The Spokane County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 Dec. 16 to adopt an amended draft of Spokane County Code 1.17A, adjusting standards for delivery of public‑defender services to incorporate preliminary case weights based on the Washington state average and to permit a case‑waiting system.

County staff explained that the Washington State Supreme Court issued an order directing phased caseload reductions (a 10% annual reduction in the difference between current and new standards, with full compliance by Jan. 1, 2036, if phased). Scott Simmons, staff presenter, laid out fiscal projections and said a 10‑year phased approach using the Washington average weights would cost roughly $18 million over 10 years in Spokane County; more aggressive 3‑year implementation using WSBA figures would cost far more.

Commissioner French moved to replace the posted draft with a version dated Dec. 16 adopting Washington‑average case weights (the motion was seconded). Commissioners debated the fiscal and constitutional tradeoffs and the need to gather local time‑spend data and review weights annually. The board then opened an extended public‑comment period: multiple public‑defender attorneys and supervisors testified in opposition, warning the proposed weights would yield unworkable caseloads, erode effective assistance of counsel and risk wrongful convictions. Dawson Osborne, a senior attorney in the public‑defender office, said, “I have 49 concurrent felony cases today…we have too many cases, and the system is mandating ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Supporters of adopting a phased Washington‑average approach said it improves the draft and commits the county to data collection and annual review. Commissioners expressed differing views: several praised the public defenders’ service and acknowledged funding constraints, while others said the motion represents a necessary step given state direction and county fiscal realities. The motion passed 3–2.

What was decided: The board adopted the amended draft to use Washington‑average weights as the working draft for further public comment and to implement a case‑waiting structure with local data collection and annual review. Commissioners urged continued collaboration with the public‑defender office, legislative advocacy for state funding and careful local monitoring of case time data. The item will return for final vote after public testimony on the amended draft.