Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Bye. Thank you.

Hey there! Want to make your voice heard at a Board of Supervisors meeting? We're all ears. Here's how you can get involved. First, hop online and look at the agendas. This will give you the scoop on what's coming up before the Board. Each agenda item includes a brief description of the issue, the recommendations, and potential impacts. If you need more detail, check out the detailed reports online. Those are called Board Letters. Then, decide if you want to speak at Tuesday's General Legislative Session or Wednesday's Land Use Session. you'll have three opportunities to have your say. Let's start with non-agenda public comment. This is your chance to talk about things that aren't on the agenda, but try and keep your topic related to county government. For non-agenda public comments, you can speak at either the Tuesday or Wednesday session, but not both. So pick your day accordingly. And keep in mind, the board can't act on the spot. They'll refer your comments to the chief administrative officer who will look into the issue. Last thing, the board will hear from the first 10 speakers, five in person and five by phone at the beginning of the session. Then all the remaining speakers will get their chance to speak after the discussion items. During the consent agenda, the board handles a bunch of routine items with one vote. If you want to comment on an item, keep it simple. For example, I'm John Doe, speaking on item five, and I agree with approving the contract. Discussion items are the main event where the board debates before making a decision. Want to speak at one of the meetings? It's really easy. Just hop online and fill out a quick request form at publiccomment.sandiegocounty.gov. Pick the meeting you're interested in, hit the register button, then fill in your details. Make sure to include a phone number if you plan on speaking by phone. Prefer speaking at the podium in the board chamber? No problem. Just pick the in-person option. After that, just check off the agenda items you want to talk about and let them know you're for, against, or neutral on them. Hit register and you're good to go. A confirmation email will land in your inbox to wrap it up. If you're speaking by phone, the email will include the instructions for how to dial in. Be sure to submit your request early. Once public comment begins on the agenda item, we can't take any more requests to speak. And if you have documents, hand them to the deputy clerk when it's your turn to speak at the podium. Now, you get two minutes to speak, but if lots of people want to talk, it might get cut to one minute. So, you might want to consider writing two sets of comments. One for two minutes, another one for one. That way, if time's cut, you won't be scrambling. There's also a countdown clock at the podium to keep you on track. Once you're at the podium, stay on topic. Stick to the current agenda item. If you stray off topic, you might get a gentle nudge to get back to the point. Keep your comments related to the agenda item's recommendations because that's what the board is relying on to make a decision. Also, speak directly to the board. They're the ones making the decision. When your time's up, it's up. Overstaying might mean getting muted or even asked to leave. Now for some ground rules. For safety, keep aisles and doorways clear. If there isn't a seat, head across the hall to room 302 or the fourth floor balcony to watch the meeting. Respect is huge. Everyone should feel heard. That means you, other speakers, and the board of supervisors. Disruptive behavior gets one warning, and after that, a deputy sheriff might show you the door. So let's keep it respectful. Your voice matters, and we want to hear from you. Remember, we're all here to make a difference.

Bye. Bye. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I will now call the May 20th, 2026 San Diego County Board of Supervisors. It says, let's see, it says Landy's, but I think we're still in a general session.

We are.

All right. To order. Ryan, please call the roll for today's session.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. Supervisor Anderson. Here. Supervisor Desmond. Here. Chair Pro Temigiri.

Here.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp.

Here.

And Chair Lawson-Roomer will be joining us later today.

Okay, before we begin this meeting, I want to take a minute to address some House rules. Public engagement is the cornerstone of transparent and accountable government, and these Board of Supervisors meetings are one of the primary venues where all San Diegans can make their voices heard. The county is committed to a work environment free of unlawful discrimination and harassment, including sexual, racial, religious, age, disability, or any form of discrimination or harassment. Under the board's rules, speakers are not allowed to use loud shouting, threatening, impertinent, slanderous, profane, or abusive language to any member of the board staff or the general public. Additionally, all remarks and questions must remain on topic during the duration of your speaking time and must be addressed to the board and not to county staff. Any speaker who engages in comments that break these rules will be issued a warning. After one warning, you will be asked to leave the chambers for the rest of the meeting. Finally, speakers threatening violence may be reported to law enforcement and removed from the meeting. This is a space for community engagement, deliberation, and progress, not for harassment, violence, and hate. At this time, we will proceed with the closed session report. Counsel, is there a report for yesterday's closed session?

Yes. One second, I'm pulling it up. The Board of Supervisors met in closed session on May 19th, 2026, from 2.52 p.m. to 3.50 p.m. Three board members were present, with Chair Lawson-Reamer and Supervisor Anderson absent. The board took the following reportable action. On item 36C, by a vote of 3-0, the board authorized county council to initiate litigation challenging the Civil Service Commission's order reinstating a deputy probation officer. End of report.

Sorry. I knew I was going to leave it off one time. So I said thank you so much for that. We are going to go ahead and start today's meeting, but I want to go through the order of business today. So I'll try to read slow. First, as mentioned yesterday, we will hear item 35. That had a 9 o'clock time certain, and that is to initiate transition of San Pascual Academy. Then we will take a very short recess, and then we will hear item 24. As close to 10 a.m. as we can get, although I have heard there are about 50 commenters for San Pascual Academy. So we'll try our best to make it as close to 10 as possible. But I would say it is safer to say it'll be about 10.30. And then after that, we will have consecutively item 24 and then item 25. Then we will hear items 31, the flood control district item number one, fire protection district item number two together, and then item 32. So I'm just leaving enough time to figure it out. Got it? And then... We will continue with our regular land use agenda, which includes non-agenda public comment, the consent agenda, and discussion items six and seven. Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a presentation for item 25, and in the presentation, it shows... the originally passed charter reform and my proposed changes, it may be helpful doing that presentation so that I don't have to walk through every item If the other one's presented first, we just take them together. And then I'm hoping that we earn a consensus of best practices between the two, and then we come up with a document that we can get a 5-0 vote on. So that's my hope with it. And the first three slides that I present are all the non-changes. So there's only a few changes that I'm suggesting. You know, I'm very open-minded. There might be arguments that I haven't thought of that would convey, you know, I'm hoping to get to a consensus, but I'm thinking if I do the presentation, that might be the fastest way for the public to catch up to where we are. as a suggestion.

Thank you, ma'am. Yeah, no, definitely understand that. I think there's, I will just say that I do, I'm going to start item number 24, most likely with an amendment, and based on advice from counsel, although we wanted to have them concurrent, because of that, there's legalities that require us to do consecutive. So other than that, I wanted to take that advice, but I don't think I can legally So, Council?

Yes, that's correct. And we can, Damon might prefer to add further information when he gets here, but that's my understanding as well.

Okay, if anything changes, Supervisor, once Mr. Brown gets here, that's fine. But we'll turn to him just before we start.

I have a printout. You should have received one, but if you haven't, I can send you mine. You could look at this. Oh, I have it. and see, but I think that it may, you'll see the value of the clarity.

So, so, um, we'll, I'll just ask, I'm sure that, um, Mr. Brown is listening to me. We'll ask him to look at it. Um, as of last night, that is just the advice that we received. So for now we're going to do consecutive, um, But appreciate the conversation. Okay, so let's go ahead and begin with item number 35. This is initiate transition of San Pasquale Academy and continue community engagement to identify feasible and sustainable options for the future of the academy. So I will hand it over to our county team for a presentation.

Thank you. Good morning, Vice Chair and members of the board. Nearly 25 years ago, the San Pasquale Academy was established as an innovative model offering a residential education environment for 12 to 18-year-old foster care youth. The Academy has continued to serve foster youth supported by the commitments of educators, caregivers, and community partners who show up for Academy youth every day. I also want to recognize the impactful work of our social workers who provide vital, individualized support to every young person at the Academy. Outcomes for our youth are and will always be at the center of our work. Since the Academy was established, the number of youth in foster care overall has declined, and federal and state reforms have shifted towards family-based placements. This shift is especially prominent in San Diego County, where the board has supported a transformation of child welfare services into a system focused on upstream prevention and keeping families together when it's safe. This changing environment indicates that there is an opportunity to reimagine the use and services on the Academy's campus. Over the past five months, at the direction of the board, we have conducted an initial community engagement effort with foster youth, alumni, nearby residents, and community partners to solicit input on future plans for the academy. Today, we are returning to share with you that stakeholder input and present an update on proposed plans. Here with me to present is Alfredo Guardado, Director of the Child and Family Wellbeing Department.

