*The following post was sent to the My Oregon blog server at Oregonlive.com in response to several comments posted with the news item of Multnomah Country’s settlement in the James Chasse civil case.

by Michael Hopcroft, Board Member, Mental Health Association of Portland

The anonymity of the Internet is a wonderful thing under some circumstances. It allows you to interact in ways you could not interact otherwise. Nobody has to know if you have a disability, or are writing about something that could get you into trouble were you not anonymous.

On the other hand, on the Internet nobody knows you’re a jerk – or, at the very least, your faux pas can’t be traced back to you.

Last week, Multnomah County reached a settlement with the family of James Chasse of their lawsuit over his death at the hands of Portland police. The settlement was for more than $900,000. And with the news story, Oregonlive offered a comment opportunity. And that was when a lot of people crawled out from under their rocks and started spewing hate.

People called the settlement a waste of money. People said the police should have carte blanche in dealing with subjects. People said the family should not have been allowed to sue. People said that the family should repay society for the costs associated with James Chasse ever having been alive. It was that last bit that was especially galling – the idea of “wrongful life” when mental illness is involved.

Let’s get some facts straight here. Chasse suffered fatal injuries that were ignored until it was too late to save him. His crime was being in the wrong place and allegedly urinating in public – something everybody has done at one time or another. The police and paramedics showed an alarming degree of ignorance and indifference towards the injuries they had inflicted, intentionally or not. And as a result James Chasse died a beastly, horrible death.

As far as the settlement being a waste of money – how much more money would the country have ended up having to pay, both in legal fees and in the final judgment, fighting a case where their losing was a virtual certainty? Compared to that outlay, the settlement was a bargain for the county. And as a partial result of the Chasse case, an assessment and treatment center for people in crisis is on the drawing board where none had been in place for close to ten years.

Should the family have been allowed to sue? Definitely. The civil system exists to provide a means for the redress of grievances, and the Chasse family had one of the most legitimate grievances imaginable. Monetary compensation is no substitute for this incident never happening, but it is a means by which entities that display negligence are reminded “Don’t do this again! You need to change your approach!” It is a lesson that the county needed to learn, and by settling the case instead of fighting a losing battle the county has shown they are willing to learn that lesson.

Where did these people come from who said those ignorant, awful things? We have no way of knowing. They have their anonymity behind which to hide. It could be anyone I meet on the streets of Portland, or someone who’s never even set foot in Multnomah County. There’s no way to know. It’s enough to know that these attitudes are out there – that there are people who believe a hideously painful death is the proper punishment for urinating on the sidewalk, or who believe that mental illness itself should carry the death sentence. It is a disturbing sort of knowledge, but a lesson that we need to remember. Ignorance and hate are still parts of our society, no matter how well we educate ourselves.

And that is one of the unkindest cuts of all.

Editorial column by Steve Duin from The Oregonian, June 30 2009

Help me with this:

How does Multnomah County conclude it is liable for $925,000 in collective damages in the death of James Chasse without establishing 10 cents of individual blame?

Doesn’t the county’s decision to settle with the family guarantee that no one on the county payroll will be held accountable for his death?

And is it possible this settlement — almost five times larger than any in county history — was negotiated because the powers that be want to avoid the civil trial that might finally affix specific culpability in this case?

In the 33 months since Chasse died with 16 broken ribs and massive internal bleeding after being tackled by Portland police in the Pearl District, then kicked by officers in the head and chest according to witnesses, I can find no evidence that anyone has been fired, fined, suspended, sanctioned or, heck, even scolded, for the treatment the 42-year-old schizophrenic received in the last two hours of his life.

“To see a person essentially beaten to death for urinating on a tree is beyond senseless. There’s something really wrong,” said Don Moore, board head of the Multnomah County chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness in 2006 when Chasse died.

Yet the various custodians of the public trust have gone out of their way to ensure that while everyone shares in the tragedy — including the taxpayers who will pay the settlement — no one will ever be saddled with responsibility for it.

