Good Policy Should Apply to Everyone

Guest
4 minutes ago
3 min read

[Public Entity Silenced Citizen]

Last month, I wrote about my experiences attending local public meetings. Two public entities were mentioned, the Sweetwater Community Planning Group and the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District.

My story did not say that anyone was breaking rules. Yet, some may have gotten that impression. So, here is my follow up to clarify.

Firstly, no ill will toward the Sweetwater Community Planning Group members was intended. Yet, what one says during public comment to them will determine whether or not it is included in the public meeting record. This is nothing new. It is simply not well known or understood.

My public comment on December 2, 2025 was that sending a letter to the Chula Vista Mayor [an Agenda Item that night] was not within their purview as defined by the County of San Diego. This is true. Their mission and purpose is clearly stated in the County's planning group training presentation, as follows:

• Understand plans for new projects or developments within a community

• Provide a public forum where community input is welcomed

• Weigh public testimony against proposed benefits, enhancements and costs associated with a project

• Make a recommendation that reflects the community’s position to County decision makers.

County staff also responded to my email inquiry last week clarifying California law and

County policy, as follows:

...they should allow a public comment period during the meeting, which is all that is required under the Brown Act. Also, Board of Supervisor’s policy I-1 does not require them to capture in detail public comments in their meeting minutes. In I-1 under ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS Section VI it states what should be included in the Minutes: Minutes shall record the motions and the names of those who make and second motions if seconds are required. Likewise, the minutes shall indicate which members voted against, disqualified themselves, or abstained from voting on a motion. If a member disqualified themselves, the minutes shall state the reason.

The County spokesperson also wrote what I had posted should be addressed directly with the Chair of the Sweetwater Community Planning Group. I agree and I did.

The Chair’s contact information is easily accessible in the member roster. I had reached out to him on multiple occasions last year. My concerns included my inability to hear presentation speakers, meeting conduct, agenda details, and the untimeliness of meeting minutes posting. The December 2, 2025 meeting minutes were approved on January 6, 2026 but were not available to the public until mid- February.

I wrote Public Entity Silenced Citizen because I believe that giving credence to some voices (by including them in the public meeting record) and not others is favoritism. Yet, this institutionalized practice is not new. It has existed for a very long time and allowable by the rules.

I also believe that accountability to the electorate is important. Yet, the rules do not require a record of individual member votes. Some planning groups do. The Sweetwater Community Planning Group does not.

The planning group members vote to approve meeting minutes. They alone are empowered to create their public meeting record. Excluding someone’s public comment from the public meeting record is as good as putting their community input in the trash. This is not inclusion.

I hope that the County revises their policy someday. As far as I'm concerned, it does not currently align with their core values.

By the way, the County of San Diego has a platform to reach their constituents and solicit input directly on a large number of topics including development, Engage County of San Diego. Check it out.

Footnote: County of San Diego planning group members are primarily elected by the registered voters within the community plan area during November elections of even-numbered years. Eight seats were filled by election in 2024. The other seven seats are slated for this year.