Thank you, Dr. Hernandez. As we embark on the next phase of reimagining the campus, I want to share the lens I've gained across 24 years in child welfare, from my early days as a social worker to my role today as director. With each perspective, the priority has always been the same. Our youth remain at the heart of all we do. Over the years, I've seen firsthand what research supports, that young people thrive when they have stability, connection and adults who consistently show up for them. Youth want to feel safe, understood and connected to the people who matter most. We know youth do better in family and community settings. We see it in the outcomes, stronger stability, deeper community and identity connections, and fewer placement disruptions. Many of the wraparound services that once made the academy unique, like tutoring, behavioral health care, enrichment activities, individualized planning, are now available directly in family settings. This allows youth to receive the same quality support without being separated from the people they feel most grounded with. And for the young people who remain on the Academy campus, we continue to provide short-term residential therapeutic services, independent living skills, and meaningful connections with relatives and alumni. Additional supports include our intergenerational program, which focuses on nurturing relationships with grandparents, and on-campus workforce development programs to build skills and confidence. This means that even as the system changes, Academy youth can count on one constant, continued access to the services and resources they need. For 25 years, the county has stood alongside the Academy as a proud partner, and that commitment remains strong as we reimagine its future within this changing landscape. In 2001, most youth entering care had more general support needs, and the system relied heavily on residential models. By 2025, the needs of youth entering care had shifted significantly, often presenting with far more complex clinical and behavioral challenges requiring higher-level therapeutic supports. Over the last decade, statewide reforms have reshaped the child welfare system, most notably the continuum of care reform and the federal Family First Prevention Services Act, which both prioritize family placements. In response to this shift, the board initiated several key actions. In 2021, the board began adopting to the broader decline in group settings for foster youth. Then in 2025, it advances work by directing an inclusive stakeholder engagement process to reimagine the academy's future. Together, these actions underscore the board's commitment to responding to stakeholder feedback, community needs, and alignment with federal and state policies. Over the past 20 years, the number of youth in foster care has dropped significantly, driven by reforms that prioritize family-based placements. Research shows that youth living with families experience greater stability and stronger developmental outcomes than those in group settings. and we are seeing the same pattern here at the Academy. Last fiscal year, 49 youth were placed at the Academy, reflecting the overall decline in group care placements. Here's what the Academy looks like today. As of May 1st, 2026, 41 youth are currently placed at the Academy. For context, the line graph shows placements once reached nearly 200 youth in 2009. What we are seeing in this slide reflects the strong work of social workers and community partners to strengthen families, expand prevention efforts, and support more youth and family and community-based placements whenever safely possible. Historically, the Academy was funded through a combination of state and federal sources. But as mentioned earlier, beginning in 2015, policy changes have limited the use of those traditional funding streams. Since 2021, the Academy has relied heavily on one time general purpose revenue funding. Today, the Academy operates within an annual budget of approximately 18.9 million. That level of spending was designed for large scale campus operations, not the much smaller footprint we see today. In response to board direction, we launched a broad community engagement effort from January through March of 2026. Staff hosted focus groups both online and in person, resulting in 13 sessions with more than 270 participants sharing their perspectives. This included working with county communications to develop an online survey that was made available in multiple languages and yielded more than 180 responses. Throughout the initial process, we engaged our long-standing community collaborators, including Academy founders, Friends of San Pascual, African American Wellness Center, and most importantly, our former and current foster youth. We look forward to continuing this work together as we co-create a future of the Academy that lifts the needs of youth and community. We heard from a wide range of participants, including Academy youth, alumni families, grandparents, caregivers, educators, court partners, and behavioral health providers. We also received thoughtful input from community members outside the foster care system and from nearby Academy neighbors. Together, their perspectives provided a broad, meaningful understanding of the community's priorities and hopes for the Academy's future. Across all engagement sessions, two key themes consistently rose to the top. First, many participants hoped that the Academy could continue serving youth as originally intended, including exploring whether expanding the Academy youth population was viable. And second, participants also encouraged exploring new functions for the Academy that would serve a wider range of community needs. As community engagement began, many people began with the idea that the Academy could continue to serve youth under its original vision and model. As participants explored what the future could look like, they naturally focused on options that would allow the Academy to serve more youth. Suggestions ranged from regional partnerships to new referral pathways and serving youth with a wider range of needs. As conversations deepened, participants began weighing the original vision against current realities. Discussions highlighted declining youth numbers, limited regional partnerships, and funding as a major barriers to expansion. This led to a consensus that without a larger youth population, the academy cannot remain sustainable as a residential campus in its current form. This slide shows the ideas uplifted by our community groups that displays the request for not just single purpose facility, but to create an interconnected ecosystem where various regional needs support one another. Stakeholders shared ideas for a place that continues to serve youth, families, and other vulnerable populations. Campus uses like visitation centers or shared spaces for local organizations. They highlighted opportunities across 238 acres from workforce development through farm to table initiatives to housing and healing spaces. Across all the ideas, one theme stood out, a community serving multi-use campus that creates opportunity and strengthens families. Overall, there are a number of factors that are driving this change. Legislative policy now pushed strongly towards family-based care. The number of youth in foster care continue to decline. Today's funding streams favor smaller therapeutic settings with no future funding available to maintain a large campus model. And lastly, community input confirmed that without a larger youth population, the model is not sustainable. Even with these significant system-wide shifts, our guiding principle remains the same. Youth must remain at the heart of every choice we make. If the Board approves, this proposed timeline outlines what a phased approach could look like over the next 18 months. Our priority will be supporting transition plans for current Academy youth while maintaining the wraparound services outlined earlier to ensure continuity and steady support. Seniors will complete the 2026 school year and graduate while juniors remain through 2027 to finish their senior year. Concurrently, we will continue hosting engagement sessions with focused involvement from former and current foster youth, alumni, relatives, grandparents, community leaders, providers, and key stakeholders before any permanent decisions are made. We will report back to the board in May of 2027 with transition status updates for the current academy youth, along with collective recommended options gathered from community input for future use options. followed by a return in December of 2027 with a final update on transitions and refined community-informed options. The recommendations presented today provide a framework for meeting the Academy's current needs and guiding long-term direction. First, we are requesting approval to begin a planned and phased wind down of the Academy, ensuring each youth proactively receives an individualized transition plan that supports relationships and educational stability. Second, we request continued inclusive community engagement to develop future campus plans that are both feasible and sustainable. Third, we will update the board at two key milestones. At 12 months, reporting back with transition status updates for current academy youth and collective recommended options gathered from community input for future use options. And at 18 months, returning with additional transition follow-ups and updated community informed options. This concludes our presentation today and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the very thorough presentation. What I want to do is just go ahead and go to public comment and then we'll come back to the board for deliberation.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. We have 44 total requests to speak, 26 individuals in person, and 18 requesting to speak by phone. I'd like to also note for the record, we did receive 35 e-comments on this item. Three were in favor, 30 were in opposition, and one was neutral. For any individuals that have requested to speak on this item by phone, please dial into the conference line using the instructions that were provided to you. We do have one group presentation, and I would like to invite forward Lawrence, I believe it's Nika and Dade. You'll have 10 minutes to address the board. All three members of the group must speak during that 10 minutes. Please self-regulate your time at the podium. And if you could please come forward to the podium. I don't see these individuals. And then just as a reminder, each person in the group may speak for no more than four minutes. And as you come forward, if you could please state your name.

Good morning. My name is Lawrence Howe. I'm the executive director of San Francisco Academy and Rite of Passage. And I'm here today with some representatives of the campus that have volunteered, actually asked to speak on behalf of the students because they are students that live there. So I'm just going to give some introductory comments and then hand it over to the people that live in San Francisco more than anybody in this room. I guess I said my name is Lawrence I'm the executive director And we have a plan we have a plan to make San Pasqual Academy a sustainable To basically take it off the line-item budget of San Diego County It would take 18 months for us to do it But we have a plan have a one-page description of it that I could share today if you would like to see it and I' m respectfully asking the board to stop the proposed action to close the academy. Two weeks ago I got a call from the county that said the report is out and we' ve chosen to close the academy. I said I thought we were going to evaluate the study and talk about it and collaborate to consensus. I was told the decision had been made. Since then there have been robust dialogue and I think there' s room for discussion about the future of the academy. We're just concerned that the recommendation moving forward really takes away a gem. It takes away something that is so special. I've been doing this for 37 years. San Francisco Academy is like nothing else. We have to fight for a way to keep it for kids, one way or another. And we do have a plan. When the county just presented... we talked about 41 kids and the group home. There' s also two strtps out there that the county asked us to open and we opened 13 months ago. There' s 12 beds and 10 kids in them. There' s also two foster homes that the county asked us to open that have opened less than six months. Two foster families moved on to campus. The third is about to move on campus. There' s also alumni who live on campus. Those aren' t included in the 41 number. There' s a lot more to san the group home and that's part of our proposal is make it a youth village that includes a Variety of services for youth a safe place to for kids to learn and to grow and to learn to be independent and I participated in two of the focus groups. I answered questions about the overall process. I supported the process. I listened carefully to community members, stakeholders, professionals, and partners, and discussed the possibilities that other campus could evolve and better serve youth in the future. Nobody said, let's close it down. Everybody talked about what we could do out there, and that's what we want to do. Let's talk about what we can do. most of the students out there traditional foster care has failed them so what we' re proposing is let' s do something special at san pasqual to help the kids that don' t fit into what the system has developed for them. Everyone deserves answers before an irreversible decision is finalized. Everyone deserves hope. That's what we're here asking for today. And we believe that we can expand services that is aligned with the county goals. We can work with the child and family well-being and everybody else and make it self-sustainable within 18 months. We have a plan. I have a document that I can share. But I'm going to hand this over to the youth that live on the campus and let them share what they choose to share. And they can share their names if they choose. Thank you very much.

Hi, everyone. My name is Nika. I'm a student of San Pasco Academy. I would like to say if we can give us 90 days, because for me, that's a massive decision.

Can you get a little closer to the mic so we can we can hear you? Thank you.

OK, I say if you can give us 90 days, because for me, that's a massive decision. You know, I got a grandparents right here. There is, like, my mental health. When I want something from them, they usually help me with that. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. My name is Mujgan. I'm from San Pasqual Academy. I won 90 days, so I just want to say San Pasqual is a great place for students, and then I didn't see nothing wrong in San Pasqual Academy, so I want San Pasqual to be open, and then, yeah, that was all I had to say.

Hello. My name is Dade. I believe there should be change to Sampa Squaw, but this program and this place has helped me become a better person who I am today. The school there is very educational. I have the top grades in most of my classes. I'm graduating in four weeks. And I feel that the way the campus should go is to still support the foster youth in need of services and homes. I do request the 90 day, I don't know what it is but, But yeah, this place should not be shut down. I've been here for two years, and it's really helped me grow into a better person and realize what I want to do. That's it. Thank you.

All right. You've heard from the students. You've heard from myself. Like I said, we have a plan. We can make it so sustainable. It's a win-win. We're asking for the opportunity. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We will now go to our individual speakers.

So we really do appreciate hearing from the students. Unfortunately, and I didn't say this in the beginning, we try to do silent ways of support for our speakers and not clapping or outbursts, just to make the meeting go smoothly, make sure we can hear what everyone has to say. But thank you.

Thank you, and we will begin with the in-person speakers. As your name is called, if you could please come forward and stand on the arrows until it is your turn to speak at the podium. You'll then have one minute to address the board, and if you could please begin by stating your name for the record. I'll be calling individuals in groups of three, so please listen for your name. I'd like to invite forward the first three individuals, Alejandro Martinez, Cesar Javier, and Greg Robinson. You can come forward in any order. Yeah. Thank you.

Greg Robinson, President of the County Board of Education. I want to thank some of you for showing up last night for a vulnerable minority under attack right now. But we also right now are talking about an even more vulnerable, much smaller minority of young people who are the most vulnerable that we in education try and deal with. We've heard about the average best placement, but these kids are not the average even of foster youth. The average number of placements is eight before they ever end up at San Pasqual Academy. These are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. There's no debate. This is Sophie's choice for you, I know. It's expensive, but if there are ways to try and save a little money, let's try and save these kids from the streets because that's where most foster youth with this kind of background graduate to. They don't graduate to college, but foster youth from San Pasqual Academy, over 80% are going on to college. That's not success. That's a miracle.

Thank you, sir. Call the next three speakers, Mark Burrows, Mary, I believe it's Serranio, and Rick Shea.

Hello, Acting Chair and members of the County Board. My name is Mark Burrows. I'm the superintendent and principal of the San Pasqual Union School District in Supervisor Anderson's District 2. I'm here in support of Item 34 and more importantly on behalf of the middle school students residing at SPA and all of the students in our district impacted by the current model. Our district has supported middle school students at SPA since its inception, yet the educational needs of these students were never part of the original design, and these needs have been repeatedly overlooked. The current model, including the recruitment of non-foster youth from across the state, has only intensified these challenges, and although I'm hearing about different outcomes for high schoolers, nearly all of our middle school students are not realizing similar success. And at the same time, the financial impacts of these placements have become increasingly unsustainable for our county and for our small school district. These are not new issues, and we cannot continue to accept these outcomes. If SPA remains open, I urge you to reconsider the acceptance of middle school students and prioritize family homes and more appropriate settings. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I'm Rick Shea, and I'm vice president of the County Board of Education. I'm speaking today in opposition to the proposal to begin the wind down of the San Pasqual Academy. Monday morning at a special meeting of the County Board of Education, I introduced a resolution and it was passed unanimously by the County Board of Education in opposition to closing San Pasqual Academy. The Academy was founded based on need, as identified by two members of the Board of Supervisors and the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court, who saw that alternatives for foster children were failing the children. They started this unique facility in 2002. Their insights were validated by research from the University of California, Davis. So the need is demonstrated, the success is documented. Legislative reforms Many cases appropriate, but do not eliminate the need for structured educational facility. That's it. Okay.

I would rather than, uh, thank you, sir. That's your time.

Close it. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We call the next three individuals forward. Kelly, uh, I believe it's filter Davis. Then I have office of the assembly member, Dr. Darshana Patel and allegedly Audra.

In 2021, the County Board of Supervisors tried to close SPA. They lost in court. Today, the same outcome is being pursued in a slower, quieter way. The County keeps citing low enrollment and high costs at San Pasqual Academy as their reason for shutting it down, but you cannot reduce placements for years and then use declining enrollment. as your excuse. This is not a failure of the program. This is a manufactured outcome. The County Office of Education recently approved a middle school at Spa because they saw the value in the program. If this is really about money, then answer this question. How much will it cost taxpayers to redevelop more than 200 acres off of a two-lane road in rural Escondido? What will the long-term operating costs be? It looks like the county made a plan to seal the fate of the kids at Spa years ago, and they're planning the long game. If you're going to decide the future of the kids at Spa, you should at least know their names. I encourage all of you to tour the school. And thank you, Jim Desmond. I appreciate you.

Good morning, acting chair and county supervisors. I'm here on behalf of assembly member and chair of the Assembly Education Committee, Dr. Darshana Patel, with an urgent request to reemphasize a letter already sent as a part of the public record to pause this decision for 90 days. This May, we recognize National Foster Care Month today in Sacramento. We are honoring the Friends of San Pasqual Academy as the 8076th nonprofit of the year. Yet here in San Diego County, our county supervisors are considering an agenda item to close the only school that's serving our most vulnerable foster care youth. San Pasqual Academy is not a failing program. It has a proven track record of success with a 100% graduation rate and a track record of supporting students with complex needs that few institutions can. So we ask that you please partner and properly plan with our office to ensure we are doing right by the youth who need us most. Thank you.

