Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Measure X advisory members say Board sidelined their recommendations; chair, vice chair sent a clarifying memo
Summary
Members of the Measure X Community Advisory Board told the group they were not included in the Board of Supervisors’ budget packet and were not invited to present their priority recommendations; the board chair and vice chair sent a time-sensitive memo to supervisors, which some CAB members said was circulated without full board review.
Members of the Measure X Community Advisory Board spent a substantial portion of the April 23 meeting confronting how the board packet and budget hearings treated the CAB’s priorities. Several CAB members said they had submitted a detailed memo and appendices with recommended priorities but found their materials excluded from the Board of Supervisors’ packet and that they were limited to two-minute public comments at the hearings.
One member summarized the steps she took after learning the memo would not be included: she said she sent the memo in December (and again in April) directly to supervisors and chiefs of staff so they would have access, and that at the hearing she was limited to a two-minute public comment that made deeper explanation impossible.
Members described the omission as damaging to public trust and to community members who traveled to the hearings to speak. Several said they were uncertain whether the packet omission reflected a chair-level decision at the Board of Supervisors or a broader misunderstanding among supervisors. CAB members proposed steps including scheduling a special study session, asking for clearer notice when CAB materials are not accepted into the packet, and arranging individual meetings with supervisors.
A staff-read response attributed to the CAO’s office said in part that the Board had not requested MXCAD (the CAB) recommendations for that particular hearing and that supervisors had received the CAB memo and “may consider it as they make decisions,” adding that CAB members remained welcome to provide public comment. The CAO language, read into the record by a CAB member, acknowledged the memo had been received but said it was not requested by the Board for the packet.
Why it matters: CAB members argued that omission of the CAB’s written priorities deprived the public and supervisors of the CAB’s deliberative context and made it harder for the Board to incorporate equity-focused recommendations into budget deliberations. Some members said a clarifying email sent by the chair and vice chair (on behalf of leadership) should have been circulated to the full CAB in advance. Others said quick, transparent communication from chairs in extraordinary circumstances can be appropriate, but that future practice should be clarified so the full CAB has a chance to approve communications sent on behalf of the body.
Next steps: Members agreed to seek one-on-one meetings with supervisors, to attend the Board’s June 10 hearing to provide public comment, and to request that staff publish any post-hearing outcomes that relate to Measure X allocations so the full CAB can respond.
