Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members debate restoring in‑person public testimony; seek tech alternatives
Summary
A proposal by Member Schaefer to end telephone public comment and return to in‑person testimony only was presented and later pulled for more study after members and staff raised access, legal and technical concerns.
Board member Paul Schaefer proposed on June 24 that the Board of Equalization return to pre‑COVID in‑person public testimony only and eliminate routine telephone participation, arguing the remote queue often has few callers and that checking the line interrupts meeting flow. “I would like to change that and have our able staff here be in communication with the AT&T operator. If there is a call, they would advise staff,” Schaefer said when proposing a staff‑monitored signal system to avoid repeated interruptions.
Several board members pushed back, saying remote access increases public participation and accessibility across California’s large geography. Member Tony Vasquez cited early pandemic meetings that drew large telephone turnouts and said remote participation “really showed to me just the accessibility” for constituents who otherwise could not travel.
BOE legal counsel Julia Himovitz reminded members the board operates under Bagley‑Keene teleconference rules and must preserve equivalent remote access for the public when members appear remotely. Staff and the deputy controller explained the board’s telephone operator service is provided through a contract with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and that the current AT&T check typically adds about 30 seconds per query; replacing the system or acquiring a modern platform could incur additional costs and require contract changes.
Schaefer ultimately agreed to withdraw his motion and collect more information about technical alternatives and contract implications. The board did not adopt any procedural change at the meeting; members asked staff to report back with options that might preserve access while reducing interruptions to the agenda.
Chair Lieber said the board will revisit the matter after staff research, and members flagged possible paths including authorized electronic platforms or improved operator signaling if contracts permit. The session record shows no public callers objected or supported the change during the discussion.
The debate illustrates the tension between accessibility and meeting efficiency: board members uniformly affirmed the importance of public comment but disagreed about the best operational approach.
