Fundamentally, I generally don't feel comfortable blaming individuals for system failures, because I know it is almost always a lot more complicated than that. So the immediate question is why would the State engage in Bad Faith Failure to Communicate tactics in Olmstead discussions/negotiations when there is so much at stake for people with mental illness who are homeless, incarcerated, institutionalized, etc.? Well, I think the most obvious answer is they didn't know it was Bad Faith. Unfortunately, many areas of the law are highly dysfunctional AND in fact provide perverse incentives to fail to communicate until one is forced to. I think it is pretty clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) isn't one of those areas of law. In fact, the ADA provides numerous incentives and requirements for the parties to communicate and try to resolve things. Some of the most important reasons for this are the complexity of the matters, the typical lack of resources of the person(s) with disabilities, the importance of the objectives of the ADA itself -- Congress wanted potential Defendants to have a duty to make a good faith effort to resolve these matters. Further, I would say with respect to Olmstead matters in particular -- they are really about improving systems for people with disabilities to prevent unnecessary institutionalization such as prison, jail, nursing homes, mental health institutes or the great risk of institutionalization as a result of homelessness. Unfortunately, when one starts talking about the law -- people get scared and clam up. In this case -- my thought has always been -- what are you afraid of -- I already have overwhelming evidence that the system sucks -- I'm just trying to work with you (State) to improve it? Generally speaking, one doesn't start out furious, AND after 9 months of informal attempts to engage the State in Significant System Improvement/ Olmstead discussions, and then 7 months of more formal efforts to do that -- getting blown off is more than a little old. So I have had to continually ratchet it up -- AND the reality for myself and most mental health advocates and attorneys -- we don't have a ton of money to play a lot of legal games with the State. And goodness knows our clients who are likely homeless, incarcerated, or institutionalized don't either. So as polite as the people with State are, and believe me, they are, neither myself nor the people I am working on behalf can tolerate their Bad Faith even if it is unwitting. So if I'm going to file something at this point, I'm looking at seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ordering the State to act in Good Faith to resolve these matters. Further, I will be requesting the State to put selected requirements of Title II of the ADA in State regulations to help facilitate future discussions between the State, people with disabilities, advocates, attorneys, etc. My hope is that we will be able to negotiate a resolution to these matters or narrow them so that we might have mini-trials, etc. Right now -- the promises of Olmstead have often been out of reach without the backing of National Legal Support Centers such as Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Department of Justice, Mega Law Firms, etc. Unfortunately, the line for that support can be pretty long. If Colorado could pioneer user-friendly, cost effective, substantively-effective systems, we would benefit not only Colorado, we serve as a model for the nation.