District Attorney Mike Schrunk never held an inquest into Chasse’s death. A Multnomah County grand jury found no criminal wrongdoing.

Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer has yet to issue her conclusions on the internal affairs investigation; she labeled the interminable wait for those conclusions “disappointing” nine months ago. The bureau did, however, hire Bret Barton, the Multnomah County sheriff’s deputy who had joined two Portland cops in chasing Chasse down.

And while former Mayor Tom Potter mandated crisis intervention training — the value of which is derided by the police union mouthpieces — after Chasse’s death, the police still don’t define blows to the head as a use of deadly force.

When I asked county attorney Agnes Sowle about settling a case in which no individual fault is established, she reminded me that the county often makes business decisions that focus on the best interest of the taxpayers, not the culpability of county employees.

Two weeks ago, she noted, the county went to trial in a case involving an uncooperative inductee at the detention center: “A jury awarded $8,500 for a bump on the head for a guy who’d been arrested and was not being helpful about getting out of the car.”

All too often, in other words, the county needs to cut its losses, not establish blame. When I asked whether taxpayers weren’t better served, in the long run, by a trial that finally set the record straight, Sowle sighed and said she wished she still had my romantic notions about justice and the law.

Moore and the police agree there’s a crisis among the mentally ill and you don’t want the cops to be the de-facto entry point to the county’s overmatched mental health services.

That’s not much of a consensus to build on. It may be that so many people screwed up here — the cops, the ambulance drivers, the jailhouse crew and Chasse himself — that assigning blame is futile.

But in the absence of that exercise, no one is motivated to change. It’s a painfully short jump from “not my fault” to “not my problem,” and the county’s $925,000 payout just encouraged a lot of folks to take the plunge.

From the Los Angeles Times, June 24 2009

Despite a promise to Michelle, the president still hasn’t kicked the habit, he says at his news conference. But he’s ’95% cured,’ he says, and doesn’t smoke in front of the children.

It may not be as big as “read my lips,” but it’s shaping up as a notable broken campaign promise: Barack Obama’s pledge to his wife that he would quit smoking if she let him run for president.

More than two years later, he’s still sneaking cigarettes like a middle-schooler. The model of self-discipline who can zap a fly with the accuracy of a tree frog and sink a three-pointer with Kobe-like grace can’t beat his most public vice.

“I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don’t do it in front of my kids, I don’t do it in front of my family, and I would say that I am 95% cured, but there are times where . . . I mess up,” President Obama confessed when asked at his news conference Tuesday if he’s still puffing away.

The usually playful president got peevish when McClatchy’s Margaret Talev asked him how many cigarettes he smokes daily and whether he does it in front of anyone. (The White House has managed to avoid any photos of the offending behavior.)

“You just think it’s neat to ask me about my smoking, as opposed to it being relevant to my new law,” Obama said, undercutting his questioner’s attempt to legitimize journalistic nosiness by invoking the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act he signed Monday.

Obama’s failure to disclose details only piqued curiosity. What’s his brand? Who is his supplier? Where does he go to do it? Out back in the organic garden? Behind a bush on the South Lawn? Perhaps this explains his eagerness to take the late shift for Bo’s daily constitutional.

His staff isn’t talking. “I don’t honestly see the need to get a whole lot more specific than the fact that it’s a continuing struggle,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said this week.

But what were the odds that Obama could give up a 30-year habit — even if it was only about five a day — right before assuming the hardest job in the world?

“Highly improbable,” said Ovide Pomerleau, a professor of psychiatry and a nicotine addiction expert at the University of Michigan. He noted that the president’s struggle appears to fit a pattern. “It doesn’t surprise me, given his heroic schedule of activities, that he would have some trouble giving up something that has been an easy crutch to carry him through for so many years.”

Even light smokers like Obama get a dependable hit that improves the memory and sharpens concentration, however briefly, Pomerleau said, which could prove irresistible during Iranian revolutions and North Korean missile launches.