Next speaker was allegedly Audra and the next two will be Lois Jones and Shane Harris.

It is very difficult to listen to child traffickers talk about youth and wanting to better their lives when they are creating the need for this place or any of the other places and Polinski is got a lot of sexual abuse cases that have come forward and that place should be shut down. So I'm thinking this should too be shut down. And it's unfortunate because there should be things that you guys are doing, like you claim that you're engaging in family-based care. No, you're engaged in ripping families apart, claiming there's no bond. So when you sit here and say those things, that is complete bullshit, Alfredo. You are traumatizing children and families.

Allegedly, Audra.

We went through this yesterday.

I just ask you to refer to us and not staff. Thank you.

Yes. So it is very satanic what they're doing. And we're funding it.

My name is Lois Jones. I'm here to request a no vote on this proposal, or at least a 90-day extension, to allow this proposal to be vetted and responded to honestly. Since the legal decision of 2021, we have argued vehemently with the county to work with us to place SPA as a preferred choice for foster teens. We were continually ignored, preventing the population from growing organically. This school has made life challenging difference for the teens who graduated from the academy. The graduation rate surpasses the other public schools in San Diego. Many go on to secondary education with bachelor's degrees and master's degrees. They become productive adults. We have 25 years of success stories. To shut this program down, we'll take away today's foster youth.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, or good morning, afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Shane Harris. I serve as the Government Affairs Director of Rite of Passage, Southern California, CEO of S. Harris Communications, and a San Diego public advocate. But most importantly today, I stand before you as a former foster youth who emancipated from San Pasqual Academy. Before arriving at San Pasqual Academy on my 16th birthday, I had already been in eight placements. San Pasqual Academy gave me something I had not experienced in years, stability, mentorship, consistency, and community. Now, let me be clear. I understand foster care numbers have declined. A lot of the work we did is because of that. And yes, conversations about the future academy absolutely need to happen. But today's item was supposed to be informational in nature regarding the outreach and listening sessions conducted over the last 180 days, not beginning the closure related actions. So today I respectfully ask this board to approve my proposed 90 day continuance pause, expand public outreach, and include foster youth alumni and everyone else at the table in the SPA community. Let's do this together. Thank you.

Thank you. Call the next three speakers, John Graywolf, Lydia Hockley, and Frank Simmons.

I'm a product of Sam Squall Academy, and I stayed when my foster family moved to Texas in 2016 because of my brother. That's what this place does. It builds family. The director used the word village, and that's exactly right. It's intertribal. Kids from every background, every culture, every circumstance, and under one roof. because it takes a community to raise a child and we don't choose our family some of us come from abusive homes some of us had no homes at all and some of us came in groups siblings more than a single family was willing or able to take on with places like spa those kids get split up or they don't get placed at all and then there are ones who never made it in right now on the streets of california there are 100 or 200,000 homeless minors annually. Kids who slip through. Kids the system never caught. Those who we're also talking about when we're talking about closing a place like this. And if you're pro-life, be pro-life after birth. And that means places like this. What SPA creates is proof. Proof that a collective of kids from every background, every wound, every story can rise above the social divisions and barriers.

I didn't want to interrupt your comments, but could you please state your name for the record? John Graywolf. Thank you.

Frank Simmons. I'm here in opposed to the decision and asking for a 90-day pause. I am a former foster youth. I was not blessed enough to be able to attend San Pasquale when I was in the foster care system. But as someone that is employed there, I see the difference and I see the change. We need more places like this to be able to have that family atmosphere. That's it. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lydia. I'm actually just here to oppose on that decision. I'm just asking for you all to give us that 90 days. The youth there, we just have to think about them, their lives. They come in and they do great. They thrive. And we, as staff, we have great communication with the students there. And just please give us that 90 days. Thank you.

All right, I'll call the next three speakers. Jean Cornwell, Robert Syverson, and Deborah Syverson.

Yes, just as you come up, just come on up, state your name and go for it.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jean Cornwell. I've been at San Pasquale Academy for quite a while since its inception, and I have witnessed miracles. This is a one-of-a-kind place in the country. It's the only program of its kind in this country. And we've had people come from all over just to witness, to see how the intergenerational program works. And I'm really nervous, so my voice is shaking. But I really am asking you to give us time. Give us time to regroup. and to come back and to continue the miracles that we do. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Robert Syverson. Today, it is all about the numbers. I understand that none on the board will be accused of not caring about the kids. We know you do. HHSA will tell you that declining enrollment is a result of decline in the number of foster teens in the county. Sounds logical. However, if you Google anything about foster teens over 12 at San Diego County, you'll find a very different story. Many references to the quiet crisis, placements of hundreds of foster teens is a constant problem for HHSA, even with the county numbers nine. Combined with a report that 70% of those eligible to be referred to the academy were not referred. Who controls the referrals? The same group that wants to close the academy due to under-enrollment. That's unacceptable. HHSA told me that I don't have enough time. I'm going to invite each one of you to come out to the graduation on June 12th and listen to the kids tell you their story and why they're there. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Debbie Syverson. I live in Coronado. I am here to support the foster teens of San Pasqual Academy and asking the board to vote no on moving forward with item 35. I have been involved with the foster youth of the academy for 25 years. We know it works. We know that they don't want to be in foster homes. It hasn't worked for them. We listened to the kids. They have been in multiple foster homes and it didn't work. The previous San Diego County grand jury said it best and I quote, the grand jury found that San Diego County Board of Supervisors made a sound investment of taxpayers dollars in the academy and the grand jury recommends San Pasqual Academy be fully utilized to better serve the children who have been abused and neglected. You have the power to follow the grand jury's advice. Increase the enrollment. Let the kids be there. Thank you for your time.

Hello, I'm Zenobia Beckett-Reichen, but my kids call me Aunt Zee. And I say my kids because I'm in a unique position. I was adopted by three siblings in foster care as their aunt about two years ago. We could not give them a full-time home, but we gave them a place to be a family. And because of that, I have been able to see all aspects of our foster care system. I've been able to contrast every single incident, and there are a couple things that did not come up today. Number one, my kids have averaged five different placements over the last six years. My kids have been in multiple different placements. One of them even AWOLed for a year and was on the streets. They were very, very unstable until my oldest nephew went to spa. Spa saved his life, and here's the reason it did it. And this is so unique from all the other stuff out there. Spa is in the middle of nowhere. Its physical location creates a situation where they cannot AWOL. It gives them safety.

Thank you so much. We'll go to our next speaker.

Michael, please change my vote to close it. Yes. Why? I hear the people having this, have had these experiences of miracles and good things happen for them and that's great, that's beautiful. But miracles can happen everywhere. As Peggy Hall of the Healthy American says, there's always another way and I'm going to find it. And that's the truth in the larger cosmic jurisdiction in which we live. Anything that goes on and is funded by this county and it's evil narcissistic systemic behavior is doomed Speaking of HHS role in all of this HHS was the one who promoted the lie that those who did not do this back during the you-know-what days We're going to die. So there's always another way. We can't trust HHS. We can't trust this board and I like to end on a positive note. How good can it get and

Okay, I'll call the next three speakers forward. Tanya Douglas, I believe Mushkan already spoke as part of the group presentation, but if that's a different person, you're welcome to come forward as well. And then Dylan Quigley. And then Ellen Nash, we have called you, so you are welcome to come to the podium as well.

Good morning, my name is Tanya Douglas. I just would like to say please consider keeping the campus open. I think there's a lot to consider, a lot more than just a three-week period to close down and make a decision for youth lives for the development past the Sample School Academy, what they can become, what they can learn, and I think it takes more time than just a few weeks. Thank you.

And if you could just start with your name, please.

Good morning. My name is Ella Nash. I currently serve as the chair of the San Diego chapter of the Black American Policy Association Foundation and also a former foster mother. I'm here today in support, in favor of this initiative, particularly the piece that says extend the deadline so that more community engagement can occur, I believe up to 12 or 18 months. That gives us sufficient time to go through the process in regards to the research. I also wanted to remind you, several years ago, Pastors on Point was here advocating for transitioning more of our children into the community, into foster homes as well. And I want to applaud the county that you have delivered on that request. I would also like to thank all of the support that's happened, particularly the foundation. And I look forward to working with the San Pasquale Foundation to support our children. Thank you very much.

And then I'm just going to go ahead, as the next speakers come forward, I'm going to go ahead and recall all those that I called but didn't come to the podium. Alejandro Martinez, Cesar Javier, and then I believe this is Dylan Quigley. Correct. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Dylan Quigley. I am a president of District 1 and an attorney for Youth Law Center. I used to be an education attorney here for foster youth in San Diego. I want to honor the young people who have spoken today. If San Pasqual gave you safety, security, no one can take that away from you. But the question for the board today isn't whether San Pasqual has mattered to some youth, because it clearly has. The question is whether it should continue as a long-term congregate care model that no longer fits the law, the funding, or what we know young people need from research. Youth deserve families, permanent relationships, connection to community, and supports that make relationships last. I know personally that the youth at San Pasqual Academy deserve better than what they get now. They deserve a school that gives them all the options that young people need, sports, recreation, A through G classes, a true path to a four-year college. Only through that are we able to give justice and equality to the San Pasqual youth.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. We will now hear from those that are requested to speak by phone. When it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted. You will hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments, and we will go ahead and begin with our first caller.

Hi, good morning, supervisors. My name is Madison and I am opposed to the planned wind down of San Pasqual Academy. More than 1000 young people have benefited from a campus specifically designed to meet the needs of youth who have experienced trauma, instability and educational disruption. While child welfare policy has appropriately shifted toward family based care and prevention whenever possible, that does not mean there is no longer a need for structured campus based support for some youth. There will always be young people whose circumstances require a higher level of educational continuity, behavioral health support, and stability than fragmented placements can provide. The County Board of Education has made clear that the San Pasqual Academy remains a valuable and evolving educational institution. Once a specialized institution like this is dismantled, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recreate the expertise, trauma-informed culture, and integrated support systems that have been built over decades. I urge the board to pause any closure plans.

The time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Sounds like you want to close down the academy without a real plan. Typical. It would be good to reintegrate foster youth into society, but there still needs to be housing for some of our foster youth. Maybe you can transfer some of the kids from the Polinsky Center to any empty space at the San Pasqual Academy. There are sure to be less tunnels, hiding spots, and pedos there. Also, a good refuge for abused animals if you have the space, like the ones on Artesian Road or the others I hear about. A good intermediate step would be a congregate shelter. You have buildings, facilities, and they could be used on the remaining foster youth or Polinsky Center refugees. Or perhaps as an alternative to sending kids be separated from their families in county. Record.

The time is up. We will go to our next speaker.

So there's been lawsuits, too many abuse allegations, negligent claims, failure tied to SAMHSA itself. Okay, so if keeping youth safe was truly the priority, then why doesn't government continuously invest in the aftermath? Why do they continuously invest in the aftermath instead of prevention? Why aren't we investing in keeping families healthy, stable, supported? and intact in the first place, because what we keep seeing is government throwing money at broken pieces like tape or glue, never secure, never guaranteed, never fixed, just funding streams, more programs, more expansion, more dependency, and somehow always more money needed. And if you want a strong youth, then strengthen the family unit. Support parents. Support communities before collapses. Stop acting like institutionalizing children is the solution while families continue deteriorating all around us. Quite frankly, San Pasqual Academy has become a liability risk to this county. And after previous funds. Thank you.

Your time is up. We'll go to our next. Next speaker is Terry Ann Skelly. You're connected. You may be muted though. Terry, you there? Okay, we'll come back to you. Go to our next speaker.

