Craig Roberts is certainly within his authority as sheriff of Clackamas County to run search-and-rescue operations the way he sees fit. If he wants to dismantle the county’s relationship with the expert rescue crews that have saved distressed climbers on Mount Hood for decades, local officials are limited in how they can stop him.

But while Roberts may have the power to make such a dramatic change, he has yet to articulate a rational argument for it. His proposal to replace the existing arrangement with his own search-and-rescue team, as first reported by The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Noelle Crombie, seems more about enforcing administrative directives than promoting safety. Worse, his plan arguably increases the risk to the public, particularly with respect to missions on Mount Hood. Mountaineers have come to rely on Portland Mountain Rescue and the other elite teams that have shown the expertise, grit and skill to assist those who get into trouble on Mount Hood, one of the most-climbed peaks in the world with more than 10,000 climbers annually. And a 2018 criminal misconduct conviction for a longtime detective laid bare Roberts’ poor leadership in ensuring professionalism or accountability.

Rather than throw the upcoming climbing season into turmoil, Roberts should set aside his plan, meet with Portland Mountain Rescue and the other groups and negotiate compromises that address his administrative concerns without dissolving the current partnerships. Keeping that continuity is especially important considering Roberts’ term expires this year and he is rumored to be interested in running for the county chair. If Roberts won’t back down, county commissioners should seek to use their budgetary power to deny him the money for this venture, which would require a significant investment that the county can ill afford. And voters, too, should take note both in evaluating Roberts and those who would replace him.

As Crombie reported, Roberts plans to stop calling on the four trained crews of more than 200 volunteers who have long responded to searches, from looking for lost hikers to the more extreme challenges of a search-and-rescue for a climber on Mount Hood. Instead, he wants to form a team with about 100 volunteers who would undergo uniform background checks and training and report to him.

In explaining the plan, Roberts pointed to a report done by his former undersheriff, Matt Ellington, about search-and-rescue operations of two counties. But the report itself lacks much heft. Rather, it provides an outline of how the Deschutes and Multnomah county sheriffs structure their programs but doesn’t even evaluate the effectiveness of those programs in conducting search-and-rescue missions.

Oregonian editorials Editorials reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian/OregonLive editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom. Members of the editorial board are Therese Bottomly, Laura Gunderson, Helen Jung, John Maher and Amy Wang. Members of the board meet regularly to determine our institutional stance on issues of the day. We publish editorials when we believe our unique perspective can lend clarity and influence an upcoming decision of great public interest. Editorials are opinion pieces and therefore different from news articles. To respond to this editorial, submit an OpEd or a letter to the editor If you have questions about the opinion section, email Helen Jung , opinion editor, or call 503-294-7621.

For example, the report calls the Deschutes County operation the “premier program in the state,” based on “the number of volunteers it has, the amount of equipment assigned to the program and the amount of financial resources available to it.” Not, for instance, the number of rescues, its success rate or other such metrics. In fact, there is not a single sentence in Ellington’s 12-page report that assesses the competence of either of the two programs. There’s greater discussion about the possibility that the Deschutes program may be getting a snowcat than there is about actual rescues the program conducted.

Shouldn’t the number of lives saved be a critical part of such an analysis before making such a drastic change? Apparently not.

There are other weaknesses in Roberts’ position. On OPB’s Think Out Loud, the sheriff said that he started looking at changes after a recent lawsuit filed by the family of a climber who died on Mount Hood. But the claims in the lawsuit centered on the delay and alleged mishandling by the sheriff’s office and county’s 911 dispatch service in sending out a rescue helicopter ­– not on the quality of the efforts by the crew that responded to the fall. In fact, the family insisted as part of a $25,000 settlement that the county make a $5,000 donation to Portland Mountain Rescue, a reflection of their gratitude.

Some may wonder why asking volunteers to shift to a sheriff-run system versus retaining the independence of the existing teams is such a big deal. But that esteem and identity are critical to their success. As Mark Morford, a Portland Mountain Rescue board member, told The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board, these organizations foster a culture and solidarity that directly results in the high level of trust and performance needed for rescues under extreme conditions – similar to the pride U.S. Marines take in conducting their missions.

And Clackamas County residents should also eye Roberts’ proposal to increase his management portfolio with a fair amount of skepticism. Roberts was criticized for his agency’s failure to take action on complaints that a detective was ignoring, rather than investigating, child abuse, sex abuse and other criminal allegations. An outside consultant hired by the county commission faulted the agency’s leaders for failing to take responsibility of the mishandling. When the consultant sought to check on whether Roberts had implemented the recommendations, the sheriff refused to cooperate. If the sheriff resists basic acts of accountability and responsibility, why should he be trusted to upend and remake a function that is working well?

It’s worth noting that Roberts has made some positive changes to search and rescue – assigning a full-time coordinator and placing the unit under the supervision of a lieutenant. And he’s right to push to raise the bar for rescuers, with uniform background checks and training. But nothing is stopping him from achieving those worthy goals by meeting with the rescue teams and adapting the current system. Safety should come first. Unfortunately, nothing about this proposal suggests that’s the priority.