Obama might have meant it when he promised his wife, Michelle, to kick the habit way back when nobody thought he’d win anyway.

On Tuesday, Obama likened the quest to Alcoholics Anonymous. “Once you’ve gone down this path, then it’s something you continually struggle with, which is precisely why the legislation we signed was so important, because what we don’t want is kids going down that path in the first place. OK?”

EXTRA – The Oregon Health Plan provides coverage for nicotine gum, nicotine patches, medication, group and individual counseling.

OUR COMMENT – Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $97.2 billion each year in health-care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

From the Corvallis Gazette-Times, June 26 2009

The Oregon House has passed a bill intended to help police officers deal with people whose conduct may be caused by mental or medical problems.

Rep. Andy Olson, R-Albany, had pushed for the bill since 2007 and is one of its principal sponsors. The bill now goes to the Senate, where it’s uncertain if action can occur before the legislative session ends.

House Bill 3466 would create a voluntary statewide database of people with mental health and medical issues. It would give officers information helpful when they’re responding to some calls.

For example, Olson said Wednesday, police might respond to a call that a man had eaten a restaurant meal but had no money to pay. Technically, he could be arrested for theft. But if the officer learns he’s on a database for mental illness or dementia, police could just call relatives to come pick him up and take care of the bill.

Capt. Eric Carter of the Albany police said knowing of a person’s mental-health issues is useful to officers responding to a call. “It does change the way law enforcement officers deal with them,” he said.

With known chronic cases, he said, the Albany police have had some success by calling in mental health workers rather than taking people to jail.

In a statement, Olson recalled that three years ago Marion County Sheriff Raul Ramirez told the Interim Judiciary Committee that county jails were the largest facility in the state for holding people suffering from mental health issues.

“HB 3466 addresses this problem by giving law enforcement the ability to help individuals without automatically incarcerating them,” Olson said,

The database would be maintained by the Oregon State Police as part of the Law Enforcement Data System.

EXTRA – all about HB 3466 from the fantastic bill-tracking database from The Oregonian.

OUR COMMENT – This bill is a violation of the fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendment of the US constitution.

Guest opinion published in The Oregonian, June 28, 2009, by Kay Balmer, a free-lance writer who lives in Southeast Portland – not online

It all sounds so familiar: A new law is passed after a child dies in foster care. Oregon child welfare workers will tighten their procedures, ensuring that her “death won’t be in vain.”

In my 30-some years as a journalist, I was involved in covering too many stories that follow the same scenario. The recent heartbreaking story of Adrianna Romero Cram, 4, who died at the hands of her foster parents in Mexico, reminded me of the equally heartbreaking story of Bobby Jackson. Bobby, 7, died from a lethal –but prescribed –dose of behavior modification drugs in 1993 while in foster care in Eugene.

Bobby’s death, too, was followed by a clamor for a change and resulted in passage of the so-called “Bobby’s law” that required child welfare workers to more closely monitor the medications of children in foster care. Problem fixed.

But that was 16 years ago. Today, one in five children in foster care in Oregon take drugs –often multiple drugs –to treat depression, anxiety and other mental health problems. And the much-touted monitoring has fallen by the wayside, reporting by The Oregonian found and a recent state audit confirmed, forcing the Legislature again to take up the issue.

Bobby was forgotten. Will the latest efforts to protect children from excessive medication be forgotten too? Will Adrianna and new rules concerning out-of-country placements be forgotten as well?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming any one person or even the system, per se. Adrianna’s caseworker followed procedures. Bobby’s caseworker wasn’t suspicious of a doctor’s prescription. The system can’t anticipate every permutation of human failure. And sometimes being part of a well-meaning, but overwhelmed, system almost encourages lapses. With few options for treatment and foster placement, for example, it becomes accepted practice not to question prescribed medication for a child who is acting out or to accept placements with family members that aren’t ideal.

So how can we stop these recurring tragedies? We can support or even join a group of volunteers who help watch over these most vulnerable of children.

