Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Trust Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chief Clark says Commonwealth Court raised concerns about opioid trust review process
Summary
Chief Clark told the Washington County Board of Commissioners that the Commonwealth Court questioned the Opioid Trust Committee's review procedures — citing lack of factual findings — and that one withdrawn decision and several reversals have restored funding for multiple recovery programs.
Chief Clark told the Washington County Board of Commissioners at a special meeting that the Commonwealth Court voiced significant concerns about how the Opioid Trust Committee conducted its first-round award reviews and that the court’s questioning signaled a need for clearer procedures.
"They found four of the awards to be noncompliant," Chief Clark said, and said judges were "particularly concerned with no record being created" and that reviews lacked findings of fact and conclusions of law. He said the court suggested it may need to issue new guidelines for how the trust committee proceeds in the future.
Chief Clark said counsel for the trust, Buchanan Ingersoll, later contacted county counsel and withdrew the noncompliance finding on program number 42 (Leadership Development LLC, $35,000), and that a separate appeal by "Dr. Temerjee" (as referenced in the meeting) resulted in reversals of prior noncompliance findings for several programs.
The programs Chief Clark listed as now compliant were: a childcare group award ($75,000), a Department of Human Services training and continuing education program ($25,000), the Sean Patrick Recovery House ($350,000), and the Washington High School Teen Outreach/Common Ground Teen Center ($80,000). Chief Clark described those reversals as a sign the trust is "making an effort to be more fair, more open, more transparent."
The chair responded that the court’s rulings were "vindicating" for the county, saying the county had followed the available guidance (he referred to the guidelines as "Exhibit E") and that staff and local partners had been unfairly criticized. "I'm glad the decision came down," the chair said, and thanked staff and named individuals for their work on the appeals.
No formal action on the appeals was taken during the meeting; Chief Clark said county counsel and outside counsel (attorney Steele, referenced as present for questions) would continue briefing and scheduling additional appellate argument.
Next steps described at the meeting included continued appellate work and awaiting any new guidance the Commonwealth Court might issue to clarify how the trust should document findings and conclusions going forward.
