The Issues:
- Do the chairs of the County’s Community Planning Groups get to single-handedly set the agenda for the issues considered?
- These groups are typically made up of 15 officials — do 14 of them not have the authority to place a matter on their public agendas?
- Do these questions end with Planning Groups?
- What of City Councils, School Boards and special districts throughout the region? — Do all elected officials on each public body have the right to ask for consideration of an item, or at some agencies is it left to the chair, president or mayor to solely decide what goes on an agenda, in conjunction with non-elected staff?
- Louis Russo of the Alpine Planning Group is seeking clarity from the County Board of Supervisors when it comes to County Planning Groups. See his letter below.
“On Sunday morning as I make breakfast for my family,” said Russo, “I watched Vice President Mike Pence’s commencement speech at Notre Dame … he addressed the suppression of free speech on college campuses and how it is against everything that is American, such as the airing of disparate viewpoints. The chairman of the Alpine Planning Group is doing nothing less to the citizens of Alpine.”
Letter from Russo, sent Sunday…
Supervisors Horn, Jacob, Roberts, Gaspar, Cox
County Administration Center
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
Supervisors:
I am writing to ask your assistance in correcting an issue with the Alpine Community Planning Group. I know this group is within Supervisor Jacob’s area, but I am asking you to correct it for all the groups.
Policy I-1, the Policy that governs these advisory groups, states:
“The Chair develops the meeting agenda.”
The Chair of the Alpine Community Planning Group has interpreted this to mean that he is the sole decision maker when it comes to the Agenda, including what does and does not get on the agenda. From discussions with the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) this last Friday, it appears that County Counsel agrees with this position, e.g. that the chairman of a local planning group has complete discretion as to what the group discusses. This is in spite of the ACLU recently contacting a local City Council regarding the same behavior and showing it is a violation of the Brown Act to deny a member the right to place an item on the agenda.
The chairman of the Alpine group has, in my opinion and the opinion of a number of residents, abused this “power” on a regular basis by only permitting those items with which he agrees and/or those which are to his personal advantage to make it to the agenda. There are numerous examples, but the most egregious is that two months ago he permitted the Alpine Fire Chief to make a presentation regarding the application the department has before Local Agency Formation Commission to annex those parcels within its Sphere of Influence. He permitted the Chief to present for 23 minutes during open comment (which has a time limit of 3 minutes).
I am within the area being proposed to be annexed and am leading a group of residents in opposing the annexation. As a full member of the group, I asked to have an agenda item be placed on this month’s agenda to present an opposing view to the Chief’s presentation. (In other words, I followed the policy and procedures to present the viewpoint of my constituents.) Not only did the chairman not place this item on the agenda, he didn’t even answer my request. When I asked DPLU to intervene, they informed me the chairman wasn’t going to put it on because he believes it’s not within the purview of the group. I not only beg to differ, it is in fact very much within the purview, but if he felt that way, why did he permit the Chief to go on for 23 minutes two months ago? The reason he did is that he supports the annexation AND the vice chairman of the group also happens to be the current president of the Alpine Fire District board who initiated the LAFCO application. In other words, he and his buddies wanted the community to hear the Chief’s side, but not an opposition.
Many of my constituents are wondering why only one side of an argument is being presented by an arm of the County. To their way of thinking, the local planning groups represent the County in our communities and they want the County to act in a fair and impartial manner. They are aware of the fact that Supervisor Jacob supported the group chairman in his run for school board last election and that she probably supports the annexation, but in the end, all sides of issues should see the light of day and the chairman’s actions are suppression of free speech.
Please direct County Counsel to redraft Policy I-1 to make it clear that all members of a group have the same rights vis-à-vis placing agenda items on the advisory groups’ agenda and in the interim send direction, via DPLU, to the chairmen of the groups directing the same.
Thank you,
Louis F. Russo
CC: LAFCO, ACLU
Comments 6
“Notre Dame is a campus where deliberation is welcomed, where opposing views are debated, and where every speaker, no matter how unpopular or unfashionable, is afforded the right to air their views in the open for all to hear.”
-Vice President Mike Pence
Without addressing Mr. Russo’s underlying issue, I suggest that at the next meeting, he voice his opposing view during the same “public comment on any items NOT on the Agenda” period. The chair might limit him to the 3 minute time rule, but then again, maybe not. And even if he does, his voice against the proposal will be heard by the other committee members. And while he’s at it, why doesn’t he gather up a bunch of other people who oppose the annexation, and see to it that they attend the same meeting and each voice their 3 minutes of opposition.
Greg:
I found your article on Planning Group chairs interesting. Here’s some additional information on planning groups, chairs and agendas.
There are 26 Community Planning Groups in the County, with the majority happening to fall within District 2 due to land mass size and number of communities in this district. I can only speak to the one I serve on, i.e., Jamul Dulzura. I am in my third 4-year term, and my second time to serve a two-year stint as the chair. I cannot recall any instance that a member wanted an appropriate item on the agenda, and not having it placed there within the next two meetings, depending on timing of the request and the number of items already assigned to the next agenda.
Yes, Policy I-1 states that one of the chairperson’s responsibility is to set the agenda. I believe that this is due to the chair’s responsibility of covering, sometimes numerous, agenda items within a short timeframe of 2 to 3 hours. Most groups only meet once per month. The JDCPG meets twice each month, and often has a hard time to cover everything within our 2 1/2-hour window (7:30 pm to 10 pm). Also please note that the elected CPG members volunteer long hours with no financial compensation, while working fulltime for an employer and maintaining a family life.
In addition to the Brown Act dictating the public posting of the agenda at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, Policy I-1 dictates how an agenda is to be constructed. That is, there is an order, i.e., roll call (to establish a quorum or a meeting cannot be held), approval of the agenda for the meeting and then approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Following these items, is Open Forum for the members and the public to speak on any “land-related” topic not on the agenda, and any other topics of concern that a community resident wants to place on record (which sometimes involves a request of the CPG to look into a potential issue). There is a 3-minute limit (mainly due to the overall time constraint), but the chair can allow additional time. In JDCPG’s case, we do not have presentations during Open Forum. If there is going to be a presentation, we place it on the agenda as an informational item and allow Q&A. Some of these can last 30 minutes in total.
Following Open Forum are agenda items that require action, i.e., a vote for recommendation. If an agenda item was not concluded for any reason during the previous meeting, this item must be placed at the top of the following meeting’s agenda, right after open forum. After action items comes informational items, followed by officer’s announcements, that often include asking for a member(s) to volunteer to work on a project request from the PDS.
I do not know anyone on the Alpine CPG and cannot speak to what has allegedly happen as you described. But at the very least, I would think that there should have been an opportunity for other members and/or the public to ask questions of the presenter following his or her presentation.
Alpine Planning Group Chairman at tonight’s meeting reaffirmed he will be the final decision maker vis-a-vis agenda items. Individual members have no right to place an item on the agenda. The vice chairman, who is also the president of the Alpine Fire Board, stated the same is true there. So, two thirds of the elected officials in Alpine have their agendas set by two individuals.
Just learned that Alpine school district only lets board president approve agenda items. So, Alpine has the trifecta. Three individuals control the agendas for ALL the elected officials in town
At Sweetwater Community Planning Group our decisions on what is to go on the agenda is a group effort between the two chairs and the Secretary who writes the agenda. We find this method works very well. We send the agenda out early so those who have items to add have ample time to respond, and we do listen to the responses.