CC Minutes - 07/23/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Regarding the MHCRC, Mr. Alsup reported that the committee members had talked to representatives of 13 agencies. He related that the overriding theme they heard was that the loss of a safety net of services for people in a mental health crisis created a situation where, by default, police officers were the resource called to help. He said the lack of alternatives demanded there be reviews in order to see if there were other things to put into place so some of the tragedies that had transpired could be avoided in the future. He said the “first tier wish list” included provision of a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT). He explained that they reviewed the Memphis model, in which a specially trained CIT would be dispatched if a 911 call was made for someone in a mental health crisis. He stated that many communities now had a CIT. He related that the most compelling presentation they had seen was from the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department, which had a CIT training and team. He felt this was obviously doable and that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) could do it. He said there was also compelling evidence that supported enhancement of the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets (CAHOOTS) services, perhaps with expanded hours and a second vehicle. Mr. Alsup related that the second tier wish list included establishment of a facility with a no refusal policy. He explained that the alternative that officers had at this point was to take people in crisis to jail or to the Johnson Unit at Sacred Heart Hospital. He averred that taking someone in this type of crisis to jail was not the “best therapeutic thing to do.” The committee supported having a facility similar to the Buckley House that was staffed with professional mental health personnel so that people had somewhere to go. He related that the other item on the list was to expand Mental Health Court. He explained that the court could visibly mandate mental health supervision and programs and services. Continuing, Mr. Alsup stated that the MHCRC had a third tier wish list which included reinstatement of the psychiatric beds at the jail. He underscored that a critical mass happened when that option for patients was lost. He related that they heard testimony from almost all of the agency representatives that affirmed that the crisis had become repetitive and the incidents more severe after that closure. He said the last item on the list was to potentially reserve some bed space at the state facility that was planned to be built in Junction City. Mr. Alsup reported that the Use of Force/Taser Police Committee, chaired by Mr. Brown and Ms. Miller, had been the most “energized” with emotional concerns. He believed it was for good reason. He acknowl- edged that when tasers were first used elsewhere, it was a tool that was sometimes abused and used for coercion and punishment because of the lack of oversight. He hoped they could give EPD officers another tool that was short of deadly force to confront a person who was aggressing toward them. He said forming the policy and making it viable with community values had been interesting. He related that the public forum held on June 27 was attended by over 50 people. He listed the public concerns, which included a distrust of the police and that the Human Rights Commission (HRC) felt the process was flawed in that it lacked public input. Regarding the latter, he said the commission had worked with the HRC and the perception had improved. He also noted that some mental health advocates had pointed to the misuse of tasers that had occurred early on. He reported that there was no consensus among medical professionals regarding the health implications of taser use, but there was concern that the risk of taser application could be a contributing factor to death in some cases. He pointed out that there had not been an independent study of taser use; rather studies had been primarily industry-based. Mr. Alsup commended the committee members for their hard work on the difficult issue of tasers. He stressed that they “all had [their] eye on the prize” of finding a solution other than deadly force for officers confronted with deadly violence. He said other areas of the taser policy that were explored included where to place tasers on the use-of-force continuum, whether there should be a minimum number of taser MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 4 Work Session