During the commissioner‑discussion portion of the Oct. 14 meeting a commissioner sharply criticized the board’s refusal to consider a proposed policy prohibiting commissioners from entering nondisclosure agreements (NDAs). The remarks followed an unsuccessful attempt earlier in the meeting to bring such a policy forward for consideration.

The discussion began after a point of order and a motion that failed for lack of a second. The speaker argued that refusing to allow public debate in the chamber while developers and staff negotiate NDAs is a disservice to constituents and undermines transparency. The commissioner characterized NDAs as tools to hide information from the public and said that commissioners who were aware of a proposed data‑center project months earlier had not shared information with the public. The speaker said the board’s conduct had damaged trust and called the session “unprecedented” in their tenure.

Board procedural counsel had advised that under Robert’s Rules of Order a motion may be seconded for discussion even if the seconder does not intend to vote in favor, but the motion in this case failed for lack of a second and therefore was not debated. Other commissioners and staff responded in the meeting with procedural clarifications and brief remarks acknowledging the public turnout; no formal policy action or ordinance was adopted at the Oct. 14 meeting.

The transcript records substantial public attendance and several commissioners noting constituents’ presence and concerns; the issue was framed by the speaker as a conflict between business recruitment confidentiality and elected officials’ duty to inform constituents. The board did not adopt a new policy limiting nondisclosure agreements during the session; the matter may be raised again in a future agenda item if a commissioner brings a properly seconded motion.