Court Appointed Special Advocates, or CASAs, are trained volunteers appointed by judges to advocate for children who have been removed from their parents because of abuse or neglect. The volunteers see the children at least once a month, review police and child services reports and interview parents, foster parents, teachers, physicians, therapists and others before making periodic recommendations to the judge about what the children need.

A Northwest-born idea, CASA’s Multnomah County program was only the third in the country when it was started by Judge Stephen Herrell in 1986. CASA programs are now at work in every county in Oregon and across the country.

As a journalist, I admired what these volunteers accomplished. So, when I left The Oregonian in January, I joined their ranks and became a CASA.

I’m daunted by the responsibility, but I believe it’s the best way for me to help. Now I can provide relevant history to a therapist treating a scarred little girl. I can offer encouragement to a foster mother who tenderly cares for children who aren’t her own. I can promise three children that I will be a constant in their lives until they are permanently settled and that I will do everything in my power to make that placement a good one for them.

And I’m no superhero. My fellow CASAs and I are just regular people who have a little flexibility in our schedules. We are corporate executives, students, stay-at-home mothers, retirees, self-employed workers and more. We are mostly female, but more male volunteers are needed. We take on a case only after intensive screening and training, and then we are closely supervised by CASA staff members.

Our ranks are growing, but CASAs are available to only one in five foster children in Multnomah and Washington counties. As a result, judges appoint the sworn volunteers to only the most complicated and volatile cases.

How can you help? Become a CASA. Donate to any of the 32 CASA programs in the state or help with fundraising. Or, do both.

It costs about $1,500 to recruit, train, supervise and support each CASA volunteer –a pittance when you think of what it would cost to pay someone to do this work or hold a child in juvenile detention. And even though the program is mandated by Oregon law, just 17 percent of the budget comes from the Legislature.

Still, not even CASAs can guarantee there will never be another Bobby or Adrianna. We can only promise each of our assigned children that we will be with them as they move through the system, successive caseworkers and foster homes and treatment programs. We will be the caring adult unencumbered by the system who will ask probing questions, push for needed services and make recommendations to the judge about what is in the children’s best interest.

You, too, can make that promise to these precious children as a CASA volunteer or through your financial support. Visit the Web site for CASA in Multnomah and Washington counties at www.casahelpskids.org or call 503-988-5115. If you live elsewhere, they’ll connect you with the program in your county.

Ann Kasper asks how the Multnomah County civil commitment system can be improved. Includes interviews with Mike Hlebechuck, Jean Dentinger, Linda O’Malia and Connie Isgro.

Four documents pertaining to housing rights and due process within supportive housing communities, also called Residential Treatment Facilities and Residential Treatment Homes, have appeared on the Multnomah County Department of Human Services, Mental Health and Addictions Services Division web site, but as usual, they’re buried.


We don’t know when these documents might disappear, so we’ll post them permanently on our secure server.

In light of what happened to Sean Liam Kelly, who after making multiple complaints about his threatening neighbor was murdered in the front yard of his home, EVERYONE who lives in Cascadia housing should ACT QUICKLY and COMPLAIN to authorities coutside of Cascadia Behavioral Healthcare if they feel their rights are being violated by staff members or by neighbors.

These documents, linked and listed below, could save your life.

Residential Treatment Facility – residential rights
Grievances and Appeals – Residential Treatment Facility Rule (OAR 309-035-0157)
Grievances and Appeals – Residential Treatment Home Rule (OAR 309-035-0390)
Multnomah Mental Health Crisis Poster (updated for accuracy by MHAP)
Residential Treatment Facility ‘Bill of Rights’ from OAR 309-035-0155

Listen, words pinned to the community room cork board are fine. But if you’ve been measurably hurt while living in a residential treatment facility or residential treatment home, write to the Mental Health Association of Portland by mail at POB 3641, Portland, Oregon 97208 or by email at info@mentalhealthportland.org, and we’ll help you get a lawyer.

