CMH Transition Public Hearings
This Thursday, the Board of Commissioners will be asked to approve a resolution to begin planning public hearings on transitioning Community Mental Health (CMH) from a county department to an independent authority. I want to be clear at the outset: I strongly support public input. Public hearings are essential. What I do not support is moving this process forward before the Board has the information it already requested and before the Board has determined whether conversion is even a prudent path worth considering.
Just three weeks ago, on November 21, the Board adopted a motion directing the County Administrator to return with a proactive, recommended strategy designed to minimize financial risk to taxpayers, retain quality employees during any transition, and ensure the continuation of high-quality mental health services. That strategy was to come back to the Board in January.
In addition, I stated clearly that there were two prerequisites I needed before considering any next steps:
A full legal analysis of the risks associated with the status quo;
An independent, third-party assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of conversion.
None of these have been provided, and it is not even clear when they will be.
The resolution before us would commit the Board to scheduling public hearings in early to mid-January. However, 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 they 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.
The public cannot weigh in effectively on abstract concepts. Meaningful public engagement requires something concrete to evaluate—draft legal agreements, a cost analysis, and a clearly articulated transition plan. Without those materials, hearings risk being performative rather than informative.
That sequence is backwards. The responsible and logical order is straightforward: first, the Board reviews the draft transition strategy, legal risk analysis, and independent cost-benefit assessment. Second, the Board decides whether conversion is a prudent option worth pursuing. Third, if it is, we invite public input on specific, tangible documents. 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 if concerns arise. 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 two weeks—until January 6—we lose nothing of substance. Hearings could still be scheduled for late January or early February with ample public notice. There is no downside to waiting. There is no urgency here that justifies acting now; acting now increases risk instead.
This is also not a new or unexamined question. This Board has looked at CMH conversion before. The most comprehensive prior review, conducted in 2016, found no clear advantage to transitioning to an authority and identified real downsides, including higher costs and potential service disruption. That history matters because it shows this is not an emergency or a novel discovery, and it reinforces why the burden of proof is higher—not lower—before moving forward quickly.
Public engagement works best when the Board itself has first done its homework. At this point, neither the Board nor the public has draft agreements, a legal analysis, or an independent assessment to examine. Approving hearings before those materials exist does not enhance transparency but obcusres it.
I will enthusiastically support public hearings after the Board has reviewed the full draft transition strategy, received a legal risk analysis, examined an independent assessment of the pros and cons, and made a conscious, intentional determination that conversion is worth considering. This is not about slowing things down for the sake of it. It is about the Board fulfilling its fiduciary and governance responsibilities to protect vulnerable residents, support dedicated employees, and safeguard taxpayer dollars.
This resolution asks the Board to act before the facts are on the table. Our duty of care requires the opposite. For that reason, I will be voting no.
