Concerns over compliance with the Brown Act surfaced at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting after a citizen raised issues about the board’s new procedural rules.
The resident, who identified herself as "Dee Pallesen" (phonetic spelling) challenged a provision requiring supervisors to ask questions about agenda items prior to meetings. Speaking during the public comment period, Pallesen argued the rule could create a perception of deliberation occurring outside of public meetings, violating the Brown Act.
“I’m here today to remind you that unfortunately, perception is nine-tenths of the law,” Pallesen said. “The perception is that you can discuss issues outside of the public meeting. You can ask your questions and get your answers outside of the public meeting. And so, your mind is made up, your decision is made outside of the public meeting, totally negating the value of public comment and public participation in deciding the issues before us. And this is a violation of the Brown Act.”
Pallesen cited the California Attorney General’s interpretation of the Brown Act, which states that, unless an issue falls under a closed-session exception, all deliberative processes—including discussion, debate, and information acquisition—must be open for public scrutiny.
“The public would be able only to witness a shorthand version of the deliberative process, and its ability to monitor and contribute to the decision-making process would be curtailed,” Pallesen said.
The board was unable to take immediate action on the Brown Act concerns because they were presented during public comment and were not on the agenda.
However, later in the meeting, the board reconsidered a separate procedural rule limiting public comment to 10 minutes. After deliberation, the board agreed to amend its approach, allowing individuals to speak for up to three minutes each. Additionally, public expression will remain at the beginning of meetings rather than being moved to another time.
In a separate discussion, the board referred proposed limits on cannabis cultivation to the General Government Committee, with Supervisors Ted Williams and Mo Mulheron dissenting.