+++

Residential Treatment Facility – residential rights (OAR 309-035-0155)

(1) Statutory and Constitutional Rights. Each resident will be assured the same civil and human rights accorded to other citizens. These rights will be assured unless expressly limited by a court in the case of a resident who has been adjudicated incompetent and not restored to legal capacity. The rights described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section are in addition to, and do not limit, all other statutory and constitutional rights which are afforded to all citizens including, but not limited to, the right to vote, marry, have or not have children, own and dispose property, enter into contracts and execute documents.

(2) Rights of service recipients. In accordance with ORS 430.210, residents will have the right to:

(a) Choose from available services those which are appropriate, consistent with the plan developed in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, and provided in a setting and under conditions that are least restrictive to the person’s liberty, that are least intrusive to the person and that provide for the greatest degree of independence;
(b) An individualized written service plan, services based upon that plan and periodic review and reassessment of service needs;
(c) Ongoing participation in planning services in a manner appropriate to the person’s capabilities, including the right to participate in the development and periodic revision of the plan described in paragraph (b) of this subsection, and the right to be provided with reasonable explanation of all service considerations;
(d) Not receive services without informed consent except in a medical emergency or as otherwise permitted by law;
(e) Not participate in experimentation without informed voluntary written consent;
(f) Receive medication only for the person’s individual clinical needs;
(g) Not be involuntarily terminated or transferred from services without prior notice, notification of available sources of necessary continued services and exercise of a grievance procedure;
(h) A humane service environment that affords reasonable protection from harm and affords reasonable privacy;
(i) Be free from abuse or neglect and to report any incident of abuse without being subject to retaliation;
(j) Religious freedom;
(k) Not be required to perform labor, except personal housekeeping duties, without reasonable and lawful compensation;
(l) Visit with family members, friends, advocates and legal and medical professionals;
(m) Exercise all rights set forth in ORS 426.385 and 427.031 if the individual is committed to the Department;
(n) Be informed at the start of services and periodically thereafter of the rights guaranteed by this section and the procedure for reporting abuse, and to have these rights and procedures prominently posted in a location readily accessible to the person and made available to the person’s guardian and any representative designated by the person;
(o) Assert grievances with respect to infringement of the rights described in this section, including the right to have such grievances considered in a fair, timely and impartial grievance procedure;
(p) Have access to and communicate privately with any public or private rights protection program or rights advocate; and
(q) Exercise all rights described in this section without any form of reprisal or punishment.

(3) Additional Rights in Residential RTFs. Residents will also have a right to:

(a) Adequate food, shelter, clothing, consistent with OAR-309-035-0159 [0165?];
(b) A reasonable accommodation if, due to their disability, the housing and services are not sufficiently accessible;
(c) Confidential communication, including receiving and opening personal mail, private visits with family members and other guests, and access to a telephone with privacy for making and receiving telephone calls;
(d) Express sexuality in a socially appropriate and consensual manner;
(e) Access to community resources including recreation, religious services, agency services, employment and day programs, unless such access is legally restricted;
(f) Be free from seclusion and restraint,
(g) To review the Residential Treatment Facility’s policies and procedures; and
(h) Not participate in research without informed voluntary written consent.

(4) Program Requirements. The program will have and implement written policies and procedures that protect residents’ rights, and encourage and assist residents to understand and exercise their rights. The program will post a listing of residents’ rights under these rules in a place readily accessible to all residents and visitors.

resident name:____________________ signature:__________________________

review date: ______________ staff name __________________________

Original to Resident+1 copy to chart and check off on intake information recap

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Grievances and Appeals – Residential Treatment Facility Rule (OAR 309-035-0157)

The Residential Treatment Facility will have a written policy and procedures concerning the resident grievance and appeal process. A copy of the grievance and appeal process will be posted in a place readily accessible to residents. A copy of the grievance and appeal process will be provided to each resident and guardian (as applicable) at the time of admission to the facility.

