9/18/24 BOC Meeting
9/18/24 BOC Meeting
Four county leaders testify that behind-the-scenes decisions by commissioners are derailing the deflection program and endangering both funding and public safety.
Four county leaders testify that behind-the-scenes decisions by commissioners are derailing the deflection program and endangering both funding and public safety.
Judge Bachart says she has tried for months to meet with the Board about the deflection program but has received no response. She explains that the full work group — law enforcement, treatment providers, people in recovery, the DA, and the Board Chair — unanimously agrees the coordinator must be placed in the DA’s office to maintain the trust the program relies on. She warns that if the program is derailed, “people are going to die,” and then makes clear this risk arises because Commissioners Hall and Jacobson are moving away from the consensus plan. She urges them to follow the work group’s recommendation and secure the funding.
The complete video of the 9/18/24 BOC meeting is available at 2:08:05.
DA Jenna Wallace says the deflection work group has built a strong, collaborative plan and is ready to launch it as soon as the Board approves placing the coordinator in the DA’s office. She explains that County Counsel Yuille told the group — repeatedly — that Commissioners Hall and Jacobson had already decided behind the scenes to put the position in Parole & Probation instead, which she found confusing and hurtful, especially given past tensions. Wallace asks the Board to trust the work group’s consensus, give the DA’s office a chance to implement the program, and adjust later if needed.
The complete video of the 9/18/24 BOC meeting is available at 2:17:22.
Sheriff Curtis Landers says he’s disappointed he must raise concerns in public comment because Commissioner Miller’s request to put the deflection program on the agenda was denied. He notes he’s hearing conflicting, behind-the-scenes signals from commissioners and County Counsel about whether a decision has already been made and questions why Counsel is involved despite not participating in the work group.
Landers emphasizes that the deflection work group — including law enforcement, treatment providers, and Commissioner Miller — unanimously recommends placing the coordinator in the DA’s office. Putting it in Community Corrections would contradict that consensus, lacks a clear plan, and risks losing critical grant funding due by September 20.
He urges the Board to stop making decisions outside public view, engage in open discussion with the work group, honor the consensus, and act quickly — saying delays or unilateral decisions are “directly risking the safety and well-being of our community.”
The complete video of the 9/18/24 BOC meeting is available at 2:28:33.
Commissioner Miller delivers an unusually detailed report outlining systemic concerns about how county governance is functioning. He emphasizes transparency, adherence to public meeting laws, and the need for all three commissioners to participate equally in decision-making.
He begins by describing irregularities in the county administrator’s evaluation process: unclear instructions from HR, premature release of evaluation materials, shifting recommendations from staff, and key decisions taking shape outside any public process and without the full Board present, contrary to the purpose of Oregon’s meeting laws. He questions why required documents were never provided and why procedural steps were altered without discussion.
On the deflection program, Miller notes that stakeholders—including the Sheriff, DA, and Judge—expected it to appear on the agenda. He explains that in a staff meeting, County Counsel, supported by Commissioners Hall and Jacobson, stated the matter was an “administrative decision” and should not be brought forward for public discussion, even though the program had been developed publicly for months. He further notes that County Counsel previously told the work group that Hall and Jacobson had already decided privately to reject the Sheriff’s model—raising serious questions about when that decision occurred, whether it involved serial meetings, and why he was excluded.
He expands this into a broader pattern: significant county business—agenda-setting, program direction, and personnel processes—is increasingly handled off the record, leaving him uncertain when decisions are being made, who is making them, and whether those actions comply with Oregon’s transparency requirements.
Miller concludes by stating his intention to continue seeking clear procedures, public deliberation, and formal guidance from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission to ensure the county’s decision-making aligns with both the law and its mission.
The complete video of the 9/18/24 BOC meeting is available at 1:31:04.
Last updated 1/4/26 9:18pm