It was no muss, no fuss at Board of Supervisors first meeting of the year on Tuesday, Jan. 7.
The first order of business was the swearing-in of Supervisors-Elect Bernie Bernie Norvell and Madeline Cline, as well as Mo Mulheren, who was re-elected as District 2 Supervisor. Norvell, former mayor and council member for Fort Bragg, replaced Dan Gjerde who retired after serving on the Board since 2012. Norvell has generally drawn high praise for establishing successful homeless-mental health policies in the coastal city. Cline, who owns a consulting business and served on the County Fish and Game Commission, fills the District 1 seat occupied by Glenn McGourty, who retired after just a single term.
The January meeting saw the passing of the Board Chair’s gavel from Mo Mulheren to District 3 Supe John Haschak for the 2025 term.
The Board also approved several changes and/or clarifications to BOS Rules of Procedure, which set out guidelines for how meetings are conducted, voting procedures, public participation, etc.
Here are a few of the highlights:
- Supervisors will no longer be allowed to abstain from voting.
Actually, Supervisors were never allowed to abstain unless they self-declared or were found by the Fair Political Practices Commission to have a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, at some point in the past, a practice developed where Supes began abstaining on proposed actions assuming they had the right do so notwithstanding the fact they had no conflicts of interest.
Supervisor Ted Williams objected to eliminating abstentions, arguing that sometimes he doesn’t have enough “information” to cast a yes or no vote. Haschak countered with the proposed action could always “tabled” or continued to a future meeting where the information would then be available.
That’s certainly one solution, but not the best one.
No item should ever appear on an agenda that lacks specificity and the necessary information to make a decision, one way or the other.
Whoever is sponsoring (a Supervisor, CEO, Department Head) a proposed action, is obligated and responsible that the agenda item “is ready to go.”
And it’s the Board Chair and Clerk of the Board (who doubles as the CEO), who have the final obligation and responsibility to prepare and vet agendas for publication and posting.
So while there’s no change in the original rule, i.e., “As a matter of public policy, all members of the Board shall take a position and vote on all issues brought before them,” the faulty practice of allowing abstentions is now eliminated.
I’ve always believed that the worst characteristic of anyone in an elected position is indecisiveness. And indecisive is just another word for “abstain.”
- Public Expression/Comments At Meetings
There’s been social network posts alleging that during the January 7 meeting, Haschak improperly restricted comments during Public Expression, where, as stated on every agenda, “Members of the public are welcome to address the Board on items not listed on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors. The Board is prohibited by law from taking action on matters not on the agenda.”
There were numerous individuals, including yours truly, who were planning to address the Board on the improper action taken by Cannabis Department bureaucrats “re-interpreting” a Weed Ordinance provision that capped marijuana cultivation at 10,000 square feet. The Department’s new interpretation doubled cultivation areas. Many of us contend the Department’s action is illegal because only the Supervisors have the authority to change or amend ordinances. Some of us were going to urge the Supes to put an item on a future agenda to rescind the Cannabis Department’s illegal action, and also speak in support of a “Cease and Desist” letter to the Supes from a law firm representing the Willits Environmental Center (WEC). There were also members of the public present who were there to support the position taken by the Cannabis Department.
Anyway, after a number of folks had addressed the Board, Haschak asked those who had not yet spoken, if what they had to say on either side of the issue would be any different than what those who had already spoken. Ellen Drell, of WEC, responded that she would like to briefly address the cease-and-desist letter from WEC lawyers to the Supervisors. Haschak allowed her comments, and then invoked a long-standing rule that’s been in the BOS Rules of Procedure for years:
“Public expression on any item not appearing on the Board of Supervisors agenda, but which is within, or reasonably related to, the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board is permitted. The Board limits testimony on matters not on the agenda to 3 minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes for a particular subject at the discretion of the Chair.”
Although it’s been infrequent, it’s not the first time I’ve seen the rule imposed, and I understand the reason for it, even though I didn’t get my opportunity to address the Board at Tuesday’s meeting. The rule is in place to save time where speaker after speaker are essentially saying the same thing.
In fact, most of the time, the BOS are overly generous in allowing public expression that sometimes borders on filibustering by some of the public This was the case, especially during the year-after-year marathon that was the making of the failed Weed Ordinance, when literally a meeting didn’t occur without a lengthy segment devoted to pot talk, more pot talk, and more and more pot talk. As I’ve said a million times, and it’s now repeated and acknowledged — without attribution, of course — by the Supes, Department Heads, Law Enforcement, etc.: This county has spent more time and money on the pot issue than any other matter in county history.
- Disruptive Behavior
Again social media postings and some reports allege and speculate about the Supes nefarious intentions when they approved amending meeting rules with new language regarding “disruptive behavior” at meetings.
This is another non-issue. For years the BOS Rules of Procedure had a short, sweet, and to the point provision setting out procedures for dealing with folks who “disrupt” meetings.
Several years ago, I wrote a column or two detailing a new law dealing with so-called “disruptive behavior” occurring at local government meetings.
Here’s some excerpts from what I wrote back then:
The state Legislature passed and Gov. Newsom has signed a bill that modifies the Brown Act, the 1953 state law that requires open meetings, including the right for the public to address local government officials during meetings. Current law allows city councils, boards of supervisors, school boards, water boards, etc., to boot out people for “willfully interrupting” proceedings, but state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) said the law needed to be updated “to include a more precise definition of that behavior.”
Cortese’s bill was co-sponsored by the California State Association of Counties, which includes Mendocino County, and the Urban Counties of California.
The new law gave local governmental bodies broadened authority to show the door to disruptive and misbehaving miscreants and kooks who flip out at meetings.
According to Cortese, his bill, SB 1100, “aims to protect local officials from harassment and verbal abuse.”
Without a doubt, “harassment” and “verbal abuse” are Devil’s details difficult to artfully define in the hurly-burly of politics and governing, especially in today’s socially uncivil times. I can also tell you that attendance at union meetings back in my days in the Labor Movement, were not the place to be for the faint of heart or those easily upset or offended by gruff, threatening, or abusive speech.
Specifically, Cortese intended the new law would clarify “willfully interrupting” to mean “intentionally engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that substantially impairs or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting.”
The law also mandates local officials to issue a warning to participants to “curtail their disruptive behavior” before removing them or clearing a room.
The new law also was certainly in response to COVID-generated disruptions when local officials made decisions on stay-at-home orders, mask-and-social distancing rules, vaccine requirements for schools, and mixed/inconsistent practices in the application of all of the foregoing rules to businesses and restaurants.
In any event, the Supes were required by the new law (California Government Code Section 54957.9) to incorporate its provisions into their Meeting Rules and Procedures.
Nothing really nefarious about it.
Be First to Comment