford Writing fellow and program coordinator for Write Around Portland. Guest’s poetry was still featured, however, as the other poets began their sets with selections from her work.

Chris Shelamer-Terry, who attended the benefit and took photographs, was moved and inspired. “I think it’s so awesome that people all come, as a community, in recovery and working toward recovery, being able to speak about their own lives around people who are supporting them. I hope that Portland Hearing Voices continues its work, because it makes for a strong set of people.”

More information about Portland Hearing Voices: http://www.portlandhearingvoices.net/