On November 21, the Board of Commissioners held a Special Meeting in order to hear an introductory presentation on Community Mental Health’s (CMH) funding risks and the potential conversion of our CMH from a County Department to an Independent Authority.
At the conclusion of the meeting, a motion was made and approved to authorize the County Administrator to develop and return to the Board with a proactive recommended strategy intended to minimize the financial risk to taxpayer dollars, retain quality employees, and ensure the continuation of quality mental health services to our community with a projected timeline. Additionally, the Strategic Impact Department, in partnership with CMH, is putting together a study to present to the full Board and community.
This week Thursday, December 18, the full Board is now being asked to approve a resolution to begin planning public hearings on transitioning Community Mental Health (CMH) from a County Department to an Independent Authority. However, this request is coming before the study has been conducted and shared, a full legal analysis, cost considerations, etc. We need to slow down and be conscientious and diligent with this very important matter.
I am in agreement with Commissioner Doug Zylstra’s words he made in his post and shared in part here: “The resolution now before us would commit the Board to scheduling public hearings in early to mid-January. Yet the actual transition materials—the draft plan, agreements, legal analysis, and cost considerations—are not scheduled for initial review until January 6, and even then are described as being “for discussion purposes only.” In other words, we would be approving public hearings before the Board has reviewed the very documents those hearings are supposed to be about.
That sequence is backwards. A responsible and logical process is straightforward: first, the Board reviews a draft transition strategy, a legal risk analysis, and an independent cost-benefit assessment. Second, the Board determines whether conversion is a prudent option worth pursuing. Third, if—and only if—we decide to proceed, we invite public input on specific, tangible proposals. This resolution skips directly to step three.
The justification offered for moving this quickly is that scheduling hearings now provides more notice and that the Board can always cancel them later. But scheduling hearings now implicitly treats conversion as the assumed path forward, despite the fact that no legal risk analysis has been shared, no independent cost-benefit review has been presented, and no evidence has been offered that conversion would improve outcomes.
If the Board simply waits a few weeks…hearings could still be scheduled for late January or early February with ample public notice. There is no urgency here that justifies acting now…
I strongly support public input. Public hearings are essential. What I do not support is advancing this process before the Board has the information it already requested and before it has determined whether conversion is even a prudent path worth considering. Public engagement works best when the Board has first done its homework. Approving hearings before draft agreements, legal analysis, or an independent assessment exist does not enhance transparency—it obscures it. Otherwise, the Board risks failing its most basic fiduciary and governance responsibilities to protect vulnerable residents, support dedicated employees, and safeguard taxpayer dollars.”
As I have been sharing my county updates to my local municipalities in District 11, I will continue to advocate for a methodical process and to not hurry through or skip over important steps.
