Lake County supervisors decline to send draft letters urging changes to federal naming policies after heated public comment on Kelseyville

The Lake County Board of Supervisors took no action Feb. 4 on proposed letters to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) and the California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names (KAGAN) that would recommend changes to federal naming policies after the Jan. 20, 2025, presidential executive order, after a motion to approve the draft letters died for lack of a second.

The letters, discussed as agenda item 6.8, were framed by Supervisor Paiske as a way for the county to "share where we found those policies fell short" when BGN considered an application to rename the populated place of Kelseyville. "This last year has been really difficult for everyone regarding this name change," Supervisor Paiske said, urging the board to "lean on our experience and push this forward." The board instead left the item without approving the countyauthored recommendations.

Why it matters: The letters were meant to advise how BGN and the state advisory committee handle applications affecting populated places after a federal executive order that directs a revision of BGNprinciples, policies and practices. Supporters of the letters said local experience with a high-profile renaming effort could help prevent future community divisions; opponents said the county should not direct federal or state committees and that county staff time should focus on other priorities.

Public comment at the meeting centered on the earlier Kelseyville renaming controversy rather than the narrow procedural focus of the draft letters. Several residents told the board they opposed changing Kelseyville's name and said they were not adequately consulted in the BGN application process. Rachel White of Kelseyville told the board the letters "do not care about Kelseyville" and called the countyleadershipresponse "a disgrace." Mark Borgesani, also of Kelseyville, said the BGN application lacked local outreach and suggested the federal application "should just die at the BGN level because of lack of clarity."

Several speakers who supported the letters argued that state and federal committees had failed to provide the community engagement they had promised. Supervisor Paiske, who presented the item, and other supervisors said they had repeatedly pressed BGN and KAGAN staff for outreach and answers that were not provided.

County legal advisers disputed where authority lay to reopen the boarddecision taken Dec. 10, 2024. County staff advised that the boardcould not add items beyond the posted agenda and that the draft letters before the board were limited to recommending revisions to BGN and KAGAN policies. Counsel also referenced the Board of Supervisors' internal rules on reconsideration.

County Counsel (Lloyd) told the board: "Generally, your Board cannot add any items or actions beyond this item" and that a separate process is required to place a new or reconsideration item on the agenda. A different county legal adviser explained that under the boardrules of procedure (Rule 9), the deadline to propose reconsideration of the Dec. 10 action had passed because the next regularly scheduled meeting after that vote occurred Dec. 17 and three regular meetings had followed.

Another legal adviser cited the Ralph M. Brown Act and said the Brown Act can allow reconsideration: "It could be done within 12 months of when that decision was made." That adviser also said a motion to reconsider would require support from four-fifths of the current board to place the item back on the calendar.

After closing public input and further brief comments from supervisors both supporting and opposing sending a county letter, a supervisor identified as "Mister Jerry" moved to approve the two draft letters. The board chair asked for a second and none was offered; the chair then announced the motion died for lack of a second and the board took no action on the letters.

What was proposed: The draft letters asked BGN and KAGAN to revise their procedures governing name changes for populated places, drawing on Lake Countyexperiences with the Kelseyville application. Some supervisors said the intent was to "pay it forward" so other communities would not undergo the same divisions.

What remains unresolved: The board did not adopt the letters and did not direct staff to pursue additional action. Multiple speakers urged individual supervisors to send letters on their own letterhead; county counsel confirmed board members retain the ability to submit individual correspondence that does not represent the board.

Context and next steps: Board members said the item originated from frustration with perceived inadequate outreach by BGN and KAGAN during the Kelseyville application. They also noted that the executive order and expected staffing and policy changes at BGN may delay or foreclose any near-term federal review of name-change applications. No new timeline was set by the board.