Late August. It has been several months since Patricia started her job and she now has a better idea of what to do to prevent relapse. Ainslee has a proposal for an activity to keep recovering addicts busy outside of work or school. Or what other obligations they might have in the outside world they might have that could make them pick outpatient rehab.
It's not often that I get a proposal for a new activity for the outpatients in the addictions ward, so I set aside some time for Ainslee. Initially, I shadowed counselors so that I would get a better feel for the counselor's clinical realities. And also have a better idea of what it really feels to the patients. But as time went on at work, I interact less with patients and only do so when there are complaints, Patricia reflects on her first few months on the job. Ainslee knocks on her office's door:
"Hello Patricia" Ainslee tells her boss.
"Hi Ainslee. What new activity do you propose to have the outpatients do? Also, do you have a schedule and budget?" Patricia asks.
"Several of my colleagues expressed concerns over the patients' social skills. My proposal goes beyond social skills alone, it also allows outpatients to develop in other areas that would be useful in their recovery process, albeit indirectly" Ainslee prefaces her proposal.
"If you could just stop beating around the bush, please..." Patricia warns the counselor.
"The Outpatient Congressional Debate Club. Tentatively, we want to run it on Tuesday nights, as that's when we can reach the most patients in group therapy"
Having drug addicts in recovery engage in Congressional simulations might help (re-)learn taking turns to speak, think critically and so on, but I have my reservations. It will depend, as so many of these kinds of activities, on the addicts' ability to remain committed to it, Patricia muses while Ainslee runs down the benefits of the activity as well as the budget, which doesn't require a whole lot of new materials or equipment.
Given what I saw on C-SPAN in the past, sometimes I feel like even drug addicts in their early stages of recovery would debate better than actual legislators! Legislatures, in Topeka, or in Washington, seem to do more theatrics than anything else. Here's my chance to see whether it's true or not! Ainslee muses, while waiting on the answer from Patricia.
"If I may, there's one key benefit you overlooked, but you're forgiven because it's a secondary benefit to my eyes" Patricia adds, before lowering her voice for what comes next. "Better citizenship. Provided the topics for resolutions or bills are chosen carefully"
"Do you think this proposal could stand a chance?" Ainslee asks her. I mean, "it's low-cost, it should provide benefits that go well beyond recovery alone..."
"As per usual for that kind of activity, expect the activity to be run on a trial basis at first and then, if benefits are conclusive, then we can have it done on the longer run" Patricia answers the outpatient alcoholism counselor. "Is that OK with you?"
"Yes"
Patricia then transmits the proposal to her boss, who then circulates a memo to the outpatient counselors and their respective patients to gauge interest among their patients. So the program wouldn't start until two weeks.
If Ainslee's plan doesn't work, maybe I can have these drug addicts in recovery play ChGK instead! Same costs, different benefits, however I believe ChGK to be a harder sell than Congressional debating, Patricia cogitates on the implications of the success or failure of the plan of the alcohol counselor. Then again, exposing recovering addicts to activities they never had the chance to engage in otherwise is better than no activities at all. Because 12-step groups aren't the end of the story for outpatient rehab patients.
In the meantime, she reads introductory resources on Congressional debating as played in high school so that she wouldn't be lost when the designated Tuesday arrives.
-------------------------
Two weeks later, Ainslee quickly realizes there are too many prospective participants for just one chamber (group). She decides the following since she believes it would be more beneficial if the groups aren't too large. Even though, in a real Congressional debate chamber, agenda-setting and drafting resolutions or bills are crucial, it's too early for these addicts to understand where these fit. These addicts might not be completely dumb, but not all of them can function on the level of even high school Congressional debaters. However, high school Cong debaters are typically in the upper intellectual levels, Ainslee reflects on her expectations of the activity.
"Patricia, I believe you would be the best person for presiding over the session (meeting) of the second group. Surely you realize that, while Congressional debating happens in larger groups, a group that's too large is problematic" Ainslee explains to her.
"Fine, I'll do it" Patricia sighs, trying to conjure a reason to preside over a Congressional debate chamber.
Patricia has butterflies in her stomach, because she feels there are too many new activities being done in her life all at once. ChGK and then Congressional debating? Is there too much on my plate? On top of that, I accepted to preside over Congressional debating sessions because I believe being involved in new activities suggested by counselors, and making them work, would help me with my own work. Ainslee as presiding officer in one chamber, me in the other, she ruminates, while random draw decides chamber assignments for the patients. When the patients assigned to her chamber are chosen, and seated:
"Welcome to the first session of the Outpatient Congressional Debate Club. Before the debate proper starts, let's review the rules: all participants are entitled to one speech before a speaker can deliver a second speech on a given motion, up to three minutes long, followed by two minutes of questioning. During questioning, each participant is entitled to one question per speech, and they are asked in the order people raise their hands. Also, do not interrupt speeches while they are being delivered. Please stand up when you are delivering your speech and wait for your order to come. Votes are made with raised hands!" Patricia lectures the addicts.
