Resident criticizes board leadership and process during public comment
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Ivy Peterson told the board she was "deeply disturbed" by how dissent was handled at the reorganizational meeting, accused leadership of silencing members, and urged having the board attorney present to advise on HIB votes and procedure.
During the resident forum, Ivy Peterson sharply criticized the board's conduct at the district's recent reorganizational meeting, saying the treatment of dissenting members was "deeply disturbing." Peterson said a board member was cut off while offering a brief statement in support of a different candidate and accused leadership of selectively enforcing rules to silence disagreement.
Peterson said promises to reduce legal spending and to improve governance appeared contradictory to the reorganization outcomes: "We were told that this election was about reducing legal bills, and yet they mindlessly elected a person responsible for significant legal waste. We were told that this was about ethics, yet they elected someone who has at least 2 ethics complaints."
She expressed concern about committee assignments being made without input from several members and said committee meeting schedules were changed without checking for conflicts. Peterson urged the board to keep the district attorney at the table so members could have immediate legal guidance on procedural questions and HIB votes: "In the future, it might be useful to have Kyle at the table simply to give you information on things like that."
The board did not directly respond to the accusations during the public comment segment; the item closed shortly thereafter when the board moved to convene an executive session on personnel, litigation and HIB matters.