Hi, good morning, board. Wasn't meant to be there in person today, but I'm glad to be over the phone. Thank you for having us today. My name is Alejandro. I work at MidCityCan. I work in the juvenile justice landscape. And San Pasqual Academy has been something that we've been talking about, I think, for a long time. And I think while we appreciated the listening sessions, I think the community gave a lot of great feedback. I don't think that this is what we expected. And I don't really think that this is what the, through the listening sessions that was communicated. I also want to kind of take... into emphasis that we have a lot of youth in our secure youth tracking facilities that could be eligible for less restrictive programming and San Pascual Academy would actually be a phenomenal place to be able to do that and actually have healing centers where our young people are actually being rehabilitated and so I do think it's a little premature I do think that we could maybe collaborate a little bit more closely on what that space could look because I think we could be maybe closing down doors and not really thinking about how we could reopen them. And so I just want us to kind of maybe think about that a little bit more closely and- Thank you, your time is up.

We'll go to our next speaker.

Hi, I'm Joan Scott with Friends of San Francisco Academy, and we've been caring for the foster students and alumni for over 25 years. We have over 1,000 dedicated supporters who care about our foster kids and make them a priority. Today, I am in Sacramento since Friends of San Pasqual Academy is being honored as California Nonprofit of the Year through Assemblymember Patel. How ironic that we're being recognized for changing lives and the future of the Academy continues to be threatened. I want to thank Supervisors Desmond and Anderson for their leadership in 2021, who fought successfully to keep San Pasqual Academy open. Over and over, we hear foster youth say, Sam Pasquale Academy saved my life. What stronger statement do we need to hear? The county has been trying to grab this beloved campus for a very long time. How insulting that this is being discussed under land use. The enrollment has diminished since they have been trying to dissolve the successful campus for years. Let's stop the land.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker. Next speaker is Kathy. You're connected, but you may be muted. I'm sorry. It's okay. Go ahead.

Okay. My name is Kathy Latham. My name is Kathy Latham. I've been, for 25 years, San Francisco Law Academy has been far more than a school. It has been a safe haven, a family, and a path toward healing for some of San Diego's most vulnerable and traumatized foster teens. Today, I'm here in Sacramento representing Friends of San Pasqual. Friends is being honored as a California nonprofit of the year by Assemblymember Dr. Patel. And honestly, the timing could not be more ironic, because while this extraordinary organization is being recognized for changing lives, the future of the very academy it supports remains uncertain. For decades, Friends of San Pasqual has stepped in to provide the experiences and opportunities every child deserves. prom nights, school clothing, supplies, athletic equipment, uniforms, banquets, sports banquets, graduation, college tours, and much more. But what truly makes FOSS special is not just the program, it is the community. This foster youth, the foster youth.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker. Hello. Yes. Christopher.

Yes. It's your turn to speak. Hi, my name is Christopher Burrows. I'm speaking. Can you hear me?

We can.

Hello. okay hi my name is christopher burroughs i am currently the executive director also the founder of garden 31 community initiative we are a community-based non-profit organization in san diego county central operations in north county san diego district 5 and we teach at-risk youth how to farm how to grow their own food we also work with them on character code cultivation. We have school gardens throughout San Diego County from the juvenile halls. I am a former foster youth myself, formerly incarcerated. I've been through this system. I live in Escondido. I see Tampa Squall Academy. I'm thankful for the reimagination of it because I've I've got apprentices. We run and we have built the first apprenticeship for agriculture and natural resources in our county. I've submitted a proposal to Jim Desmond's office. I would like for Garden 31 to be looked at as a partner in the re-imagination of San Pasqual Academy for both the foster youth that are there currently and all youth in our community. And I would also like for us to be able to start agricultural programming.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker. Our next speaker is Hector. You may be muted, Hector. Okay, we'll come back to you. Go to our next speaker.

Good morning, my name is Becky Rapp and I urge you to oppose this item and not move forward with any wind down plans for San Pasqual Academy. The County Board of Education has spoken strongly against this idea as well as assembly member Patel's office who have both expressed strong opposition to the closure. An 80% graduation rate for foster youth is not ordinary. It is extraordinary. It is a miracle. These are young people who have often experienced trauma, instability, abandonment, and loss, yet San Pascual Academy has helped them succeed, graduate, attend college, earn scholarships, and build self-sustaining futures. Yes, family-based placements are important, But sometimes there is no safe family available and the traditional family has failed them. What is difficult to understand is that just yesterday this board celebrated opening housing opportunities for youth leaving the foster care system to keep them from ending up on the street. Yet today you're discussing closing one of the very programs that has prevented homelessness. These youth leave with scholarships.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hey, Truth, I want to know, what's the dealio? It's only $19 million a year to run this place. I hope no progressive puppets are going to claim that there's no money for this school for foster children when they had no problem giving their campaign funders, SIU, a $14.4 million bonus through bathroom scheming. The county suggested in yesterday's item 30 to build expensive housing for foster youth. Question one, why not do it on the San Pasqual campus and solve two birds with one stone? Or would that be too fiscally responsible? I know progressives have an aversion to that. Question two, what is the success rate for San Pasqual? Is it a success? Question three, if the county were to close San Pasqual, what would happen to the property? Would the land use be low-income sacrifice for one of the progressives' corporate developer friends? Somebody needs to please think of the children. investigate Polinsky East Mesa detention and CPS because this crowd board has never cared about children. And that's very obvious. We'll go to our next speaker.

Good morning, Honourable Supervisors. My name is Courtney Baltiski, and on behalf of the YMCA of San Diego County, we recognize the state direction and requirements are contributing to the current discussion. We support the goal of ensuring children and youth in care are served in the least restrictive family-centered environments possible, as congregate care is not considered a best practice model. Thank you to the CFWB team for the commitment and support to San Diego youth and families. We also believe there's opportunity to reimagine SPA campus to better meet the needs of children, youth, and caregivers through stronger community partnerships, increased kinship support, family engagement, family finding, and innovative housing models to strengthen, prevent, promote family reunification, and increase family involvement. To be authentic partners in this process, we ask for transparency, research-based methodology, and a shorter timeline for the department to report back to the board about options. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Ann Riddle here. Thank you for this opportunity. As a retired social worker and one who began in foster care, I have some observations I want to share. And I oppose the ideas behind 5. I feel like it's a bit of a bait and switch because this isn't what anybody expected after participating in the listening sessions. care is a very difficult program. It's very difficult to keep teens in a foster home. And when Judge Milliken put this together 21 years ago, he recognized that. The children do not live in a congregate situation. They live in a family home setting that includes several foster cares, but it definitely has a family-like environment. But most importantly, they have an opportunity to go to school where they can stay in school because they live on the school campus. And they have people who mentor them and tutor them. So they have far more success when they go out to enter the next step in their education. No one expected a wind down. And this seems really unfortunate that that's what we're discussing. We have plenty of children.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Peggy Walker, considering so much county money has been spent on failed harm reduction, homelessness, behavioral health, and other social programs, it's hard to comprehend closing this proven, honored program, the only school dedicated to our most vulnerable youth. Please grant extended time. reimagining talks earlier this morning referred to providing continued access to resources but that's not the same as providing a safe stable place to learn and thrive that foster children may not otherwise have there's no better endorsement than that of the county office of education which has plans to address the middle school program and by leading educators and professionals who say foster teens thrive with this opportunity. Please give it a chance to stay open.

Thank you. And then we'll go ahead and go back to our two callers that we didn't have any response from. We'll start with Hector.

Thanks for taking my call. You're welcome. This is frankly embarrassing. Just another embarrassment, man. When you open the meeting, go, as we speak here, there's millions of gallons of sewage just went into our county. And another million gallons of water drinking water left our county in Del Mar through that dam. And this is like a new low, man. We're going to shut this thing off. The question is, how low can we go? I don't know. What next? Let's make a list. And I told Todd Gloria, don't use the expression America's finest city anymore. It's embarrassing. Thank you. Hope you guys will do the same. Quit using the expression America's finest city. It's frankly, it's embarrassing. Thank you.

Okay. We'll go to our next caller that we non-responsive from, and I believe that was Terry. Terry's no longer on the call. Oh, we do have another one that came on though, so we'll go to Kathleen.

Good morning. My name is Kathleen Lippitt, and I fully support the San Pasqual Academy in their efforts to protect children. And I think that the county, unlike many of the other programs, this program is pretty much self-sustaining. And it really smacks of a greater or other agenda, which is to steal their land. Not that the county would ever consider doing such a thing, but I think that is exactly what's going on. Please, I support San Pasqual Academy. And I don't know who the Radar Recovery Center is. We have never heard of them, unlike San Pasqual Academy. We need to be very suspicious of recovery centers that pop up out of nowhere and no one knows. No one from the treatment community knows who the heck they are. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you. And then we will have two final in-person speakers. I'd like to invite William Wood and Lauren Picard to the podium. You'll both have one minute each. You could please start your comments with your name.

Hello, my name is William Wood. I recently moved to San Diego about a year ago and have been out at San Pascal and spent some time out there. And having worked in the United States for 45 years in youth services and juvenile justice, I am amazed at the opportunity that San Diego has. You have something that nobody else in this country has on that campus. I definitely think utilize it, embrace it. It is a resource that no one has. You are the envy of the country, and you can be progressive with this thing if you do it right. So I am definitely in favor of keeping Pascal and rethinking what we're doing out there because it is an option that's going to help a lot of kids in the future. And some of the kids that are out there now could conceivably be not going into the juvenile justice system because they have a stable placement at San Pascal. So thank you.

Hello, my name is Lauren Picard. I've been a grandparent at San Pasqual Academy for 16 years. When Judge Milliken ordered the courts to open San Pasqual Academy and get it going, it was a giant experiment to see if this would work, because it's the only one in the country that does it. We've heard today many people saying different things about it, the county saying we don't have any kids. We have people who are saying, we do have the kids. You're just not sending them to us. I think you guys should go in and investigate and find out which is the truth and what is really happening out there. You should visit the academy. You should go and see, because the longer we have the kids there, the better they turn out.

like to thank you all I think you should have the extension of 30 90 days so that you can do your work and we can do our work to get everything done thank you and then our deputy clerk says we have one more person that registered correct what's your name I got mixed so my name is Terry Summerhays I have been a member of Friends of San Pasqual Academy for over 20 years and it is a fabulous organization. Being the mom of four children, I've had the opportunity to attend lots of sports banquets, but yesterday I attended something extraordinarily special as I attended the spring sports banquet at San Pasqual Academy. The amazing coaches honored each student athlete with personal and very uplifting comments, something that wouldn't happen elsewhere in their lives. They expanded upon the personal growth and resilience and accomplishment of each. They spoke of challenges overcome with determination and hard work. The joy of discipline and personal accomplishment was evident as we provided letterman jackets for all those who had earned them. The golf coach, who was a professional, spoke to us quietly afterwards and told us of the amazing accomplishments. Thank you.

Thank you. That's your time. And Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. Thank you to everyone that has come out to speak on this item. I'm going to turn it over to Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you everybody who showed up today. Thanks, staff, for the presentation. This is a very kind of a heartwarming, gut-wrenching. decision before us, but I first want to acknowledge that the youth that are currently living on the campus need to be at the forefront of every conversation, every decision that we have regarding and moving forward with San Pasqual Academy. I understand that the population has decreased. We understand that. And opening a spa, it served a very critical need. At the time, and over a thousand youth have gone, have called spa home for over the past 25 years, and it's been phenomenal. in the community, especially friends of San Pascual. You've poured millions of dollars of money and time into SPA. to ensure that these students receive the support that they needed. I heard a couple years ago the state came out and said, well, these foster youth are going to be better off in family settings. Well, that might be, but that's not for everyone. And so we've got to be able to help all students, all foster youth, no matter what the situation is. And it was news to me, up to eight placements, You know, that worked out. Some worked out. Some didn't. But but a lot of this is a place where youth want to be and stay. So I'm all in favor of looking into potentially how to more fully utilize that campus. But while keeping the foster education programs there. I think the contributions have been made have had a lasting impact on the foster youth through San Pasqual Academy, and I think everybody who's been a part of that should be part of the conversations moving forward. I agree there should be some sort of a pause before starting the unwinding. I was kind of, when I read that unwinding, it's like, well, what the heck? It's like the decision's already been made. I don't know if it's 90 days or 12 months. What I would like to see from staff is what's the plan? What's the big overall plan before we start winding anything down? What's the future? Are we going to have a future where we still allow some of the transitional housing? Are we still going to allow foster programs to continue and thrive there? What else might be added so we can more fully utilize the campus if the numbers are going down? I'm all in favor of looking into that, but I don't want to start any wind down until we've got that information. What's the long-term plan? And I'll tell you, it better include foster youth programs in my mind. So I'd like to see a much more comprehensive plan in the future and what it holds for the current students and future students in the property itself. I want to have insure assurances that the housing for the transitional age youth which we just allowed what approved 35 and Vista I think yesterday as part of a plan with other organizations but those are kids after after these programs so I really think we've got to keep spot alive we got to keep the foster youth programs in there I would just like to know You know, I just don't think we should make a decision to wind down the academy without first seeing and agreeing to a plan for the future use of the campus, be that 90 days or whatever it takes. I don't care if it's 30 days. Just show me the plan before the long term plan before we make that decision. So I'll go ahead and I'd like to make a motion. And I don't know, Brian, do you have it? to strike the first recommendation of the wind down and to add a recommendation for the chief administrative officer to return to the board with a high level plan for the future of the campus. The plan should include any initial vision for proposed purposes, services and programs on the campus including transitional age housing for former foster youth. So that would replace recommendation number one. Come back, let us know what the plan is, and then we'll decide. I don't think it's a day thing. It's like 90 days. So whenever you have the long-term plan, let us know what that is, and then we can move forward and incorporate hopefully the changes and the community input. So that's my motion.

