By Cris Alarcon, InEDC Writer. (Oct 26, 2025)<\/p>\n
EL DORADO COUNTY, Calif. \u2014 A formal demand has been submitted to both the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors (BOS) and the El Dorado Hills Community Services District (CSD), alleging that agenda items have been removed without public comment, thereby limiting citizen participation and potentially violating the state\u2019s open-meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code \u00a7\u00a7 54950 et seq.).<\/p>\n
Key facts & timeline:<\/strong><\/p>\n On Oct. 22, 2025, Dean Getz published a \u201cCure or Correct\u201d demand letter citing Agenda Item 34 (reference number 25-1824) before the Board of Supervisors titled \u201cConference with Legal Counsel \u2013 Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Getz also alleges that during the BOS meeting of Oct. 21, 2025, Item 41 (a statewide ballot measure) was removed from the agenda under \u201cAdoption of the Agenda\u201d without any public comment allowed.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n He further asserts that during the CSD\u2019s Oct. 20, 2025 meeting and earlier, multiple items were removed by a 3-1 vote without discussion, thereby denying public speaking opportunities.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The demand letter calls for: acknowledgment of the violation, rescission or nullification of the improper agenda actions, and reconsideration of the items at a properly noticed meeting with full public comment access.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Legal and procedural context:<\/strong> Stakeholders and implications:<\/strong> Voices from the community:<\/strong><\/p>\n Getz states in the demand letter. \u201cI was there and I heard people speak on both sides of the question\u2026 Where were you?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cKirk, you just cannot give it up, can you? \u2026many people have told me about the meeting. It was only \u2018business as usual and the BOS card game.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Further, Kelley Nalewaja claimed the item was removed so no one could speak, alleging the mic of one commenter was disconnected and the item later continued to Nov. 4 with unclear comment instructions.<\/p>\n Next steps and what to watch:<\/strong>\n
Under the Brown Act, all meetings of legislative bodies of local agencies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend and speak when the legislative body considers public business.\u00a0Agencies must provide agendas that enable public participation and cannot on a whim remove items or restrict comment without appropriate notice. The demand letter argues the boards\u2019 actions constitute \u201cagenda manipulation\u201d \u2014 controlling what appears on the agenda and when, thereby limiting transparency and public input.<\/p>\n
Residents, especially in the unincorporated and suburban communities of El Dorado County, may be affected by decisions made behind limited public scrutiny. The BOS, responsible for countywide governance, and the CSD, which provides local services in El Dorado Hills, both bear responsibility for following open-meeting rules. If the demand is upheld, the agencies could face formal proceedings, public trust erosion, and possible litigation.<\/p>\n\n
\u201cControlling the agenda to silence the public is unacceptable,\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In turn, during online discussion, Kirk Smith \u2014 an attendee of the Oct. 21 meeting \u2014 asserted:<\/p>\n\n
Meanwhile, Brian DeBerry responded:<\/p>\n\n
The boards now face pressure to respond to the demand. Key indicators to monitor:<\/p>\n