Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, disability advocates urge Placer County to restore Zoom access to board and commission meetings
Summary
Multiple public commenters during the March 18 meeting urged the Board to reinstate hybrid/Zoom participation for meetings, saying removal reduces access for people with disabilities and caregiving responsibilities and may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Several members of the public used the Board’s March 18 public‑comment period to urge Placer County to restore Zoom or other remote access to public meetings, saying removing hybrid access reduces transparency and excludes people with disabilities.
Wayne Nader, a resident speaking during public comment, said the county had “made a decision behind closed doors” to remove Zoom access from board meetings and possibly other commission and committee meetings. He said other counties had found technical work‑arounds and that eliminating remote access suppresses free speech and reduces democratic participation for people who cannot attend in person.
Leslie Davidson, who said she lives with a disability, described difficulty participating in past hybrid meetings when the county had technical problems, and said an ADA office representative advised her she should be able to participate remotely. She said the county did not provide a rationale when Zoom was discontinued and said the removal disproportionately impacts people with mobility or health limits.
Diana (last name not provided) of Christian Valley Park Community Services District, who commented remotely under an ADA accommodation, said the county’s elimination of hybrid access was “a bad look optically” and asked the board to reinstate remote participation. Chair Anne Gore replied that accommodations for those with disability‑related needs are available and noted the agenda includes information on how to request them.
Board members did not take immediate policy action at the meeting. Staff and board members acknowledged prior interruptions to remote participation on March 4 were disruptive; the clerk’s office said people with qualifying disability‑related needs may still request accommodations. Members of the public and several supervisors urged the county to return to a hybrid model, expand remote access points and post a clear agenda disclaimer about remote‑participation rules.
Speakers quoted in this report spoke during the March 18 public‑comment portion of the Placer County Board of Supervisors meeting.
