Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Clackamas County delays vote to shift civil-commitment representation after public concerns
Loading...
Summary
After a wave of public comment and questions about process and capacity, the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners agreed March 12 to remove a consent-agenda item that would shift civil-commitment representation and to consider it at its March 19 meeting to allow more community input.
Chair Roberts opened the March 12 meeting of the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners by announcing he would pull from the consent agenda a proposal affecting which office represents the county in involuntary civil-commitment proceedings and defer a vote until March 19 to allow more public testimony.
The proposal under discussion would designate the county’s district attorney’s office as responsible for civil-commitment representation; opponents argued that civil-commitment is a civil, not criminal, process. Amanda J. Marshall, who identified herself both as a person living with mental illness and as one of Clackamas County’s two public defenders for civil-commitment cases, opposed the change and urged the board to keep the work with county council. “Civil matters are civil and they should be handled by county council,” Marshall said, adding fiscal and dignity arguments for continuity.
Ricky Barker, a provisionally licensed attorney working to represent respondents in involuntary-commitment proceedings, told the board such hearings are liberty-deprivation proceedings that require strong procedural safeguards. Barker cited Oregon statutes and U.S. Supreme Court precedent and urged the board to preserve a structural separation between civil commitment and criminal prosecution to maintain public confidence.
Jeremiah Hawkins, a Clackamas County resident, asked the board to slow the process, consider additional community input and explore whether budgeted funds could support increased capacity to retain representation within county council. He referenced a supplemental budget transfer to the district attorney’s office and asked whether the county had chosen to allocate capacity rather than lacked it.
County Counsel Billy Williams told commissioners the district attorney’s office had been serving as a backup under a June order and had recently stepped in because of county-counsel staffing changes. Williams said the DA’s office was currently handling cases in coordination with behavioral-health staff and that delaying the item would not change which office was doing the work in the short term.
After questions and discussion, Chair Roberts directed the clerk to remove the item from today’s consent agenda and place it on the March 19 agenda, saying the postponement would give more people an opportunity to testify. County Administrator Gary Smith confirmed the item would return next week.
The decision to postpone was procedural and not a formal change of policy; the board did not take a final vote on the underlying transfer at the March 12 meeting. The March 19 meeting is the next scheduled opportunity for additional testimony and potential formal action.
