PLACERVILLE, Calif. — A proposed change to when and how the public speaks on consent-calendar items drew sustained public opposition at the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors’ Jan. 6 meeting, with residents and advocates saying the change could undermine participation and possibly violate the Brown Act.

What was proposed: Item 11 would consolidate public comment on the consent calendar and closed-session items into a single comment period, generally to be taken before staff presentations on those grouped items. County staff said the change was aimed at improving efficiency by allowing a single, organized comment period for consent items and clarifying the process for pulling items.

Public reaction: Speakers from the Taxpayers Association of El Dorado County, local civic groups and many residents urged the Board to pull Item 11 for full deliberation. Mary Chan of the Taxpayers Association said consolidation is “not routine” and warned it would force residents to divide their three minutes across multiple unrelated issues; others cited government-code and Brown Act concerns (including Government Code 54954.3(a)) about denying the public an opportunity to comment “before or during” consideration of each item.

Staff response: County counsel and staff repeatedly said the draft change applies only to the consent calendar process and did not remove the Board’s ability to accept public comment on individual items that are pulled for discussion. Staff also noted that combining closed-session comment with consent-calendar comment is intended to make clear the public may comment on those items prior to board action.

Board action: The item remained on the consent calendar. Supervisor Parlin registered a recorded 'no' on Item 11; the consent calendar passed overall (motion passes 5–0) while the Board agreed to take a pulled item (Item 7) for separate discussion.

Why it matters: Speakers said constraining public comment risks legal exposure under the Brown Act and cited attorney-general guidance and case law that requires an opportunity to comment on each agenda item before or during its consideration. County staff said they would work to clarify language and process. The board directed staff and counsel to be mindful of Brown Act obligations.

Next steps: Board members asked staff to provide clearer written policy language and to return with any necessary procedural revisions. The public urged formal study and, if needed, reworking Item 11 outside the consent calendar process.

Representative quotes:
"A policy that fundamentally changes how the public engages with its elected officials is not routine nor ministerial," said Mary Chan of the Taxpayers Association.
"Public comment after adoptions or consolidated across multiple items violates the Brown Act," said Paul Gilchrist, a member of the County Fire Board (speaking in his personal capacity).