The San Lorenzo Valley Water District has imposed new restrictions on public comments at its Board of Directors meetings, effective at the June 15 meeting.
The policy was included on the agenda for the June 15 meeting prepared by District Manager Brian Lee. The district’s Board of Directors Policy Manual states that any changes in procedures about public comments can occur only at the direction of the board president, Gene Ratcliffe.
“If you wish to speak on a non-agendized item, please submit a ‘speaker slip’ to the District Secretary.” said Lee’s agenda.
“It is not required, but individuals who have submitted a ‘speaker slip’ will be given priority.”
The time for public comments at the start of a district board meeting will now be limited to a total of 15 minutes, according to the June 15 agenda.
With a limit of three minutes per speaker, that means the number of speakers is likely to be limited to five people. At several meetings this year, more than 20 people addressed the board at the beginning of the meetings.
If more than five people submit the “speaker slips,” it was unclear who would decide who would be allowed to speak first.
All others who wish to address the board on a non-agenda topic will have to wait until the end of the meeting to speak. Board meetings this year have ranged from one to seven hours in length.
Under the new procedure, the board will move time for any additional speakers after the Consent Agenda, which has now been moved to the end of the meeting, after staff reports, committee reports, director reports, new business, and unfinished business.
Members of the public will still be allowed to make a single three-minute comment on any agenda item as it comes up.
Also this week, District Manager Brian Lee posted a letter to the Press Banner on the district’s website in which he acknowledged that the water district board voted May 25 to move all public comments on items not on the agenda to the end of the meeting.
He also said the board was obligated to allow public comment only on “action items” on the meeting agenda.
This directly conflicts with the language of the Brown Act, said Terry Francke, a Sacramento lawyer who is a recognized expert on the Brown Act, which he helped write.
Francke said the public has a right to comment on any item of public interest, and specifically on any agenda item up for consideration, whether or not action is expected or taken.
“Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body’s consideration of the item,” the Brown Act states.
The Board of Directors had previously taken other steps to shield items under consideration by the board from public comment, and to avoid a direct vote to review and approve expenditures of district funds, moves apparently at odds with several board policies.
The agenda for the May 25 meeting – and for the June 15 meeting – changed a written policy of requiring the pulling of any item from the so-called consent agenda for public comment at the request of a board member or any member of the public. Now only board members can request this action.
The district Board of Directors did vote unanimously to approve a Consent Agenda on May 25, after Director Margaret Bruce pulled two items for possible public comment.
However, for the second month in a row, the board did not vote on the district’s monthly list of bills and invoices – or allow any public comment on them – because these had been moved by staff off the Consent Agenda to the administrative staff report.
The same procedure, moving the payment of all bills and reporting of all invoices to the administrative report and off the Consent Agenda, was to be in place for the board’s June 15 meeting.
This means that the board no longer votes to approve any expenditures of district funds, and the public no longer is allowed to request a vote on the monthly bill list, or to request an opportunity to comment on the bill list.
Also, until February of this year, the bill lists – which this year have included tens of thousands of dollars of controversial legal bills that generated considerable public comment at earlier meetings – had been designated “For Approval.”
Beginning in March and continuing through June 15, these were designated “For Acceptance,” although no vote was taken to accept the bills. District Manager Brian Lee said the change to no longer have the board vote on payment of bills is “a common practice followed by other water districts.”
According to its own policy manual, one of the primary duties of the Board of Directors is to be responsible for all district finances, including monitoring budget spending.
