Commissioners debate timing and language of regional "Treatment First" MOU
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
A commissioner asked that a regional Treatment First MOU be placed on next week's consent agenda; other commissioners urged broader stakeholder review, raised concerns about specific language (the use of 'foundation' in objectives), and noted potential legal and coordination issues with concurrent task-force work and pending litigation related to federal policy.
A commissioner asked Feb. 17 that the Board of County Commissioners place a regional Treatment First memorandum of understanding (MOU) on next week's consent agenda so Spokane County could formally sign on with several nearby jurisdictions. The MOU is framed as a nonbinding cooperative framework to encourage coordination on behavioral-health and homelessness response.
Several commissioners said they needed more time to review the text and to solicit input from conveners, planning partners and key stakeholders—including local chambers and the city of Spokane—because the document includes language they found consequential. One commissioner singled out section 3, which uses the phrase "foundation of any joint action," and said that wording risked implying an operational commitment; that commissioner asked that the term be changed to language like "to be taken into consideration" before the county would sign.
Other commissioners acknowledged that multiple smaller jurisdictions had already signed the MOU and that the document explicitly disclaims any requirement to commit funds or bind jurisdictions; but several warned that the MOU could be interpreted as aligning the county with a federal executive-order orientation that is the subject of active litigation in other states. Some argued the county should wait for the Safe and Healthy Task Force to return prioritized recommendations; another commissioner said the MOU largely represents a statement of principles, not a funding commitment, and that it fills an existing question the task force was considering.
Next steps: commissioners requested staff and conveners to circulate the MOU to the full planning/convening list for input, to seek clarification on the term "foundation," and to return with a redline or recommended edits before placing anything on a consent agenda.
