Wallowa County commissioners on Sept. 30 approved a proposal authorizing the sheriff's office to pursue privatizing courthouse security personnel, voting 2-1 after nearly two hours of public comment and commissioner questions.

The measure, listed on the agenda as Proposal 2025-09-29, authorizes the county to advertise for and contract with a private company to provide court security officers (CSOs) at the county courthouse and district court. The sheriff described the plan as a response to persistent staffing shortfalls in court security.

Why it matters: Commissioners and members of the public said courthouse security affects judges, court staff and the public and raised concerns about continuity, accountability and local jobs. Opponents pressed for more financial detail and time to evaluate alternatives; supporters said contracting could deliver consistent daily coverage that the county has struggled to provide.

The sheriff, identified in the meeting as proposing the change, told commissioners that privatized court security is used in other Washington counties and that the sheriff's office does not select the contractor directly. "They have to put out an RFP, and they will select that company based on the results from that RFP," he said, adding he had consulted with a company the county already uses for fairgrounds security for comparative figures.

Those figures, provided to commissioners and discussed in the meeting, compared the county's current staffing costs with private contract rates. The sheriff said county CSOs currently reach peak pay of about $27 per hour and that a vendor the sheriff contacted, Tri Cities Monitoring, indicated a likely contract rate of about $39 per hour, of which the vendor would pay roughly $31 to the individual employee. Using the sheriff's staffing assumptions, the county's current total annual wages and benefits for court security were cited at about $328,768; the sheriff said a three-person contracted coverage model would cost about $243,400 in wages, not including other line items the county budgets for training, supplies and equipment. The county clerk reported the total 2025 budget for court security (salaries, benefits and supplies) at approximately $400,000.

Public commenters raised procedural and policy questions. Carrie Isaacson said the proposal, described in the agenda supplement, was "confusing" and asked the commissioners to point to the legal basis for delegating security functions to private contractors. Nancy Driver and Stacy McPherson said no cost comparisons or hiring details had been provided before the meeting and expressed concern that local workers might lose jobs to out-of-area contractors. "It seems very unaccountable and unprofessional," Driver said. Stacy McPherson asked whether a contractor had already been selected and whether CSOs would retain employment and pay parity.

Gabe (identified in the meeting as a prosecutor with frequent courthouse presence) described a longstanding shortage of consistent court security and said the courthouse has at times lacked any security officer during high-profile visits, underscoring the staffing problem the sheriff cited. Frances (commenter) and others urged investment in making county CSO positions more career-oriented through pay, retention incentives and training rather than outsourcing.

Commissioner Clayton said he opposed the proposal and, speaking before the vote, said, "I'll vote no on this," citing the timing and lack of persuasive financial justification. Commissioners Fulmer and Kimball voted in favor; the board chair confirmed the final tally as 2-1 in favor of approving the sheriff's request to pursue contracting.

The board distinguished discussion from direction and next steps: the vote authorized the county to proceed with contracting processes; it did not itself award a contract. Commissioners asked the sheriff to provide additional details on potential contract terms, staffing levels, and costs, and to coordinate with the county prosecuting attorney on procurement and any required contract review. The sheriff said he would reach out to potential vendors for firm numbers and noted the county commissioners retain contracting authority and could set term lengths (for example, one- or multi-year contracts).

Several commissioners and the sheriff discussed short-term coverage while the contracting process proceeds. The chair asked the sheriff to explore options to ensure the courthouse is staffed through October, including emergency contracting with a private firm already used by county events or asking local law enforcement to fill short-term shifts; the sheriff said scheduling and labor rules limited his ability to unilaterally reassign deputies on short notice and that any deputy overtime or interagency coverage would require planning.

What the action does and does not do: The board's approval authorizes the county to solicit and enter contracts for court security services consistent with county procurement rules. It does not guarantee that any particular existing CSO will be rehired by a vendor, does not change deputies' arrest powers, and does not itself set contract duration or specific vendor terms. Commissioners said those specifics will be resolved in procurement and contract review.

Background: Commissioners and several commenters said court security staffing has been a recurring issue; the sheriff described current funded positions and the county budget pressures that complicate staffing. The meeting record shows the county has used retired or part-time personnel for court security in recent years and that the operating model has struggled to guarantee daily coverage.

Next steps: The sheriff said he would collect firm vendor quotes and proposed contract terms and provide those to the commissioners and the prosecuting attorney for review, with the goal of returning to the board at the next regular meeting to consider contracting options and short-term coverage needs.