Normally the Board of Supervisors meets twice a month on the first and third Tuesday, so May 5, May 19 and June 9, 2020 were regular meetings with normal agenda items. What was the need for special meetings on May 11, May 20, and May 26, 2020? Surely something extremely urgent, right? So, let’s look at the actual meetings.
Monday May 11, 2020 was noticed as a special meeting on Friday May 8 with a two-part agenda: update on Covid19 by city staff and then a Closed Session with Legal Counsel for anticipated litigation. Coincidentally Supervisor Uhler (a lame duck having lost his primary election in March) had been making public comments threatening to sue Governor Newsom over the Covid19 Shelter in Place order closing businesses. At the end of Closed Session, Legal Counsel reported no action taken.
Wednesday May 20, 2020 was called as a special meeting (the day after the regularly scheduled May 19, 2020) but was cancelled at the last minute. The agenda contained 2 items: Placer County entering a $250,000 contract for seroprevalence testing and a rescission of the Placer County Emergency Declaration for Covid19. There were 7 written comments submitted on the seroprevalence study and 54 written comments submitted on the rescission of the emergency declaration before the meeting was cancelled. Most of the written comments were questioning the board’s actions.
Friday May 22, 2020 was called as a special meeting (39 hours after the cancelled meeting) with ONE agenda item: Closed Session with Legal Counsel for anticipated litigation. There were 7 written comments submitted reinforcing previous written comments and additional public verbal comments during the meeting itself opposing any litigation efforts against the State of CA or Governor Newsom. At the end of Closed Session, Legal Counsel reported that no action was taken.
Tuesday May 26, 2020 was called as a special meeting with the following agenda items: Covid19 update; possible resolution requesting immediate entry into Phase 3 of reopening; seroprevalence study up to $250,000; urgency resolution to allow for temporary reduction in regulations and signage for outdoor dining and retail; Closed session with Legal Counsel on initiation of litigation (one possible case). At the end of Closed Session, Legal Counsel reported that no action was taken.
Here’s a sampling of public comments:
Mr. Uhler failed to convince the Board to initiate litigation during the closed session of the May 11, 2020, special Board meeting. Does this mean that Mr. Uhler has since had a hand in the scheduling of two more special meetings on May 20th and May 22nd? The May 20th meeting, which was not placed on the public meeting calendar until that morning, was cancelled approximately two hours before the scheduled start time. Notice of tomorrow's meeting was also delayed on the public meeting calendar and is a closed meeting with legal counsel to discuss "initiation of litigation." That's three special meetings in twelve days. Why?
I would like to protest the third notice of a special meeting for the BOS. Three special meetings called within a month with a bare 24 hr. public notice alarms me that the county is NOT planning appropriately for adequate public notice and timely agenda items. Although the second special meeting was cancelled, it seems odd that the third special meeting is scheduled a mere 39 hours later (Wednesday 6 pm to Friday 9 am) with an opaque notice of "Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (d)(4) of Government Code §54956.9: One potential case". If the BOS is considering suing the State of CA, Governor Newsom or any other CA state official/agency, I would remind you about the significant public comment that was largely opposed to such a measure earlier in May. While in closed session, there should be no conversation regarding Covid19, nor any expenditure of county funds for serum testing nor the authority of the county Public Health Officer - all topics mentioned for the recently cancelled meeting
The Board of Supervisors have continued in the face of significant public comment to push for a rapid reopening of Placer County businesses at their regular meetings on May 5, May 19, and June 9, 2020. The three specially called meetings on May 11, May 20, and May 26, 2020 were called with a bare minimum of public notice and contained limited agenda items in addition to the Closed Session. The public comments from Supervisor Uhler continue to attack the State of CA and Governor Newsom for the Public Health guidelines impacting businesses.
Several Central Committee members are actively monitoring the Board of Supervisor agendas to provide public comment on items like the recommendations of the Placer County Charter Review Committee on changes to the county charter. The meeting on June 9, 2020 focused largely on an item sponsored by Supervisor Uhler requesting a charter change to allow the County Board of Supervisors to remove and replace another county ELECTED official with a supermajority vote (4 out of 5). The Charter Review Committee determined that this was unnecessary and did not support his requested change. Despite the Committee’s recommendation, Uhler insisted that his recommendation be placed on the agenda. Due to submitted public comments as well as testimony from the Chair and Vice Chair of the Charter Review Commission, his recommendation was on the road to defeat so he withdrew the item from the agenda.
Continued monitoring of the Board of Supervisors agendas and actions is important to support good Democratic public policy for our county. Please consider joining the Central Committee Legislative Committee as we develop a volunteer Observer Corps for Board of Supervisor, city councils, school boards and other public agencies. Due to Covid19, most of these meetings are now available on-line and you can participate from home. Please contact our Legislative Committee Chair Terry Rodriguez at lcoastnorcalcd1@gmail.com with any questions. Your voice and opinions count so please step up to make our Democratic presence known in this community.
