Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County pauses Metropolitan Public Defender contract for Housing for Success; staff to return with revisions
Summary
Clackamas County halted approval of a roughly $465,761 contract with the Metropolitan Public Defender community law team for Housing for Success ‘barrier removal’ services after objections from the district attorney and commissioners about scope, oversight and capacity. Staff will revise and return with a narrower proposal.
The Clackamas County board declined to approve a proposed personal-services contract March 19 that would have funded legal-barrier removal services for the county’s new Housing for Success program.
H3S Director Mary Remod and Shannon Callahan of the Clackamas County Housing Authority described the proposed agreement as a tool to help up to 125 households move off long-term rent assistance by removing legal barriers to employment and housing — items such as expungements, driver’s-license restoration, eviction appeals, and debt negotiation. The contract, as presented, would have funded a full-time equivalent attorney provided through the Metropolitan Public Defender community law department.
District Attorney John Wentworth strongly objected, arguing that the scope of services as written could include relief that undermines criminal sentencing, victim restitution, and probation conditions. The DA also flagged operational concerns about Metropolitan Public Defender’s capacity, citing regional caseload and representation challenges; several commissioners echoed concerns about oversight and the optics of contracting with a public-defense organization currently reported to have indigent-defense staffing shortfalls.
Board members questioned whether the contract should limit the types of cases eligible for ‘barrier removal,’ whether the county should fund the work in-house via existing legal partners, and whether other civil legal-aid providers might be more appropriate. Staff told the board the proposal would have funded a 1.0 FTE attorney and that the line item as presented represented approximately a six-month budget rolled forward across the two-year contract term.
Outcome: Rather than vote to approve, the board directed staff to return with a revised proposal that narrows scope, clarifies eligibility, and addresses oversight and capacity concerns. Until staff brings back a new proposal, the county will not execute the Metropolitan Public Defender contract in its current form.