Patricia rapidly finds out that determining speaking order is not as straightforward as she initially believed. Even with the resolution being discussed being shown on the screen. For that night's meeting, there are only 2 items on the agenda (or docket as Congressional debaters often call it), both related to mental health policy. One is a resolution, or statement of position, the other is a bill. Ainslee believed mental health policy to be easier to get recovering addicts involved in Cong.
Especially with an unruly participant, a recovering crack addict, making the session miserable for the other recovering addicts in the chamber. Maybe that recovering addict is in its early stages, or relapsed recently, she muses before intervening.
"Order, order!" Patricia hollers in the direction of a recovering crack addict, with her face turning red. "You kept interrupting and therefore, you lack respect for your fellow recovering addicts... Just don't talk when someone else is talking, please"
Oh boy. These narkomany (addicts) are worse than I expected, and my life looks like high school all over again by now. Not socially speaking, but schedule-wise, Patricia reflects on this experience as presiding officer in Cong. At the same time, she internally fights flashbacks from her time in high school. Especially those from juggling her roles in the literary magazine, the writing center and scholars bowl (for the first two-thirds of the year) or the speech team (for the final third of the year).
Find this and other great novels on the author's preferred platform. Support original creators!
The quality of the argumentation in either chamber is, to both presiding officers' minds, not very good. However, a lot of questions boiled down to questioning the sources of speakers' statements, and surprisingly, none of them seemed to attack the speaker rather than the arguments in the speech. Often, these recovering addicts made statements that made no sense to someone, albeit not the same person every time. So, in the end, questioning sounds like a verbal joust between 10 outpatient recovering addicts. And none of the 20 addicts in the club actually used up the full allowance of 3 minutes when making their speeches on any of the resolutions. When the debate on the first resolution ends:
"For this resolution to pass, we need a simple majority vote. Two things: first, if the vote is tied, I will break the tie. Also, there may be items where a supermajority of two-thirds is required" Patricia explains to the addicts before the vote starts.
"Question: what items require a supermajority of two-thirds?" an addict asks, confused by this aspect of the Cong rules.
"The most important item requiring a supermajority of two-thirds is called the prior question, which is used to ask debate to end on a motion" Patricia answers that addict, sighing upon realizing there are rules she didn't explain, believing it would make more sense to explain a more specific rule when it's actually invoked during a session.
And some of these addicts had severe intellectual issues to boot. Some of these are not even be able to make a coherent case at all. Maybe Ainslee would have a better idea of what resources to use for fixing holes in their educations than I. Speaking of which, I have an idea, Patricia muses, realizing that it might help addicts, but she is no position to discuss it for now. Might be a topic for a future session.
Surprisingly, voting on the first resolution went without a hitch, and, while the vote wasn't unanimous, it passed nonetheless.
But, on the second resolution, an addict hands a slip to Patricia from a notepad, with a hand-written amendment proposal.
Usually, in high school Congressional debate tournaments, bills follow a five-section format: section 1 is about the action proper, section 2 contains the key definitions, section 3 is about who implements the provisions in section 1 and how, section 4 is about the timeframe for implementation and section 5 is a boilerplate "All laws in conflict with this legislation shall be declared null and void".
The vast majority of items in Congressional tournament dockets end up being bills, as opposed to resolutions. The bill up for debate is about drug education reform:
"So we have a proposal for an amendment (change) to the bill. Subsection one C would now read: Teaching strategies for students and their peers to deal with drug addiction will also be required. Who wishes to second it?" Patricia asks when an addict proposes an amendment to the mock bill.
There is no shortage of recovering addicts wishing to second the amendment, and it triggers a debate on the amendment itself. In a way, the resulting debate on the amendment sounds a little funny. It happens to sound that way since recovering addicts may not necessarily be the best-positioned to know what works and what doesn't regarding drug education. Yet, it's a voice that's all too often ignored when it comes to drug policy.
So, when she is not dealing with the lack of discipline of these recovering addicts, Patricia writes down what they have to say on the topic of drug education. Yes, the bill as originally worded called for mandatory, medically accurate drug education (subsection 1A) as well as banning abstinence-only drug education (subsection 1B). However, what the addicts had to say was a little raw.
But she's elated to hear about a recovering drug addict regaining enough intellectual clarity to realize that it was not enough to ban abstinence-only drug education. That addict in question, seeing that other addicts keep re-hashing the same points over and over, moves for the use of the prior question.