Thank you. And just to clarify, is it also to include recommendations two and three?

Yes, it does include two and three, which are more collaborative and community engagement and continue with that community engagement. And it does say report back within 12 months with a status update of the overall transition, which is the plan that I think we should have. And like I said, I don't care if it's 90 days or 30 days or whatever it takes, but I want the long-term plan before we do any short-term wind-ups. Thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor Anderson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a quick question of staff, if I may. By the way, your outreach, I really appreciated the slides were terrific. The only question I have is when you were doing that outreach, did they know when you solicited the information that the plan was to close it? Let me tell you why I'm asking this because if you ask me what I think about this green cup, I'm going to tell you one thing. If you tell me you're getting rid of the green cup and what do I think, I may have different answers on how to replace the green cup that I'm not coming forward with. I just wondered if we had, you did a robust outreach, which I'm very pleased, but I'm not sure people were framed up correctly.

Yeah, so through the vice chair supervisor. Thank you for that question when we were having the Engagement sessions. We did not know at that time what our plan would be so To answer specifically your question whether or not the youth were told that there was a potential for a wind down that was not mentioned to them We did talk about what are the possible re-envisioning, what are some of the potential additional uses, other alternative uses at San Pascual Academy. Since the board letter has been public, we have had a conversation with all the youth at San Pascual Academy and they are aware of the potential vote today for a wind down of the current program.

We had one of the witnesses, and I apologize, I forgot his name, who said that he had a plan that would make itself sustainable. And I'm just wondering if there are other folks that when we were reaching out, if they may have a plan and they may have some advice. So I would be very supportive of delaying this by 90 days and giving you the chance to go back out. And by the way, I... take this as a compliment. I rarely compliment staff for their outreach, but looking at your numbers and looking at your outreach, it was robust. It was really good. But I think it should be pretty quick to go back to those same people and say, hey, there's a little twist. Do you have any additional comments? Madam Chair, I'd like to see that moving forward. I also like Supervisor Desmond with a more robust plan of what we're going to do with all those young people. You know, so many of those folks that interviewed said that they had gone to several families before they got there. I don't want us to be another one of those families that just kick them out. You know, I know that we all want to put the kids first, and while the campus is important, those young people are the most important. So I'd like to second... supervisor dens Desmond's motion, but I would like to add in and I'm open to the language of going back and doing that outreach where people know that there's a possibility of it being closed and how would that change their opinion? I think that's fine.

I mean to include that in the, in the outreach, but I mean, You're right. We want to focus on the kids, but we also, I guess what I'm looking for is also what's the overall plan for the campus? And I'd like to have that in hand. So as far as the outreach, we can make it more robust. I'm fine with that.

With your comment, with your addition. I actually have language too, and I don't know if it's easier to add your language to mine or my language to you, but I'll leave that to the clerk to... I'm not trying to make your job harder.

No problem at all. Let me just switch through here. Let me take that off the screen. Now I broke it. Now you're fine. We got lots going on today. All right, here we are. Supervisor Anderson, this is your amendment language that I received. I'm not sure why that monitor is not working. It is up on the, there we are, just delay.

So a question, this says number one, but it is actually numbered, It has a language of number two, so if that's accurate, then we can still strike the actual number one in the board letters recommendation, replace it with Supervisor Desmond's amendment to that recommendation, and this can be number two.

That's fine.

The issue is that, you know, the 90 days, what I'm hearing is a little bit of conflict there just based on Supervisor Desmond wanting to give enough time for an actual plan to come back. So that kind of what I'm hearing from you, we can make a more informed decision. And then the 90 days.

Madam Chair, maybe we could ask staff if they could do the plan within 90 days. I'm not trying to rush them, but. Without a known plan, it just seems like the kids are coming in last.

Okay. Well, if the maker of the motion is okay with that, then I'll let you all decide that.

To me, still, I'm going to need the overall plan before I can look at it. Coming back with 90 days, you're asking for the feedback that was received.

No, no. I'm asking them right now if they could give your information. Can you come back in 90 days with an overall plan?

Not the comprehensive overall plan.

I don't need every detail of what every drinking fountain is going to be or anything like that.

Right. But we want to have something sustainable to you, and I don't think we can do that in 90 days. We can talk to the youth in 90 days and come back with their feedback, but not just the overall plan with the community.

To me, that's what I need to make.

I don't want to interrupt either of you, but just to jump in, it does say a report back. So that's not actual coming to the board. That's making sure that we're reporting back to us in another form that feedback. So maybe there's not conflict between the two.

So it's just a 90-day comeback, but while the plan is being... massaged or whatever created you're still getting input uh during during that phase as well it's just not 90 days of input and then no more is that understood is that okay from my perspective we can come back in 90 days with an update and continue the community engagements and and uh and feedback yes i think that's good i'm good thank you

So as Ryan prepares that, so we can just make sure we know what the motion is, I will turn it over to Chair Pro Tem again.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be okay with that because actually I was going to request quarterly updates on how the progress was going. So I think the report in 90 days is good. I think the not taking a final decision until we have a comprehensive plan is good. I also think that, you know, one of the speakers said they have a plan and that there is a white paper. Don't know if you all have seen I haven't seen it It wasn't very clearly articulated, but I'm very interested in seeing what that plan looks like. I also found interesting what the superintendent from the school district mentioned about the the Performance levels of middle school students. I would just like a little bit more information regarding that and The other thing I think that is very important for me as well, and just for the record, I know some folks assume that we hadn't been to San Pascual. I've been to San Pascual and I'm very grateful that I went to go visit and I had a very comprehensive tour and I'm very grateful for the work that the Friends of San Pascual have worked on for so long. The connection there is undeniable with the students. The program that they have even in the kitchen, the skills that they train the students, real life skills that are applicable for when they become adults is very good. But I think it's important for us to also consider the seniors that live there. We heard from one Right, and I met some while we were there, I believe, and the condition for them to live there is to be able to volunteer a certain number of hours with the youth there. What happens to them? That's something I'm also thinking about if San Pasqual winds down, that these are folks that may not have other housing options. So I would like that to be taken into consideration as well. And most importantly, and I think this, if it hasn't been said, it should, I think we all have at heart the best interests of these students one way or another. I mean, that is absolutely undeniable. But I think having a robust plan, having the report back in 90 days, seeing a clear path of where this will go is something that would be beneficial to us all. So I'm happy to support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I really do appreciate the outreach and acknowledge, I think, that this, in my mind, as I was reading through the board letter and the presentation, is more so, I still think that there is agreement that the structure And some of the plans may need to change, right, based on state law and also based on some of our successes within the system of making sure that young people are either reunited or have good placements. But there is still, as we know and as we have heard from the public, there's still a very specific population that needs more than that, right, for various different reasons and circumstances. And so I think what we're trying to figure out is how to marry that with state law and costs and all the realities that we have to deal with with finite resources, which is understandable and we have to continue to have that conversation. But I would just like to reiterate what Supervisor Anderson said. I think that when we have to frame the outreach to let the public know as much as possible about where we are thinking we're headed, and whether they agree or oppose that. And if they oppose that, then we can have like a healthy discussion about why we're going this route. Because if we don't do that, then the outreach is sort of for naught because we're not having the same conversation, right? And so... I appreciate the kind of going back and just getting that clarity because we can disagree on certain issues. But as long as we know there's disagreement, folks don't feel slighted. Right. And I think those conversations need to be grounded in what really our framework is. and what the county is looking towards doing and why. There also may be gaps in our analysis that other experts can opine on or can talk through with us. We heard from Assemblymember Patel's staff. Assemblymember Patel is the Chair of the Education Committee. at the state level and has a lot of ideas. We don't know what can be done yet and what can't be done. I certainly don't want to put her on the hook for anything, but also just I think it's worth continuing to have those discussions. The way that I read the board letter was that we would continue to have those discussions, I think the wind down pieces with, you know, I've heard three weeks, I've heard, you know, there's not clarity around what that even looks like. And that clarity, I think, is really more of an issue than anything here, because I know we all want understand that young people have different needs and come to us. under different circumstances. So I wanted to ask, I did hear about a three-week decision or wind down. I want to know if that's anything. I just want to clear whatever is not accurate or some misinformation or misunderstanding.

Vice Chair, I'm not quite sure what the 30-week wind down was referring to, to be honest with you. Certainly, we would follow whatever board direction comes out today.

Okay. I just want to make sure I heard that. I want to make sure it was not true. It's certainly not the conversations that we have been having. I do agree with such a beloved institution with really good leadership previously from previous supervisors. Um, that we do have to have need to be able to look at a plan so we can make a sound decision. Um, we do need to change the structure, I believe just around to comply with state law. Um, but I, I, I don't, I don't believe that we, that means we won't be able to serve, uh, young people with, with specific circumstances. So I think we just have to find a way to marry those two. I think the motion does that. Um, and, uh, And I guess that's the last thing I'll say. I'll say about this. But Supervisor Geary, did you have anything else? Okay. All right. I see your name on here. So with that, I don't think there's any further discussion. I think we have. Oh, Brian, please go ahead.

Just wanted to make sure that is the motion that's on the floor. I think there may be some.

Does this still include two and three? Yeah. This just replaces one.

We need clarification. Supervisor Anderson, if your motion amendment replaces recommendation number two or if it still is included.

I'd like to leave two and three.

Supervisor, can I read the different, the current number two right now so we can kind of, because I think your amendment amends number two, right?

We did a lot here today, and no matter what I say, I'm going to regret it tomorrow. I'm willing to defer to the chair. You know the intent, and I think we all agree on that. In acting, CAO can intervene and put her touches on it too as far as I'm concerned.

Yes. Acting CAO, can you summarize what you believe to be what we're trying to do here?

Okay. So I understand as we've, just to summarize the discussion that's happened and then the various motions that have been put forward is that we had staff came forward with three recommendations. The first one will be removed. The first one that had to do with the CAO or initiating a transition on a planned and phased wind down. that will be totally removed. What we have left then is two recommendations. Recommendation two will be to continue a broad collaborative and inclusive community engagement process that will include the reach out to the court appointed special advocate and other volunteer advocates as well as working with the youth at San Pasqual and clearly noting, I've heard from several supervisors, clearly noting that we will be clear on what the staff perspective is in terms of how we envision the future of San Pasqual to give something concrete for the community to respond to. And then the rest of recommendation two follows the language that's up on the screen, which I think is supervisor's recommendation. the supervisor's recommendation in terms of a 90-day report back that's specific to the outreach to the youth. And then we have a recommendation three, which also includes a 12-month report back to the board on the status of the overall community engagement that is happening with a final return to the board within 18 months. And all of this, I think, to respond to the initial maker of the motions request to put together a plan for the supervisors to respond to. Does that...

