Clackamas commissioners preview order to return civil‑commitment cases to the district attorney

Clackamas County officials on March 10 previewed a board order that would shift responsibility for civil‑commitment proceedings back to the district attorney's office, a move county counsel and the DA said is meant to match legal capacity with a time‑consuming, specialized docket.

County Administrator Gary Schmidt told the board the proposal would reverse a 2025 change and that county counsel and District Attorney John Wangworth had met about transferring the work back to the DA's office. "It's a long‑term responsibility the DA's office has handled, like it is in other counties," Schmidt said, adding that recent staff changes left county counsel without the legal capacity to continue the continuous docket.

Wangworth told the board that his office is experienced in cases that "deprive liberty"—civil‑commitment hearings, contempt matters and quasi‑criminal proceedings—and that his team could take the responsibility without creating an extra burden. "This is our wheelhouse," he said, noting that defense counsel is appointed in many of these matters and the process follows court procedures similar to other civil enforcement work.

Commissioners pressed DA Wangworth and staff on concerns raised in a letter from an outside critic, Mr. Watkins, who characterized civil commitment as inherently adversarial and a "deprivation of liberty." Wangworth acknowledged the tension but said safeguards—appointment of counsel and court oversight—are already in place and that his office is accustomed to managing those procedural protections.

Several commissioners framed the change as a stop‑gap within a larger policy problem. Commissioner Savis said the situation "is a statewide issue" that requires more capacity and legislative appetite at the state level. Commissioners and the DA discussed possible next steps, including creating a multi‑jurisdictional work group and urging the governor and Legislature to expand state bed capacity and other resources.

Chair Roberts said the board would vote on the proposed board order during the March 12 business meeting. The March 10 session served only as a preview and public briefing; no formal action was taken on March 10.

Why it matters: civil‑commitment proceedings involve complex legal and medical questions and typically require consistent court calendars, appointed counsel and specialized legal skill. Who carries these cases affects county workloads, indigent‑defense systems and how services for people with serious behavioral‑health needs are coordinated across courts, health agencies and social services.

What comes next: The board scheduled a vote on the order for its March 12 business meeting. Commissioners also signaled interest in pursuing state‑level reforms and work groups to address broader capacity issues for mental‑health treatment across Oregon.