"I move for the use of the prior question on the subsection one C" an addict calls, his hand raised.
"Seconded!" another addict shouts, turning to the addict proposing to use the prior question.
"The vote is first on stopping the debate on subsection one C and, if it passes, with a two-thirds supermajority, then we can vote on the amendment itself and return to the main motion" Patricia then clenches her fist.
Then the prior question motion passes, 7-3, as well as subsection 1C. Patricia then slams the table when the result of the vote on the subsection 1C goes in effect.
But then the addicts in Patricia's chamber are so focused on what they want to achieve (Section 1) that they never stop to ask themselves about who, how and when. Never mind whether it's realistic or not.
And neither did they in Ainslee's. This session is so not playing out like my own experience of Congressional debate in high school. Often people debated endlessly about the logistics of implementation, back in my time in Cong, but these addicts in my chamber clearly didn't think much of whether this skeleton of an action plan is realistic or not, Ainslee muses, while a then-and-now image of Congressional debating is flashing in her mind as the final vote on the bill takes place in her chamber. There are two or three changes between the Congressional format I exposed these addicts to and the one I competed in: here there is no designated sponsor or opposition speech, no judgments and 2 minutes of questioning for all speeches.
Back in Patricia's chamber, the 10 addicts vote on the bill, which passes 8-2. Then Patricia makes a proposal after she slaps the table on it:
"I move that today's session is closed (adjourned as usually stated in Congressional mock sessions)" Patricia then suggests the addicts, looking at their tired faces.
"Seconded!" an addict tells in a husky voice, about to lie his head and wanting the verbal joust to end.
"I propose that we vote to close the session"
This time around, the addicts vote unanimously to adjourn the session. The addicts in both chambers return home, but Patricia meets with Ainslee after the addicts have left the premises:
"Ainslee, what I'm seeing is concerning. What I would like is that some sort of screening for educational needs to be done at some point of the rehab process. While I concede that Congressional debate is pretty complete as far as benefits to the addicts are concerned, so they get to be better public speakers, think critically, it's also a pretty good tool to determine whether further educational action is required" Patricia tells Ainslee, her heart sinking.
"Identifying where the needs may lie is a good thing, and there are often things we may miss without a screening protocol, and that might hurt patients in the long run" Ainslee comments, her head spinning because of this Congressional session.
"I agree, Ainslee, but I'm a little clueless for resources we can direct patients to once needs are identified. However, I'm not familiar with the landscape of adult and continuing education in the area. Yet, I'm aware of addicts having squandered educational opportunities because of their addictions. As much as I want to push for an educational needs screening protocol to be used upon suspicion of serious educational weaknesses, I need the counselors' help to draft it" Patricia continues to harangue Ainslee.
"Another day, please, I'm not in the mood for that. But, if you want, we can always have dinner at my place and then we can discuss why I wanted to hold Congressional debates for the patients to take part in" Ainslee invites Patricia to her home.
"Yes"
And I may as well want to hold a meeting with the powers-that-be in inpatient drug rehab, too. I bet the inpatient folks are watching the outpatients run the hospital's debating show, Patricia has a flash of insight, while also suspecting Cong to not be too labor-intensive (compared to other formats) and Ainslee feels like it's better not to focus on the competitive aspect.
-------------------------
Once they arrive at Ainslee's home, near downtown KCK (i.e., the Kansas side of Kansas City), they waste no time getting settled and Ainslee puts fries in the air-frier. While the fries are being air-fried...
"I used to be a Congressional debater in high school. I saw in Cong a way to help a lot of patients get back on track without putting too much of a strain on the staff. However, to fully realize the benefits, it will take weeks of regular participation, and maybe expand the club to two meetings per week" Ainslee explains to Patricia.
"Me too, I did some Cong, and extemp as well, but, on a yearly basis, I didn't take extemp or Cong seriously until the scholars bowl season ends. For a month and a half per year, I had one extemp practice round per week, and I hastily outlined speeches for each Congressional item on a tournament's docket. Here in Kansas, non-policy debaters were encouraged to pick up a speech event, and tournaments routinely allowed people to do so. Did the same hold for you?" Patricia asks her colleague, curious to learn more about Ainslee's background in Cong.
I was not a standout in Congressional debating or in extemp in any shape or form, unlike scholars bowl. I was good at extemp and Cong for only half a season per year. I knew I was nowhere near as good an extemper as... Chantal, I think? Chantal was a name my extemp coach mentioned a lot back then, Patricia gets more flashbacks from her time in high school, not realizing that the Chantal who was mentioned in that flashback was actually a contemporary of Imélie in high school.
"My local circuit didn't allow for double entry in debate and speech. So I focused on Congressional debate"