Supervisor Desmond? I agree with the chair. Number two is handled here. I would like to leave three. So if you want, you could take the first bullet and make it number one and then take what everything's bold, number two, and then leave number three.

Yeah, my understandings will strike the original recommendation one, replace it with Supervisor Desmond's amendment. We will amend recommendation two with Supervisor Anderson's.

Amendment and then we will keep recommendation number three as written in the board letter Okay, then that is my understanding I'm assuming the maker of the motion and the second are okay with that Okay, all right and just one last thing I do have the one pager And I think if we can get that passed out to supervisors while we're sitting here, that'd be awesome Okay. Thank you so much at this time. Let's go ahead and vote.

I

And Vice Chair Montgomery-Staff, that motion passes unanimously with all supervisors who are present and voting aye.

All right. Thank you very much, and thank you again. Sorry. I have to be fair about the clapping thing. Or else I get accused of being a lot of things up here. Okay. Right this time, we're going to go ahead and take a 10-minute recess, and then we will return. Let's just say 10.50. Okay? Thank you.

So, Thank you. Thank you. you

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. I just want to give the supervisor a couple more minutes. Thank you. Hi, Vice Chair. I'm here. Thank you so much, Chair. We are waiting for Supervisor Anderson. We'll get started as soon as he walks in. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, we've got a full house. We will now resume our meeting and I'll hand it over to Ryan.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. I'd like to note for the record that Supervisor Lawson-Reamer is participating via teleconference under Section 54953C of the Brown Act. As such, all votes will be handled by a roll call vote. At this time, Supervisor Lawson-Reamer will disclose whether anyone over the age of 18 is in the room with her, as well as their relationship to the supervisor. And I'll go ahead and turn it over to Supervisor Lawson-Reamer.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you so much. Megan Elledge, my chief of staff, is over the age of 18 in the room with me. And my baby is under the age of one week and is also in the room with me. I will be participating remotely for a limited amount of time today. And Vice Chairman Grimley-Stepp, I just wanted to say I'm so grateful that you stepped in on such short notice to chair yesterday's meeting. And I would greatly appreciate it if you could continue to chair.

Thank you so much, Chair. You sound really good, and I'm happy for you and with you, and I'm happy to continue to chair. And congratulations again.

Acting Chair, can we all just make a quick comment? That's an awesome photo. And just get it off the table. Tara, you look terrific in the baby. I'm so happy for you. It's Joel.

Thank you all so much. I really appreciate it.

Yes, thank you. And I want to go, we're going to go to our next item. And Supervisor Anderson, we had a quick discussion at the beginning of this meeting about whether we can hear them concurrently. I wanted to turn it over to County Council to try to get that to be possible.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Yes, both items 24 and 25 can be heard concurrently, and they can also be discussed together. However, they will require separate votes. And so if there's consensus reached, a motion can be made for one item to be moved, which would make the other item unnecessary.

Okay. Okay, great. So I think what I would like to do is, one, I'm going to turn it over to the chair for introductory remarks. And then I have a few remarks for item 24. Then I will turn it over to Supervisor Anderson for your presentation for item 25. And then I will turn it over to our county recorder, Jordan Marks, for additional time. after Supervisor Anderson's presentation, and then we will go to public comment. So I know it's a lot, but we're trying to work through it. So, Chair, I will go to you first.

Okay, thank you. First of all, I just want to Just all of my gratitude to all the stakeholders that have been involved in this process. It's been really a year in the making of putting together a charter reform package guided by a deep commitment to community and stakeholder input with nearly 40 organizations participating in putting this together and thinking together about how to make our county work better for the people of San Diego County. Labor leaders, faith leaders, environmental leaders, social service groups, civic watchdogs, business organizations. And I just am so grateful for all of the partnership and thinking about how we improve governance in our community. In an era with just such significant diminishing faith in government, It's more important than ever to strengthen our oversight and public accountability tools. And this package does exactly that. An independent ethics commission, an independent budget analyst, a program auditor, public accountability for senior leadership, and a term limits framework that aligns with the statewide best practices. So I know we are at a second reading of this item. But I am grateful to everyone who has thoughtfully engaged with this process and I urge us to vote yes again And and move forward and put this on the ballot. I do want to take a moment to acknowledge the alternative proposal put forth by Supervisor Anderson in rather a hasty manner in response to the proposal that we developed over a year of coalition work. And I think the haste is reflected in the quality of the proposal. I think the competing proposal from Supervisor Anderson on this dais eviscerates the hard-hitting, real provisions for genuine reform, transparency, and accountability that this coalition has been calling for for, frankly, decades. And that is really not what our moment calls for today. The federal withdrawal we face is real. Every dollar we spend has to be justified. And this is why we need public accountability. We need independent budget analysis. We need transparency. We need to ensure that we know that our program dollars are being spent in a way that makes a meaningful difference for our community. And I also think it's really critical that we do our part as electeds to give voters a choice, to do our best to put together options that are meaningful for voters in our districts and across our community, because ultimately it's up to the voters to decide what the constitution of our county looks like. And our job today is to give them something real to vote on, to give them something meaningful, not a watered-down fake version of a proposal that's been negotiated and bargained away with political insiders before they even have a chance to vote on it or see it. I think we have an obligation to give them something real to make a choice about. And I believe that voters are smart. They know what accountability looks like. And when they're presented with an opportunity to strengthen governance in our own community, they will appreciate that choice and they will make an informed decision. So I, again, I'm very hopeful we can move forward for a second time in item 24, the item that has been put together with massive, deep community input over a year-long process, and not move forward with item 25, which was a hasty response to a deeply thoughtful process that really looks to me like a deal between political insiders. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you very much. I have a couple things to say before I turn it over to Supervisor Anderson. And of course, if in between that time, if any of the supervisors have just clarifying questions, please feel free to ask them. But I, you know, I am in support of Item number 24 in the package that has been put together, as the Chair spoke about, over a bit of time with a lot of different coalition partners. But I do have an amendment to that proposal, and I want to talk a little bit about what it is and why, and it does have to do with the term limits piece. I can sit here and say in this chair, just having been a supervisor for about two and a half years now, not having a full first term, coming in through a special election, that it really does take a long time to get things done in these seats. I can think about Troy Street, for example, because we included robust community outreach. We had to go through the federal government. We had to go through the state government. We are just now breaking ground on the project that I started at the beginning of my tenure here as a supervisor. And we will not be done with that project that will provide housing for members of our unsheltered community until next year, right? After... prayerfully, if the voters say so, after the first year of my second term. And being that, you know, we have all types of bureaucracy and hoops to get around, I do think that these three, four-year terms allows for enough time to really fulfill the mandate of the voters, but also provides fresh new ideas and perspectives with that type of turnover. I believe this actually makes sense for all of the countywide electeds, principally. But what I'm having issue with and kind of taking a little bit of issue within, like the chair said, our second reading of this is that these term limits actually cannot be imposed by whatever we do on this board for those countywide seats. The treasurer tax collector, the sheriff, the district attorney, and the assessor recorder, county clerk, without a change in state law, those changes do not happen at a county level. Um, so although in principle I do agree with them, um, I do think in my conversations over the last three weeks, um, and, um, with additional input that I want to be clear and truthful with the voters and we're going to them, um, with things that they have power and control over with their vote. And unfortunately, this part of the proposal actually does not do that. So I know that at the at the state level, actions have been tried to limit those terms and it just hasn't happened yet. And so until I'm in principle, I want to say like I support that because I do think it is enough time to fulfill initiatives that are our constituency has brought us here to do at every elected position in this County, but we don't have control over that. And so I would like to propose, um, a friendly amendment, uh, to this, to the chair's proposal. Um, and, um, I'm going to ask Ryan to, to put that up. Um, it is to remove the references to term limits for the treasurer tax collector, the sheriff, the district attorney and assessor recorder County clerk's office. Um, okay.

Nope.

Yeah, no problem.

Um, one second.

So as you do that, I'll just say this would mean amending the resolution and the ordinance and taking a first reading of the updated ordinance, uh, with a second reading of that ordinance scheduled for June 25th. And so it's a pretty long motion. Um, uh, So I will I can start to read it, but may I make a recommendation?

That is in my proposal what What may be quicker is I present the proposal we come back to your amendment and then if there's any other good ideas that I presented we can do them all together or not in That way we're moving forward with it if that works for you because I'll be the first to say I had no intention of writing a charter reform, so I'm not going to dispute that it was done quickly. But if we all decide on it, we're going to want to decide on the languages that we're moving forward with on whatever changes are accepted.

I would just say this, because we have to do two separate votes and I am in support of item number 24.

I thought we're going to have the vote at the end.

We are, but we have to do two separate votes.

We have to do, as County Council said, we have to do a vote for- What I'm saying though is you may like one more idea that I present and you may want to amend 24 with more than one idea. For example, under the same rules that you're stating, It allows us not to live in our district. 24 does. So we could live in Riverside or TJ. We could live anywhere we want. And that is just like what you're presenting. We don't have the authority to do it. State law would have to be changed.

Excuse me. I think it's saying some things that are not correct about my item. Can we turn that to County Council? He just made a factually incorrect statement. like a factually incorrect statement, not a matter of opinion.

Well, I'm going to have County Council answer.

He said that the item as he said, the item is written would allow people to live outside their district. That is factually incorrect, untrue. And I will leave it to County Council to further clarify.

If I may, we asked County Council for a side-by-side. It was in a side-by-side.

So, let me, okay, Chair, let me just, let me allow County Council to respond to what the Chair said is a factually incorrect statement. I am inclined to keep the procedure the way that I lined it out in the very beginning of this discussion. I am in support of item number 24. with this amendment and then we can move forward after that, okay? So I'm gonna go to Ms. Hoffman.

Thank you, Vice Chair. The state law currently requires a supervisor to reside in the district in which they serve. The change to the charter that's proposed aligns with the state constitution, which does not require that. So if there ever were a change in state law, it would pave the way for a supervisor to not have to reside in their district. But if this charter amendment were to pass, At the ballot, it would not immediately change that requirement.

Okay, and let me just finish because I think for the record, I need to read the rest. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead, Ms. Hoffman.

Go ahead.

Basically, state law would need to change to allow a supervisor to reside outside of their district. So the requirement is in the charter. It doesn't need to be. It's in state law. So if state law were to ever change, the charter would not prevent it.

This is again. I just want to clarify. Thank you. I just I support the vice chair's approach. I was just offended by a mischaracterization of my item, but I support the vice chair's approach. So thank you. Thank you, counsel.

Yes, and again, we're going to have plenty of time for discussion, and I just think we need to follow. No, that's fine. Okay, but I hear what you're saying. I just think that we can handle that.

Unless state law changes, you can't do the sheriff.

Got it, but you have a whole presentation, Supervisor Anderson, and we will get to that. So at this time, there's this... Amendment on the floor. I'm happy to move the entire item with this amendment, but I will defer to the chair if you want to move item number 24 and add this and accept this amendment and I can second.

yeah i i'm um as you wish i appreciate your work on this vice chair um i think your reasoning is very sound um and i i appreciate the point i think it's a delicate balance i agree that in principle it makes a lot of sense that all of the county-wide offices should be subject to three terms all—or at least the voters should have the opportunity to decide whether we'd like to align all of the—all countywide offices—the DA, the sheriff, the treasurer, tax collector, all of the supervisors—with three terms, as exactly as you outlined. I think that that is the right balance between stability and opportunity for turnover and new ideas, and I think that's true for all countywide offices, you know, from the supervisors to the sheriff to the DA, as I said. But I also did have the chance to consult extensively with the coalition over the last few weeks regarding the specific point. Upon the request of a couple of our countywide electeds, and a number of people did express willingness to kind of take your approach, Vice Chair. So I would be happy to accept your friendly amendment or if you want to make the motion. But either way, I think it's wise. I think it makes sense. And it's certainly—you know, the coalition folks who I spoke with were struggling with the same kind of challenge of wanting to put these turbulent options to the voters, but also acknowledging that there would be a real uphill battle in state law to make that happen. So if you want to make the motion with an amendment, I will second it or I can make the motion and accept your amendment. So I defer to you.