All complaints will be investigated

To ask questions call to your local Community Mental Health Program at (503) 998-5464 (open Monday through Friday, roughly 9 to 5 PM)
Or the statewide office of Disability Rights Oregon at 1-800-452-1694 (open Monday through Friday, roughly 9 to 5 PM)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Grievances and Appeals – Residential Treatment Home Rule (OAR 309-035-0390)

The Residential Treatment Homewill have a written policy and procedures concerning the resident grievance and appeal process. A copy of the grievance and appeal process will be posted in a place readily accessible to residents. A copy of the grievance and appeal process will be provided to each resident and guardian (as applicable) at the time of admission to the Residential Treatment Home.

All complaints will be investigated

To ask questions call to your local Community Mental Health Program at (503) 998-5464 (open Monday through Friday, roughly 9 to 5 PM)
Or the statewide office of Disability Rights Oregon at 1-800-452-1694 (open Monday through Friday, roughly 9 to 5 PM)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Residential Bill of Rights

As a resident of a licensed residential treatment facility, you have certain rights outlined in Oregon State law. These laws are known as Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) and Oregon Revised Statute (ORS). Your rights as a resident are listed below.

OAR 309-035-0155

(1) Statutory and Constitutional Rights. Each resident will be assured the same civil and human rights accorded to other citizens. These rights will be assured unless expressly limited by a court in the case of a resident who has been adjudicated incompetent and not restored to legal capacity. The rights described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section are in addition to, and do not limit, all other statutory and constitutional rights which are afforded to all citizens including, but not limited to, the right to vote, marry, have or not have children, own and dispose property, enter into contracts and execute documents.

(2) Rights of service recipients. In accordance with ORS 430.210, residents will have the right to:

(a)Choose from available services those which are appropriate, consistent with the plan developed in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, and provided in a setting and under conditions that are least restrictive to the person’s liberty, that are least intrusive to the person and that provided for the greatest degree of independence;
(b)An individualized written service plan, services based upon that plan and periodic review and reassessment of service needs;
(c)Ongoing participation in planning services in a manner appropriate to the person’s capabilities, including the right to participate in the development and periodic revision of the plan described in paragraph (b) of this subsection, and the right to be provided with a reasonable explanation of all service considerations;
(d)Not receive services without informed consent except in a medical emergency or as otherwise permitted by law;
(e)Not participate in experimentation without informed voluntary written consent;
(f)Receive medication only for the person’s individual clinical needs;
(g)Not be involuntarily terminated or transferred from services without prior notice, notification of available sources of necessary continued services and exercise of a grievance procedure;
(h)A humane service environment that affords reasonable protection from harm and affords reasonable privacy;
(i)Be free from abuse or neglect and to report any incident of abuse without being subject to retaliation;
(j)Religious freedom;
(k)Not be required to perform labor, except personal housekeeping duties, without reasonable and lawful compensation;
(l)Visit with family members, friends, advocates and legal and medical professionals;
(m)Exercise all rights set forth in ORS 426.385 and 427.031 if the individual is committed to the Department;
(n)Be informed at the start of services and periodically thereafter of the rights guaranteed by this section of the procedure for reporting abuse, and to have these rights and procedures prominently posted in a location readily accessible to the person and made available to the person’s guardian and any representative designated by the person;
(o)Assert grievances with respect to infringement of the rights described in this section, including the right to have such grievances considered in a fair, timely and impartial grievance procedure;
(p)Have access to and communicate privately with any public or private rights protection program or rights advocate; and
(q)Exercise all rights described in this section without any form of reprisal or punishment.

(3)Additional Rights in Residential Treatment Facilities. Residents will also have a right to:

(a)Adequate food, shelter, clothing, consistent with OAR 309-035-0159;
(b)A reasonable accommodation if, due to their disability, the housing and services are not sufficiently accessible;
(c)Confidential communication, including receiving and opening personal mail, private visits with family members and other guests, and access to a phone with privacy for making and receiving telephone calls;
(d)Express sexuality in a socially appropriate and consensual manner;
(e)Access to community resources including recreation, religious services, agency services, employment, and day programs, unless such access is legally restricted;
(f)Be free from seclusion and restraint, accept as outlined in OAR 309-035-0167.
(g)To review the Residential Treatment Facility’s policies and procedures; and
(h)Not participate in research without informed voluntary written consent.

