The Push for Stronger SHS Governance
Metro Council is moving forward with governance and oversight changes that include forming a consolidated regional oversight committee. Some local officials are arguing that service providers should be excluded from a full voting membership on the new oversight committee due to conflicts of interest. But the real conflict of interest is elsewhere.
This proposed body would be empowered to set regional goals, performance metrics, and compliance standards that each county must adhere to in order to receive SHS funding. County leaders—who currently enjoy a high degree of autonomy—have resisted these changes.
Misplaced Concerns
At the same time, some local elected officials have floated the idea that issue experts from homeless service provider organizations should be excluded from holding full voting seats on the new regional oversight committee, citing concerns about conflict of interest.
Accountability in public funding is essential, and it’s reasonable to ensure that no group has undue influence. But in this case, the concern is misplaced and ignores a far more direct conflict of interest.
Who Really Has a Conflict of Interest?
The regional oversight committee’s proposed role is to set goals, ensure accountability, and enforce compliance with SHS program rules. These are essential checks and balances on county governments, which have resisted greater regional oversight.
A fundamental conflict of interest exists when the elected officials responsible for implementing SHS also write the rules for compliance and define its success. Including non-elected stakeholders, issue experts, and business community representatives is one way to balance that inherent conflict and build public trust.
Counties—and the elected officials who govern them—are recipients of SHS revenue from Metro. They approve budgets that determine how funds are allocated, they receive millions for county administrative support, and they employ staff who oversee contract procurement, operations, and data management.
In other words, counties have a built-in financial stake in SHS allocations. Their role in oversight directly impacts their own budgets and staff resources, making their influence over funding decisions a much clearer conflict of interest than service providers having a seat at the table.
To be clear, counties should absolutely hold providers accountable through strong contract oversight and conflict of interest policies. But that’s a separate issue from who should participate in regional goal-setting and governance. Excluding providers who have direct knowledge of what is and isn’t working, while giving counties full voting power, weakens oversight and does not strengthen our SHS system.
A Smarter Way to Evaluate Conflicts of Interest
If the concern is truly about conflict of interest, then the first step is to define the scope of the proposed regional oversight committee’s impact. This committee would be responsible for goal setting, accountability, and compliance—not awarding contracts or selecting individual providers. That distinction matters.
The key question should be:
Does a decision made by the oversight committee directly benefit or impact an individual member or their organization in a way that goes beyond their role in ensuring effective system-wide oversight?
A fair conflict of interest test would ask:
✅ Does the committee member or their organization receive direct financial benefit from the decisions made by the oversight committee? If yes, recusal should be considered on relevant votes.
✅ Does the committee member control funding, procurement, or contract decisions that benefit their organization? If yes, stronger safeguards should apply.
✅ Is the committee member or their organization directly subject to the oversight and compliance standards set by the committee? If yes, caution should be used in evaluating their participation in compliance-related decisions, with appropriate recusal policies in place when necessary.
✅ Is the committee member’s role focused on system-wide accountability rather than financial control? If yes, participation should be encouraged with transparency and ethical guidelines in place.
By this standard, counties—who directly receive SHS funds and control contract decisions—have a far more apparent financial conflict than providers, who do not control how dollars are allocated.
If a conflict of interest is a serious concern, it must be applied consistently to all parties involved—not selectively to exclude the people with the knowledge needed to strengthen oversight. Strong governance requires expertise, accountability, and transparency—not exclusion.
Why Excluding Providers Weakens Accountability
Excluding providers from decision making on the regional oversight committee won’t improve accountability – it will only weaken our ability to create an effective, transparent SHS system that truly serves our communities.
Service providers on the front lines navigate the complexities of shelter operations, housing placements, and supportive services. Their real-time understanding of how SHS policies impact people experiencing homelessness allows them to identify gaps, inefficiencies, and unintended consequences.
Without service provider input, oversight decisions risk being detached from on-the-ground realities, leading to policies that may look good on paper but fail in execution.
Have opinions on this topic? Let us know at info@heretogetheroregon.org.