Okay, I'll take that as a motion and I'll second it. Thank you. Okay, and so now we are going to move to Supervisor Anderson. I see you're on the line. Oh, yes, I'm sorry, Supervisor Desmond.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand the button. Okay, this is the first time I'm seeing this. Yes, and it's long. I would like, I guess, if our council could give me a summary. I read it. It's pretty small from here. It would be nice if I had it in front of me, and I hate these long amendments right during the meeting from the diaspora to decide on it. So I was going to ask the county council, could you summarize what this is?

Let me read it. We'll get you a copy. Okay. Part of the reason why it's so long, it's not the actual language and the change in the proposal. It's just all the procedure that we have to go through because it's a charter amendment. So let me just read it out loud. I was trying to avoid that, but I'm happy to do that. Does this change the ballot language at all?

Yes. So can we get that up here as well?

Yes, and we can provide a copy to you, but the ballot language will also be included in the second reading, provided this passes in the second reading on June 25th.

We're voting on it today, though.

So, I will, per your request, let me read it. One, adopt a resolution entitled Resolution of the Board of Supervisors, Amending Resolution No. 26-20. 024, proposing amendments to the Charter of the County of San Diego entitled, A Transparent, Accountable, Modern County Government. To approve the introduction of a revised ordinance, first reading, amended from the ordinance that was introduced at the April 21, 2026 meeting entitled an ordinance called a special election to be consolidated with the statewide general election on November 3rd, 2026 for the purpose of submitting to the voters amendments to the San Diego County Charter entitled a transparent, accountable, modern county government. Submit the revised ordinance for further board discussion and adoption. Second reading on June 25th, 2026. authorize the chair to file a ballot argument in any rebuttal and to determine other voters and or associations that may join in signing. Direct the chief administrative officer to provide residents with impartial factual information regarding the proposed charter amendments and their potential implications for county governance. These efforts may include, but are not limited to, an impartial website summary, public forums, social media, tele-town halls, and other forms of community outreach designed to ensure residents have clear accessible and current accurate information to make an informed decision on the proposed measure. Direct the chief administrative officer, and this is number six, direct the chief administrative officer, county council, and the clerk of the board of supervisors.

This is all the revisions that you're proposing with all these strikeouts here. You got to be kidding me. And this is the first time I've seen it. There's going to be a second reading, sir.

There's going to be a second reading. Okay.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't share with you based on the Brown Act. You know, I would love to be able to share, but I can't because we're prohibited and I don't want to end up in jail. So this is how we have to do it. No, we can't though. The round act is very clear that we cannot do that. So I'm sorry about that, but this is what we get paid. We actually do. There's a lot of elected officials that don't get paid. We do. And so this is part of our job, I think. So number six would be direct the chief administrative officer, county council, and the clerk of board of supervisors to support all activities related to the actions described in this board letter, including, but not limited to consolidating charter annotations into an appendix and working with the charter reform implementation task force to support implementation of the approved reforms. Can I still get the county council? Yeah, absolutely.

And, Chair, what's on the screen is what has county council asked me to show from the resolution.

And that is... I was able to absorb none. Okay.

Go ahead. Supervisor Desmond, the strikeouts you're seeing were already there. So the only change...

I can't tell from here.

The only change is to add, so 401.5 relates to term limits. That was deleted initially so that it would apply to all elected officials.

So what are you looking at?

So 401.5 is term limits for the board of supervisors. Section 401.5. The entire section is going to be added back in. It's in the current charter. It's going to be added back in, revised to three terms. And then we deleted the section that would apply these term limits to any other elected official. Those are the only changes proposed by the vice chair.

You put the three terms back in, but the reference to any other elected is out.

Correct.

That's not what I understood in the other chair.

She has accepted this amendment and that's what's in there for my amendment. Yes. That is what's on the floor right now.

And then the ballot question was amended accordingly.

I did. I did. I started my comments with that, sir. It's okay. I get it. It's a, it's, it's a lot. And, and unfortunately we can't share it before the meeting. So yeah. I think that's very clear to the public too. So it's all good. I think, yeah, no, thank you. Uh, thank you. Um, any other questions, clarifying questions before we go to supervisor Anderson?

I, uh, I want to point out that I brought an item up a few months ago and I wanted to have a robust discussion and I didn't care if we voted on it that day, just so that it could be within the Brown act and that I wasn't bringing something that was too complicated. and dumping it on people before they had a chance. I just want to let you all know we don't have to do a vote today. We can have a robust discussion and in our next meeting we could actually have a vote after everyone's had time to think about this. Now Were you going to move forward with a vote? Are you going to let me present and then go forward with a vote? I'm not trying to jump the ship.

No, no, I understand. Go ahead and present. We're still hearing the items concurrently, and then we'll do the deliberation. I was hoping that was the answer. Thank you. Yes, yes.

So there's a couple things that are clear that I wasn't going to bring up that I'm going to bring up now because some of the public may not have been here before. But... This was presented to us and then there were four erratas. Erratas are last minute changes after the board letters have gone out. The last one I was given prior to coming on to the dais, I asked that we have time to read it and can we postpone the vote to the following day so that we would all have time to read everything that was in this and I was told no. The chair said no, she's going to move forward with the vote, not this chair, the chair on the web. And then I said, well, my constituents like me to read things before I vote on them, and I have absolutely no time to read it. And I was told to write my own if I didn't like it. So that's why we're here today with item 25. I wrote my own. I also in that meeting requested that we get a side-by-side document showing what the current charter was and what the changes were. And so we requested that on the 21st. We received it on May 11th, a week ago, and it came confidential, which is not helpful because I had requested that I have something to send to my district so people could respond and they would know. Fortunately, we were able to get that and were allowed to send it out. I know that we had a year to work on this. This is probably the most important vote all of us are going to take because it's a charter change. I know that the chair had been working on this for a year, but even today, we're learning about things in it that aren't absolutely correct. If we could put my slides up and start with slide one. And I'm going to go through these a little bit on the fast side. I took the two, put them next to each other. So when it comes to definitions, no change, suspension of officers, no change, fire authority, no change, community advisory board, all that language in the charter that's been changed, we agree with. If we could go to the next one, please. County Ethics Commission, absolutely, I agree, we need this. Right now, we don't have ... If you wanted to file a complaint, there's no place to file it to, so we need this. I was surprised to learn that we didn't have something. The next item, the auditor spending data, no change to that. If we could go to the next item, the political activities in Section 914, no changes. Appointing officers, no changes. And then when we get to slide four here, we start to get some changes. So this extends our term limits to three consecutive terms. Not have to be consecutive, but three terms total. And I don't have a problem with that. I think that mirroring legislative terms makes good sense because hopefully we have a relationship like earlier today with assemblywoman Patel. She wanted to be involved with ours in that interaction with the state is good sense. The issue that I have is assembly bill for 28 enacted in 2021. Uh, County staff or county council has interpreted it in one way, but state legislative council has interpreted it in another way. So here's the issue. If it's taken to court to be decided, there's a chance that we could get one extra term or we could get three additional terms. And I don't think that anybody on this board intended to be on this board for 20 years. And that's what it would give us. And so I thought, why confuse it all? Why don't we just change it to say, All newly elected would fall under the new charter rules. And by the way, this is how term limits have been done throughout California. This is the first time it's ever been done retroactively. And I want to remind you all, our original term limits, SEIU put it on the ballot because they had grievance with the current supervisors. Those current supervisors, I think they were either 16 or 20 years in office when that term limit came in place. If they thought it was constitutional, they would have made theirs retroactive, and they didn't. So until a judge intervenes on this, I think, why have all this controversy? Let's just remove it. If it's good government, it's going to be good government. But there are Under this provision, a judge could rule that we have three more terms. For my case, that would be a 20 of 20 years, same with supervisors or loss and remorse. That's one of my first changes. This is to remove confusion and make it easier for the voters to decide. If we could go on to the next item, please. Thank you, Supervisor Montgomery-Stepp. This is exactly what you proposed. Since we don't have direct control over the treasurer, the district attorney, or the sheriff, it made no sense to include them. Some of my constituents had alleged to me that including things that we don't have control is a way of tricking people into voting for things that sound good but actually are not impacted. In order for us to move forward with this, we would have to wait until state law is changed. We have no authority in this level. So you've already addressed it. I think this is one area we all agree that we shouldn't be making rules for people we have no control over. If we could go over to item six. Thank you. I love the idea of an independent program auditor. We need an auditor, and it's really important that we have an independent one. The problem I had with the Lawson-Riemer proposal is we hire them on the board, they report directly to us, and we get to fire them. And my proposal says let's make them independent. Riverside, San Bernardino, the city of Oakland, many, many communities up and down California have a duly elected. And the reason why elected is important is we don't have any influence over them. See, if I can fire you, are you going to tell me bad news? Of course you're not going to tell me bad news. Now, you may, but you may not. And so if we really want to have an independent auditor, we get them elected. And then that person, like in Riverside, San Bernardino, there's many more, but those are the ones that come to mind. They would truly give us independent advice because we have no ability to fire them. Now, however, being an elected official, if they do a poor job, they won't get reelected. But if they do a great job, they'll get reelected. So I want to make sure there is a firewall between us having influence, undue influence, over the auditor. Otherwise, that's no different than the staff we have that provides those functions. That's my second change. If we could go to the next item, please. In Lawson Reamer's proposal, she wants to have more influence on staff. Right now, we have, I think it's five positions, I have it written down here, of people that report directly to us. The CAO, the County Council, there's a few other positions that report directly to us. We have the ability to fire. The way that's currently done is the CAO picks her staff. And she's able to bring her staff up. I'm saying she because it could be a he in the future, but right now it's a she. So they have it. With us choosing their staff for them, we're undermining their authority and we're politicizing the process. And, you know, when we're thinking about these rules, when we're thinking about our Constitution, I trust my colleagues to be good people doing great things, but we don't know who's going to replace us. What if Donald Trump got a majority of this board? Would you be happy with those rules? Perhaps not. If Joe Biden, President Biden, got control of this board, would we be happy with it? Perhaps not. It shouldn't matter who's elected. The filling potholes shouldn't be political. So we remove this. We go back to the older one. We don't want to politicize those positions. And here I show it. The leaders currently are the CAO. the county council, clerk of the board, probation officer, and then the executive officer of in-home support services public authority. Now, if they wanted to add the probation, head of probation, because that was in there, I would be good in doing that. But what I don't want to do is micromanage our staff's staff. And I want to make sure that we're protecting every civil servant I shouldn't be worried. And by the way, some of the titles, like ACAO, it's an arbitrary title. There's no absolute definition, no limit. You could literally go back and say, Ian, who works for me right here, who's doing this, Ian could be my legislative staffer backslash ACAO, and then the board would have influence over him. So there's no guardrails, and I trust my colleagues, but like I said, who's the next person that follows us in office? I don't know anything about them yet, and they may be scoundrels. So that's one of my changes. If we could go to the next one. Okay. So right now there's a moat around purchasing. See, we don't want We want to have every protection in the world. Now, right now, we have tremendous protections around us intervening. I can't call the purchasing department and talk to staff about a single source contract or any other contract and walk them through it why it's important to me that we do this because that's undue influence by politicals. We have all sorts of provisions that we don't want single source contracts. We want an open bidding process. Remember, this isn't about politicizing these things. It's about protecting them from being politicized. We don't want a Talmany Hall where we give kickback contracts to our buddies and steer those contracts. We want an open and fair process. When you remove the language that specifically prohibits the Board of Supervisors from influencing or coercing purchasing and contracting staff, I think that's the wrong direction. Now, I get it. Sometimes it's very frustrating on this board that you give instruction and then the person goes off in the opposite direction. And you have no way to call them and say, no, no, no, no, no, no. Please don't do this. Don't do it this way. This is the intent. This is where we want to go. So I understand the frustration. But my proposal maintains that moat around the procedure. And many of you have read the DA's investigating a contract of ours that we made. It was a single source contract. And if we didn't have this moat, then we all potentially would be in danger of being part of that investigation. But because the moats in place, nobody from this board interfered with that single source contract in our current language protected us from criminal charges or being accused of criminal charges. So that's, uh, another change of mind. And then if we could go to the next page, please. Um, So right now, we have a rule. If I call and I say, I got this great idea. I think we should make all the cups in the county green. I can go to staff and I can say, staff, I'd like for you to do some research on this subject. They can only spend eight hours. Then they have to come back to the board. If I want to do more research, I have to have my colleagues agree to that research. That way, right now, it protects staff from having five bosses who are having them do their personal interest but not looking at the overall interest to the county. The current proposal loosens those limits on the Board of Supervisors' interactions with civil servants and allows the Board to provide input on hiring and dismissal of officers' employees. Mine would protect the civil servants from interference by politicians and provide the added protections, potential interference with purchasing and contracting. I'm proposing we don't make any changes to it. The changes they're making would allow them So can you imagine if I have the ability to influence whether you're hired or fired and then I'm coming to you and I'm an elected official, I'm not saying anybody on this board would do it, but you don't want to have undue influence on the machine of government that fills your potholes. You want to keep it protected. Our job on the board is to set the bar And then it's the staff's job to achieve the bar. They're the ones that climb the mountain and make it happen. And we give that direction. This lets elected officials be more of micromanagers and more controlling of the administration. Now, at first light, you think that's good? You know, we've all had a good boss, and we think they're terrific, but what if you have a bad boss? What if you have somebody on this board that's absolutely kooky, and they want to have every stray dog researched by county staff? There will be no protections for the institution. So that's why I reverted to the original language. If we could go to the next page, please. Okay. So just like in the earlier one, in Lawson Reamer's proposal, it removes the requirement for supervisors to reside in their district they represent. So you literally could live in Orange County, Riverside, Nevada, Tijuana, Mexico, anywhere you want to live. Now, that... is not something the charter can do alone. It requires state law change. And when people said, well, you know, you're exaggerating, I took it from what county council gave us is, what was in it. And I trust the council gave us good advice. But I want to remove that. I think that it's really important that supervisors live in their district, feel the pain their constituents feel, and the joy that they can rejoice together. So that's another change. And this doesn't do anything unless state law changes. But why have it in there? unless you want to live outside your district and you don't feel that you need to be part of the people that you represent. And I think that's a mistake. So if we could go to the next one. You know what? I screwed up. Can we go back two items? So on the non-interference, I didn't fully understand it. until a constituent brought it to my attention. This and the next item are not included in my proposal and these would be amendments that If we move forth my proposal, we would have to add to my proposal. I couldn't do it. This one, I just flat out missed until a constituent shared it with me. The other item, I didn't realize, I was told it was taken out until I received your document, County Council, and that would have to be removed. It's not in my document either because of that. And then if we could just go to the quick conclusion, and I'm happy to answer questions. So we're maintaining most of the county chair's position. We're not changing a lot. But I tried to remove all the provisions that look like flaws and that seem to be self-serving. But I wanted to... protect all the lands long-standing good ideas the ethics great idea the auditor awesome idea but making it truly independent so I wanted to strengthen the transparency and enhance the accountability and I want to make it you know I agree with the chair I want to make this review meaningful and I wanted to have meaningful input and I want to have this debate and in the open and i would really no matter what we do i think it's important that we go to everybody's district and explain to them what we're doing but you know you worked on it for a year and i get the brown act prohibits us from certain communications but if i knew that you were working on it i would have recommended that we had an open hearing as a discussion item And then moved forward so people knew that we were working on it and you could get input on the front end from all of us. But, you know, getting four erratas, getting one minutes before I come on to the dais, not having a chance to read it. and then being expected to vote on the most important vote I'll ever place. We have all sorts of outreach throughout the district on our budget. That's just one year's budget. This is in perpetuity. It's way more important. And I just want to make sure to give it the attention. So, um, the one last thing is I know you love booklets. So I have a booklet over 1300 letters of support, some from elected officials from some from government agencies, some from chambers, uh, why, but, uh, over, uh, just under 1300 ordinary Joe's just like our neighbors. I included all their names for everybody. This is a lot better than 1,300 pages for each of us. This is my environmental side. I saved a lot of paper. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Look, I want to get to five votes. These reforms, most of them are really important, but it's more important that we get them right than to put something on the ballot only to lose because it's not clear what it's going to do for folks. Thank you, Madam Chair, for being so patient. And thank you, colleagues.

