Meeting Notes
Organizational Meeting of the DC Boomers Mutual Aid Society
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The initial organizational meeting of the Society, featuring a pot luck dinner, was held at the home of Barbara and Nelson Rosenbaum on Sunday, August 5, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. In attendance were the following couples and individuals:
Roberta and Doug Colton
Claire and David Maklan
Margaret and Joe Chachkin
Margaret and Joe Chachkin
Christine and Marshall Becker
Suzan and Ron Wynne
Marilynne Rudick and Bob Sher
Nelson and Barbara Rosenbaum
Corinne and Dan Szabo
Debbie Smith
Jerry Holiber
Sam Bleicher
Barbara led off by discussing similar societies and groups that have recently formed in communities such as Capitol Hill, Boston, and Princeton, NJ. She identified the central purpose of these groups as providing mutual aid and information to assist members to “age in place” successfully. The groups vary in structure and formality, but all feature the commitment of members to assist other members with activities and issues related to aging and disability. Barbara emphasized that the inaugural meeting was designed to simply elicit ideas and interest rather than to immediately establish a formal organization. She then called for open discussion among those present on possible priorities and programs for the Society.
The major themes concerning aging in place that arose from the discussion were as follows:
1. Many in the group feel that they cannot “count on” their children to provide adequate support as they age. This may stem from the remote location of children or the demands on their children posed by career and home life. There was a lively discussion about the obligations of children.
2. Several attendees emphasized the need to plan in detail for the challenges of aging. A number of couples and individuals have bought long term care insurance as one aspect of their financial planning. Others have prepared living trusts and advance directives. But all emphasized that these planning elements are largely “defensive” against potential crises. They do not substitute for adequate community-based support for aging in place.
3. Most expressed their desire to continue living in their current living spaces as they age.
4. The loss of driving, either by losing one’s license or having children take away the car/insurance, is often the inflection point that precipitates a move out of the home and into a facility. The spouse or children may be able to make up for the loss of driving at least temporarily, but over the longer term, it is usually the critical factor in a change of residence/life style.
5. Social activities and emotional support to combat the isolation and loneliness of aging may be just as important a function of the proposed Society as more concrete assistance.
Following the general discussion, Barbara turned the meeting to the topic of possible “models” or organizational forms for the proposed Society. Attendees identified a number of potential options, ranging from 1) a formal service organization with dues and structure such as Capital Village on Capital Hill, b) a more informal mutual aid group such as the Chevy Chase baby-sitting coop with which many of the attendees were familiar, c) an information-sharing group based upon a participant blog of experiences and resources as well as links to formal resources such as Area Agencies on Aging, d) a collection of interest groups in areas such as travel, exercise, music, etc., e) a cooperative local living space with shared real estate ownership. Numerous participants pointed out that such organizational models are not mutually exclusive and that the Society would grow and evolve over time as its member’s needs changed.
In closing the meeting, Barbara proposed the formation of a working committee to formulate more concrete proposals and plans for the Society. However, it was the consensus of the group that the formation of a committee was premature. Instead, the group agreed that it would be valuable to have at least one more informal organizational meeting to share ideas as well as to expand the potential membership of the Society. Sue Wynne, a geriatric care manager, was asked to present her perspective on the factors to consider at a future meeting. Nelson agreed to write up the initial minutes of the meeting as reporter and to create a provisional name for the Society and an organizational blog. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
7 comments:
The group talked about the problem of "social isolation" as we grow older, particularly for those who choose to remain in their own homes.We discussed the need for detailed advance directives as well as financial/estate planning. Suzan was asked to suggest other subject areas that should be considered as we each make our plans for aging in place.
"DC Boomers..." sounds good to me, accurate & upbeat, until/unless someone finds a better moniker. Also, some people may change houses as time goes by, but still need support in sustaining independence & good quality of life.
Great summary of discussion!
Nelson, I know we can all comment on the post, but are you the only one who has permission to post a new blog (new topic)?
Identifying and committing to ways to support each other’s aging in place is great, but I'm not ready to assume that most of us will be able to age in place forever. Loss of the ability to drive, or walk, are only 2 of the bad things that contribute to loss of independence. At minimum, we all need reliable transportation and/or proximity to meals, health care, social support, and activities that provide stimulation. Therefore, for me, the concept of cohousing (not in place) has a lot of appeal. Note that the website for the national cohousing association says there will be a tour of existing cohousing in DC on a TBD date. I'll try to get info about that. Riderwood Village is another model that can offer a lot because of its very large size. Anyhow, I look forward to more discussion.
Nelson---I thought you did a terrific job of summarizing the meeting. Since the meeting, I've learned of a group in Rockville that has somewhat similar goals and I'll get some info on it asap."Anonymous" mentioned Riderwood; Suzan and I just got back from a visit there, and it's a pretty amazing facililty, albeit hardly smack in the middle of town. It's about 10' north of White Oak on the Montgomery-Prince George's line, and is enormous, with all sorts of things to do. The model is that you go in now, paying $x for an apartment (with various sizes and amenities), and then pay a monthlly activities fee (approx. $1700/mo if you have a one BR apt for whichi you've paid roughly $150,000 up front). Then they have facilities to essentially care for you the rest of your life (independent living, assisted living, varoius levels of rehabilitative and palliative care). until you die.
A friend of mine told me about another alternative for aging in place which is to hire a caretaker for a salary plus a share of your estate when you die if the caretaker stays until your death. My friend knows a couple in their 70's who have done this successfully. Their caretakers are a gay couple who live-in and receive room, board, and $25,000 per year. (One member of the couple has another job.)
On the issue of our name, a few people have commented on "DC Boomers." It was necessary to come up with something to name the blog but the floor is open. Corinne objects to DC Boomers and I guess she has a point - we are not all boomers. She suggested Late Bloomers. Given our preoccupation with driving voiced at the first meeting, I thought of The Miss Daisy Society. We could put together a list of suggestions and vote.
Post a Comment