Madera County GSA committee reviews draft meeting rules; public urges longer comment and easier agenda additions

The Madera County Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) subcommittee on April 1 discussed draft committee meeting rules that set the monthly meeting schedule, define roles for chair and chair pro tem, and propose public‑comment procedures.

Stephanie Nagmanson, director of water and natural resources, described the draft as “potential rules” intended to augment the board report and to improve transparency and discussion time. She said the proposed public‑comment length follows the Board of Supervisors’ three‑minute standard but that the draft is open for change.

The rules also define responsibilities for an executive officer to manage reports and notices, a secretary to maintain records and post materials, and counsel to ensure procedural compliance. The draft recommends Rosenberg’s Rules of Order for committee governance rather than Robert’s Rules.

Nut graf: Committee members and public commenters said the rules should prioritize public participation. Several attendees suggested modest changes to encourage broader input while keeping the committee’s stated purpose of facilitating longer, transparent discussions.

Supervisor McCall asked how a three‑minute limit would affect public engagement; Nagmanson said the document is a draft and can be adjusted. A speaker suggested increasing three minutes to five; a committee member moved to increase the time and obtain additional feedback before adoption.

Public commenters supported more flexibility. Noah Lopez of the Madera Ag Water Association asked the committee to add a process allowing the chair, at the chair’s discretion, to agendize items or to allow a party to present briefly at a future meeting. Lopez said such an option would let groups present rule‑package ideas and solicit public comment in a regular meeting setting.

Other commenters at the podium welcomed public interviews of vendors and broader outreach during future rule and measurement‑method discussions. Nagmanson said staff will return with recommendations that reflect the committee’s feedback and that any final rules would still require Board of Supervisors adoption.

Ending: The committee treated the draft as discussion only; no final action was taken. Staff will revise the draft rules and return them to the committee before forwarding any adopted version to the Board of Supervisors.