Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tussles over sheriff MOU and authority to make motions; meeting briefly recessed
Summary
A disputed MOU with South Delta Planning Development for $101,500 intended for sheriff equipment and vehicle purchases prompted a heated exchange about whether the board president or any supervisor may make motions; the board took a short recess and required attorney review before proceeding with the MOU.
A contentious discussion unfolded April 6 when the sheriff asked the board to approve an MOU tied to an allocation of $101,500 for law-enforcement needs and to allow use of recent insurance proceeds for vehicles and equipment. The sheriff said the MOU and funding were needed to begin spending allocated funds.
Board members diverged on process. The board president said she wanted the county attorney to review the MOU because it requires the president’s signature; others argued any supervisor may make motions and that the attorney’s input is not a precondition to debating the motion. One supervisor said, "Any supervisor has the authority to make a motion at any time in the meeting," while the president responded that as "president of the board, I control the lead."
The disagreement escalated into repeated procedural challenges and personal accusations about how meetings have been conducted. The president called for a recess until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.; the motion failed to carry. A later motion to take a five-minute recess was passed and the meeting paused. Several supervisors insisted the attorney should read the MOU and report back before the board takes action requiring a presidential signature.
The board left the item unresolved pending review by the county attorney; the sheriff said he needs a clear answer to report back to the MOU’s partner, South Delta Planning Development. Supervisors said they would take up the MOU after the attorney’s review at a subsequent meeting.
