Citizens push back after supervisors cut group spokesperson five‑minute option; speakers call the move censorship

The Board’s decision to remove a five‑minute option for a single spokesperson representing a group drew immediate public criticism during the meeting’s public‑comment period.

The policy change — adopted by roll call on June 16 — replaced an existing rule that allowed a single representative to speak for a group of two or more with a uniform three‑minute limit for all speakers. Supporters of the change said it gives more people a chance to speak; critics said it reduces access for residents who are uncomfortable speaking publicly and accused the board of selectively enforcing decorum rules to suppress criticism.

At the public podium, multiple residents framed the rule change as part of a broader problem of selective enforcement and threatened First Amendment concerns. "When citizens criticize the chair or ask whether a supervisor is fit for office, the response is to threaten removal or attempts to shut people down," said Kim Jones, Gills Creek district resident. Tammy Hart said the county’s own rules require impartiality and argued the board’s new approach is "censorship" in practice. Several others urged the board to reverse the change or to hold a public forum explaining why it was necessary.

Public comment also amplified two other recurring concerns: (1) opposition to potential data‑center development and (2) frustration over school finances and transparency. Multiple speakers urged the board to restrict data‑center siting and to consider zoning or ballot measures that would prevent large withdrawals or other impacts; residents warned of environmental and tax consequences. Others urged a deeper audit or special grand jury for school finances and questioned recurring budget shortfalls.

What the board did: The change to the public‑comment rule was adopted earlier in the meeting after supervisors debated whether a uniform three‑minute rule would be fairer and easier to administer. Several supervisors said they prefer to hear directly from individuals rather than through a single spokesperson. The change is now in effect; residents asked the board to revisit or clarify the policy and to set structured public outreach to explain process changes.

What to watch: Board members asked staff to make clear the new public‑comment rules and to ensure reasonable procedures for public hearings. Citizens asked for a review of enforcement protocols to ensure rules are not applied selectively.