The Contingency Review Board voted Oct. 8 to disapprove a preliminary consent decree entered by the attorney general in Briggs v. Friesen, after the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services’ commissioner told the board the agreement would prevent the department from providing jail‑based competency restoration in most counties and could saddle taxpayers with open‑ended costs.

Commissioner Friesen, the department’s top official, told the board she “did not come into this role anticipating getting in this kind of scenario” and said she “will resign before I will sign the state up for an agreement like this” if the decree forced the department to stop treatment in 75 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties. Friesen said the relevant draft language appears in the filed document and that her office did not receive a final, negotiated version prior to the court’s action.

Friesen also said the decree’s structure would allow plaintiffs’ counsel to influence or approve clinical decisions through court‑appointed consultants, which she called inappropriate for clinical governance. She warned the wording could put the department at risk of ongoing fines and “continued payment of consultants who rely on this for their livelihood.”

On cost, Friesen said actual expenses could not be precisely tallied until pilot and staffing details are set, but offered a conservative estimate: “Conservatively, not including the ask for beds, conservatively over 5 years, we’re looking at approximately $96,000,000,” she said. Board members later referenced a rounded $100 million figure during discussion.

Board members pressed for access to the filed document and identified paragraphs of concern. Counsel located a filed copy that included paragraph 30 (regarding class counsel’s consulting role) and paragraph 58 (language tied to the jail‑based competency restoration program). Members asked whether the department’s suggested edits were adopted; Friesen said key mental‑health treatment language remained insufficient to allow the entry and delivery of competency restoration services under a court order.

The governor told the board he had not agreed to the decree and disputed a representation the attorney general had made to the court that he had conferred with legislative leaders and the governor’s office. "The governor's office was never gonna agree to a consent decree that the state agency ... says it's not good for the citizens of Oklahoma," he said.

Board counsel briefed members on consequences of disapproval: declining to accept the decree would mean the state was not settling under those terms and the litigation would continue — potentially leading either to renegotiation or to trial, counsel said.

A motion to disapprove the consent decree passed on roll call. During the vote, Speaker Charles McCall recorded a yes, President Frederick Treat abstained and Doctor Stitt was recorded as voting yes; the motion carried and the board formally disapproved the preliminary consent decree.

The board’s action does not end the federal lawsuit. Members and the department said they want more time and clearer language to protect the department’s statutory authority to provide competency restoration and to ensure clinical decisions remain with qualified clinicians. Board members also noted the department had requested more collaborative work with consultants to identify root causes of delays in competency restoration and proposed pilots such as Project ECHO as part of an "Oklahoma Plan."