Randy Krehbiel
Tulsa World Staff Writer
A consent decree revamping the treatment of the mentally incompetent held in Oklahoma’s county jails was denounced Monday by Gov. Kevin Stitt, hours after state Attorney General Gentner Drummond and plaintiffs’ attorney Paul DeMuro declared it a major victory for taxpayers and the mentally ill alike.
“This is a big deal,” said DeMuro soon after the consent decree’s filing in Tulsa federal court.
The consent decree obligates the state to reform a system that has caused people judged incompetent for trial to remain in jail for months and even a year or more awaiting court-ordered treatment.
In many cases, evidence shows, people judged incompetent have remained in jail awaiting treatment to restore their competency longer than the sentences for their original charges.
But Stitt’s opposition is a serious setback for the agreement. Under state law, the decree must be agreed to by either a concurrent resolution of the Legislature, which does not require the governor’s signature, or, when the Legislature is not in session, by the four-member Contingency Review Board, which includes the governor and one of his appointees, the head of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services.
People are also reading…
“I did not and will never agree to have Oklahomans foot the bill for a bad legal settlement,” said Stitt. “We have to ask why the AG is forcing a settlement that will result in an immediate win for the plaintiffs’ attorneys at the expense of the Oklahoma taxpayers.”
Drummond and DeMuro, though, said the consent decree fits a 2023 veto message by the governor demanding “a hard look at the methods and structures being used to restore to competency those criminal defendants who may be afflicted by mental health disorders.”
Stitt’s press release objected, saying the use of his veto message “implies the governor has endorsed the plan.”
Drummond’s statement cites the veto message and says he is “hopeful Gov. Stitt and legislative leaders will support the plan.”
Stitt and Drummond have frequently clashed since the latter became attorney general in January 2023, replacing Stitt’s hand-picked choice, John O’Connor.
Drummond is generally seen as a possible successor to Stitt, as is Stitt’s legislative ally, Speaker of the House Charles McCall, R-Atoka.
In this particular case, Stitt seems intent on Drummond’s defending a case that Drummond says the state cannot win.
“AG Drummond is tasked with representing the agency and negotiating the best deal for all four million Oklahomans,” said the governor’s press release. “Instead, he has proposed a settlement agreement that saddles the department and the Oklahoma taxpayers with an uncapped settlement agreement.”
Stitt said he wants the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services’ new director, Allie Friesen, to be given a chance to address the issues.
Drummond said that if the lawsuit moves forward, Oklahoma will lose.
“This consent decree saves tens of millions of taxpayer dollars by avoiding the costs and risks of protracted litigation,” Drummond said.
He also said it is the right thing to do for the people involved.
“Under this proposal, victims and their families will not have to endure interminable delays for their cases to be resolved by the courts,” Drummond said in a press release. “This plan will strengthen the justice system and correct a process that has been fraught with problems.”
The decree would require the state to submit an implementation plan within 90 days and to reduce the wait time for treatment to no more than 21 days within 14 months. It establishes fines for failure to meet a succession of deadlines.
The implementation is to be overseen by three expert consultants — one chosen by the state, one by the plaintiffs and one by the other two consultants.
The three are Neil Gowensmith, a clinical psychologist with the University of Denver; John Petrila, an attorney and consultant with Texas-based Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute; and Dr. Darren Lish, a clinical psychiatrist with the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.
The settlement stems from a March 2023 federal lawsuit, filed in Tulsa, on behalf of four people held in county jails around the state and their “next friends,” or representatives. It is known as the Briggs case because the first name listed is that of Leslie Briggs, a Tulsa attorney who is first friend of two named plaintiffs.
The suit was filed after attorneys and organizations such as Tulsa’s Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law and Justice grew frustrated with the state’s response to the situation. In their petition, the plaintiffs charged that the Oklahoma State Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services was violating their federal and state constitutional rights and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
How much the implementation of the consent decree will cost is unclear. Stitt said it could be more than $100 million, but other estimates put the initial price tag at less than $10 million for the first year of the five-year settlement.
The agreement does include immediate payments of $303,000 in plaintiffs’ lawyer fees — a little over $300 an hour — and costs and future fees of $75,000 a year or $350 an hour, whichever is less.
By comparison, the state has set aside $10 million a year in recent years to fight the federal government.
Should the state reject the settlement and the plaintiffs win, the state would be liable for whatever lawyers’ fees the court deems suitable.
The Tulsa World is where your story lives
The Tulsa World newsroom is committed to covering this community with curiosity, tenacity and depth. Our passion for telling the story of Tulsa remains unwavering. Because your story is our story. Thank you to our subscribers who support local journalism. Join them with limited-time offers at tulsaworld.com/story.
