Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor pulls grand‑jury response from consent calendar to highlight transparency; board and staff explain notice processes
Summary
Supervisor McCauley pulled a consent item responding to a grand‑jury report titled "buried in the consent calendar," prompting public explanation of consent‑calendar practice and notice procedures; staff said responses are routinely drafted by the CAO and placed on consent but can be pulled for discussion.
Supervisor McCauley requested that item 5K — a response to a grand‑jury report titled (in the agenda) "buried in the consent calendar" — be pulled from the consent calendar so the board could publicly address concerns about transparency and how consent items are posted.
Darren McCandless, county administrative officer, explained responses are drafted by the administrative office, presented to the board, and customarily placed on the consent calendar; items can be pulled for discussion and consent items meet Brown Act notice requirements and are posted at least 72 hours in advance. Chair Gonzales added that the majority of the grand‑jury comments were already agreed to by the administrative office or were being implemented, which informed the decision to place the response on consent.
Supervisor McCauley read the grand jury recommendation excerpt into the record, which urged the board to present responses to grand‑jury reports with the same public discussion as official legislative correspondence. Board members noted that consent calendars are a standard tool used across jurisdictions and that members of the public may request items be pulled for discussion.
The consent calendar including that response was subsequently approved 5–0; the item was publicly discussed at the supervisor’s request.
