San Diego supervisors deadlock on ad hoc transparency policy after debate over privacy and flexibility

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors failed to adopt a new policy on ad hoc subcommittees after a 2–2 tie on June 9, 2026, leaving the measure to return to the board on June 25.

Supervisor Joel Anderson, who introduced the proposal, framed it as a straightforward transparency measure that would require posted agendas, live streaming, recorded minutes and online access to documents for temporary ad hoc committees. “Why don’t we side on the side of transparency unless there is a legitimate reason,” Anderson said, adding that teams could seek exemptions when safety or privacy concerns arise.

Supporters from across the county told the board they had trouble locating meeting materials for advisory and ad hoc groups and urged a formal rule that would make agenda items and consultant work publicly available. “Please make sure that [materials] are indeed available, easy to locate, and easily accessible,” said Alicia Morrison, who described difficulties finding flood control advisory committee records.

Opponents and some supervisors warned the policy as written could hamper the nimble work ad hoc bodies are designed to perform and could expose vulnerable witnesses. Supervisor Nora Vargas and others noted efforts involving juveniles and families sometimes require confidentiality to avoid retaliation or doxing. “There are different situations for everyone,” a supervisor said during debate, arguing for flexibility and a case-by-case approach.

After public comment and extended board discussion about whether the draft offered adequate carve-outs for sensitive situations, the board voted: Anderson and Supervisor Jim Desmond in favor; Supervisors Paloma Agiri and Vice Chair Monica Montgomery Step opposed. Chair Tara Lawson Reamer was absent. Because the motion failed on a tie, the item will be placed on the June 25 agenda unless the sponsors request a different date.

The debate highlighted a common tension for local governments: balancing open access and oversight against the need for practical, confidential spaces where staff and stakeholders can develop proposals. Supporters said the proposal would remove a “cloak of secrecy” from committees that make spending and policy recommendations; critics said adopting full public-meeting rules for all ad hoc groups could deter candid testimony and slow decision-making.

The tied vote leaves existing practice in place for the moment. The sponsors suggested that future ad hoc board letters could request explicit exemptions when sensitive testimony is expected, but supervisors who opposed the motion said they remain concerned that the blanket approach would be too rigid.

What’s next: The item will return to the board on June 25 unless the authors withdraw or revise it beforehand.