(4) Program Requirements. The program will have and implement written policies and procedures, which protect residents’ rights and encourage and assist residents to understand and exercise their rights. The program will post a listing of residents’ rights under these rules in a place readily accessible to all residents and visitors.

Stat. Auth: ORS 409.010 & ORS 44.3450
Stat. Implemented: ORS 443.400 to ORS 443.455 & ORS 443.991(2)

Signature of Resident: _____________________________________
Signature of Staff Person: __________________________________
Date Resident Rights were explained: ____________
Original to resident – photocopy in resident chart

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EXTRA – What happened to Sean Liam Kelly
EXTRA – Obituary site created by Kelly’s family

Opinion editorial from Anna Griffin of The Oregonian, June 26 2009


At long last, someone has made a smart decision in the case of poor James Chasse. Not surprisingly, it’s Ted Wheeler.


Chasse, a schizophrenic man, was behaving oddly and possibly urinating on a tree when police spotted him on Sept. 17, 2006.


Two Portland officers and a Multnomah County deputy approached Chasse figuring they were dealing with a drunk or a drug addict. He ran. As Pearl District diners and shoppers looked on, police chased Chasse and knocked him to the sidewalk. He screamed and fought to break free. Officers used physical force — their fists, feet and finally a Taser — to subdue him.

Paramedics at the scene said Chasse’s vital signs were normal, so officers tied his feet to his hands and took him to the Multnomah County Detention Center. A jail nurse evaluated Chasse’s condition through a cell window. She watched him twitch for a few seconds, told officers he needed medical care and walked away. He died in the back seat of a patrol car on the way to Portland Adventist, less than two hours after his encounter with police.

Chasse’s family filed a federal lawsuit against the city, the county, the ambulance company, the police chief, the mayor, the officers, paramedics and jail staff. The lawsuit, since split into separate cases against the officers involved and the government agencies, alleges that Chasse’s civil rights were violated, and that pretty much everyone who could screw up did.

Activists for the poor and mentally ill have accused police of beating Chasse to death, then covering up their use of excessive force. Police, in turn, say they’ve been vilified for a tragic accident.

We may never really know precisely what happened, which particular version of events is closest to the truth or which particular bad decision caused his death.

Which is why Wheeler’s decision this week to ask his Multnomah County Board of Commissioners to settle its part of the suit for close to $1 million feels both wise and compassionate.

I know, I know. Chasse may not have been an entirely innocent victim. Officers approached because he appeared to be urinating in public. He ran from them and resisted arrest with surprising force, scratching and biting. A grand jury found no reason to charge anyone involved in chasing Chasse down with a crime. The state medical examiner ruled his death accidental, the natural result of a 245-pound man crashing down on top of a 145-pound one.

Settling the lawsuit is a good business decision. A trial of this magnitude — involving expert witnesses, conflicting eyewitness testimony and outside lawyers — could cost taxpayers more than the $925,000 settlement even if the county were to win.

Settling is also the right thing to do because, on a broader level, we all share blame for Chasse’s death.

The city and county systems for handling mentally ill people have improved since Chasse’s death. The Portland Police Bureau now trains officers about how to deal with mentally ill people and tightened rules about when they can use force. County leaders changed booking procedures at the jail and are close to construction of a $3 million mental health assessment and treatment center. Still, the county’s mental health programs and the city’s affordable housing efforts both remain woefully understaffed, underfunded and underappreciated.

Wheeler’s decision to settle is a nod to the vast amount of work left to be done. And, even if he doesn’t intend it that way, next week’s county vote on the deal is a reminder to everyone else in this lawsuit that the money being devoted to legal wrangling would be better used fixing a system still undeniably broken.