Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Mateo County ag advisory committee debates proposed bylaws changes as members warn of lost agenda control
Summary
At its Feb. 9 meeting the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee read and discussed proposed procedural-rule amendments from county staff and counsel. Members split over language that would clarify agenda preparation and remove an outdated Form 700 filing requirement; the committee voted to bring specific concerns back for a follow-up meeting.
At the Agricultural Advisory Committee's Feb. 9 meeting, county staff presented a set of proposed amendments to the committee's procedural rules intended to align the bylaws with current state and county law. Senior Planner Summer Burleson summarized changes ranging from term-limit clarifications for holdover service to a proposed secretary role and edits on agenda preparation that would formalize coordination with county staff.
Committee members objected to several provisions they said would reduce the panel's control over its agenda and weaken the committee's voice. Chair Natalie Sayre told the group: "It is not okay to violate bylaws and then change them to meet these violations," urging caution before approving edits that, she said, would institutionalize current practices that had excluded committee input.
County counsel and staff framed the edits as legal and practical updates. County Council Brian Pettit said the changes were largely to make the wording consistent with state law and county standing rules and warned members that some items are legally required to be restated or clarified; he also explained that Form 700 filing no longer applies to the AAC because the Board of Supervisors has identified it as an advisory body for conflict-of-interest purposes.
Among the most contested proposals were: - Agenda preparation language that would change the current phrasing and clarify the role of the planning liaison and county staff in drafting agendas, while preserving that the committee may request items. Members argued that the change could be read to lessen the committee's ability to insist on previously agendized items. - Removal of an old Form 700 filing requirement; staff and counsel said the change reflects a previous Board decision that removed the AAC from the county's conflict-of-interest code and therefore the filing obligation. - A proposed edit to require that at least one of the chair or vice chair be a farmer or grower rather than both be from farmer/grower seats, which staff said opens leadership opportunities to a broader cross-section of committee members while retaining agricultural representation.
After extended discussion, members voted to take a procedural next step: they directed staff to agendize the amendments for the next meeting and to compile a checklist of specific line items members want to revisit. A motion to retain the bylaws exactly as written (with only grammatical updates) failed. Committee members and county counsel agreed to use the intervening weeks to annotate particular changes and return to the committee for a rule-by-rule review and a final vote at a later meeting.
Next steps: the committee will receive a revised packet for the next meeting that highlights contested lines and contains legal citations from county counsel; the bylaws will not be adopted at the Feb. 9 meeting and will be taken up again after members submit annotated concerns.
