Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Crisis Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge clearer plans for Behavioral Crisis Response and challenge city's refusal of training gift
Summary
Public speakers pressed the commission for clarity on Behavioral Crisis Response unit capacity and questioned the city's ruling that forbade a community group's $12,000 gift to fund commissioner training, saying the refusal may reflect unequal treatment of complaint‑filers.
Speakers during the public comment period pressed commissioners for concrete answers about non‑police crisis response capacity and questioned the city's handling of an offered donor gift to fund training for commission members.
Madeline Esch asked staff whether the city plans to expand its Behavioral Crisis Response (BCR) staffing, how many BCR units are actually operating (noting the city website says two while an earlier report said three) and how often mental‑health calls are routed to police when BCR units are unavailable. "How many units are actually available now, and how often are mental health calls sent to police because BCR units are unavailable?" she asked. Esch also noted the Canopy Roots contract was scheduled to expire Aug. 15 and requested the commission identify which department is responsible and provide a date when staff will answer.
Andrew Klus, representing a civic group, criticized what he characterized as inconsistent application of city ethics guidance after a planned $12,000 COPB donation to allow some CCPO members to attend NAICOL was denied by city staff. Klus said the denial was justified by officials on the basis that pending complaints could create an appearance of undue influence; he argued the policy applied to soliciting gifts, not to unsolicited offers, and contrasted the denial with other city‑accepted gifts for trainings.
Commissioners acknowledged the concerns and asked staff to provide written follow‑up where details were uncertain.
