Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Closed Session Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Diego County callers press board for transparency as supervisors recess to closed session
Summary
Five public commenters — one in person, four by phone — urged the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 22 to provide clearer notice and more transparency about an announced closed-session matter; the board then recessed to closed session.
SAN DIEGO — Public commenters at a special Oct. 22 meeting of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors urged greater transparency and questioned the timing and purpose of an announced closed-session matter before the board recessed into closed session.
The meeting was convened solely to consider a closed-session item, and the Clerk said five people had requested to speak — one in person and four by phone. Oliver Twist, the in-person speaker, told the board he wanted "a little more transparency" about the content of closed sessions and criticized short notice, saying prior meetings had slid into a 24-hour window that hindered public engagement.
Two phone callers raised related concerns about notice and the legal basis for the closed session. Paul Labold asked that the county provide a brief description of the agenda item and cited Government Code Section 54954.5 (commonly known as the Brown Act provision governing meeting notices and agendas), saying that reviewing related, prior lawsuits would inform the county's approach. "Before doing anything else, you need to look at these issues," Labold said, urging the county to consider ongoing suits brought by Imperial Beach, Chula Vista, the Port of San Diego, the City of San Diego, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Surfrider Foundation.
Other callers leveled broad accusations about county transparency and records practices. An unnamed caller alleged inconsistent responses to public records requests and said arbitrary rule changes had led to Brown Act concerns; another caller, identified for the record later as Audra, criticized secrecy around litigation and said taxpayers would ultimately bear costs. Audra said, "If you guys were more transparent, then you wouldn't have people calling in or speaking about all of the corruption that you guys are engaged in."
The Clerk closed public comment on the closed-session matter and the board recessed to closed session. The Clerk said any reportable actions would be announced after the closed session concluded.
There were no votes or formal decisions recorded in the public portion of the special meeting.