Thank you so much, Supervisor. I do see Supervisor Desmond gives a couple of clarifying questions because I know that the chair probably has some response that I want to save until after public comment. And so you have any clarifying questions, Supervisor?

Well, I asked Ryan, can we get both? ballot languages up. Uh, so while during public comment, you don't have to do it right now, but during is that I'd like to see, I guess, 25 and then the new 24, uh, ballot language. So, okay. I just like to see those side by side. And then I guess I'm asking, uh, supervisor Anderson, is that a substitute motion?

Uh, I don't know what the procedure is. I'm not, I mean, look, uh, To me, I don't want this to be partisan. I want the best policy overall. I know what I'm comfortable voting for. I've never supported anything that isn't transparent and anything that doesn't enhance the lives of my constituents. But what I'm open to is a discussion, and maybe there are things that that we all can agree on. And I'd like to move forward with things that we all can agree on. And I want to be open-minded about it. And I'm not going to try to ramrod or do anything. I think I made a pretty good case for the stuff that I think need to be changed. But there's some flexibility.

Okay. And I mean, now is not the only time for a substitute motion. So if the supervisor decides that when we go into deliberations, that's okay too. Okay. I'm going to turn it over to our recorder. You know, you'll say your whole title because it has five different parts of it. Jordan Marks.

Wait until they throw in Commissioner of Civil Marriages somewhere in there. So, good morning, Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp and Board of Supervisors. My name is Jordan Marks. I'm honored to serve as the San Diego County Assessor. serving alongside 450 amazing public servants in my department. I'm a licensed attorney, a taxpayer watchdog, and one of the county's three constitutionally protected countywide offices with the district attorney and the sheriff. Charters and laws should never be written by those in power to benefit themselves. They should be written to withstand the test of time. That's why it's important that we spend time making sure we do the right thing today. because when unchecked authority is created today, that same authority can belong to somebody that is untrustworthy tomorrow. The item 24 proposal brought forward by Supervisor Tara Lawson-Reimer started an important conversation. The proposal to invest and spend important county revenue and create and staff an ethics commission and an independent county auditor are a meaningful and worthy discussion. In my opinion, it's also a worthwhile investment. I mean, we have to recognize, I looked up in the city of San Diego budget, we're expected to match them with what's going to be a $2 million investment. And they have six staff members and numerous non-personnel costs to conduct and investigate enforcement actions. And I'm going to say it's worthwhile. And I know Supervisor Montgomery-Stepp came from the city of San Diego as a council member. You saw their important work firsthand. And I can agree. In the county of San Diego, we need this. It's necessary and a worthwhile time, even during our county's current budget deficit. item 24 needs significant reforms it has riddled with errors and unintended consequences quite frankly i felt this process was in rushed and not inclusive of the entire county i'm very active in the community and there are a number of folks that told me they were not engaged in this they're professionals that we rely upon in fact numerous amendments were actually filed the day of your original vote which left us limited time to review it along with stakeholders Department leaders election integrity experts and operational professionals. The result is a proposal with significant errors and unintended consequences I appreciate the guidance of former City of San Diego manager Jack McGrory who now served as chair Lawson Rivers key advisor on this item 24 proposal and He himself identified key areas that need to be fixed on this charter amendment before moves forward and asked that we do so today For example as drafted item 24 does allow in the future for elected officials to not live in the districts that they serve I know that's something that none of us believe in I think that we should live in the communities We serve it's very important whether you're mayor of Imperial Beach or a county supervisor That's something that we have to deliver and that's something that I hope that we can reform today and it deserves pause Second, after reviewing Assembly Bill 428, which addresses term limits on supervisors, it appears to me that if we vote yes on item 24 as is, that you may be voting to put forward five terms in office, up to five terms for a supervisor. That's three additional terms beyond the two-term limit permitted today, a significant departure from the term limits approved by the voters in 2010. Further, multiple legal experts and statewide professional organizations have warned that portions of the proposal are unconstitutional and can lead to costly litigation. I want to thank Vice Chair Montgomery's step for addressing that item and for your thoughtful leadership, especially on this item. At a time when we are in budget deficit, it's not a time that we should see items move forward that can waste tax dollars with costly litigation. I also want to agree with Mr. McGrory. He recommended removing provisions that would politicize staff hiring and weaken contracting safeguards. I think that's something that we all have to make sure that is done before we move forward. I will do everything possible, and I believe each of you want to as well, to protect our county employees from politicizing their jobs and the hiring process. County contracts should be protected from any political influence. Public trust depends on it, and that's why this item 24 as is is not ready for approval. I want to thank Supervisor Anderson for bringing forward some alternative and thoughtful ideas on the proposal. Your intent to preserve the strongest elements of these reforms while improving transparency, accountability, and public trust. I know it reflected community input and thoughtful revisions, including from myself and the other county-wide elected officials that had not been engaged before. I think we owe it to San Diegans to get this right we need to have strong reforms these are very important reforms and I'm really glad to see the portions of chair loss rumors proposal that will help make sure we I respectfully ask that the board thoughtfully consider Supervisor Anderson's proposals and as we look forward to a stronger path forward and work building upon Supervisor Tara Lawson-Reimer's important foundations for consensus. This is our constitution and I hope it's something that the entire community can feel that we're a part of. I look forward to not only it being a 5-0 vote today and finding a path forward but also 100% support of the public at the ballot. This should be something that we all are proud of. So thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Okay, that concludes the presentation part, so we'll now go to public comment.

Thank you, Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. We have 38 requests to speak, 16 individuals in person, and 22 requesting to speak by phone. For e-comments, on item number 24, I'd like to note for the record, we did receive 58 e-comments. Three were in favor, 54 were in opposition. And for item 25, 57 e-comments. In total, 55 were in favor and two were in opposition. For anyone who is requesting to speak by phone, please dial into the conference line now using the instructions that were provided to you. We'll go ahead and begin with the in-person speakers. As your name is called, please come forward and stand on the arrows until it is your turn to speak at the podium. You'll then have one minute to address the board. If you could please begin by saving your name for the audio record. I will be calling individuals in groups of three, so please listen for your name. And then we'll call the first three speakers. We have Dorothea Flanagan, Rachel, I believe it's Sullivan, and Dawn Couch.

One minute. I could talk a half an hour on this.

Did I start? Ready? If you start by your name, stating your name, please.

I'm Dorothea Flanagan of District 5. North San Diego County. I'm Bonsall's unpaid independent auditor, investigator, protectorate of the scenic beauty and a 44-year resident of cleaning up the whole place, even hiring men $40 an hour to do what I can't get the county to do. Just so you know where I'm coming from. I have a desire to get full disclosure out of politicians and the community sponsor groups. Our sponsor group, the Bonsall Community, violates this Brown Act seven times, okay? And I'm fully qualified to know this. That was my expertise. That is what my degree was all about. There's no disclosure about billboards coming in.

Thank you. And then Rachel and Dawn, you can go ahead and line up on the arrows. Thank you.

Good morning. I am Assistant District Attorney Rachel Solove here on behalf of DA Summer Steffen. The DA has the responsibility to protect the rights of all communities across the county, and that begins with ensuring our charter forms are honest, transparent, and lawful. Both proposals have some very good ideas. Item 24 has the really good proposal for an independent ethics commission, though we would suggest that our statewide expert on ethics and political corruption be included in future development of the Commission to make sure it's truly independent. Item 25 protects county contracting and purchasing functions from interference by supervisors and political influence by allowing professional staff to do their job independently. It also brings clarity to term limit language by accurately stating the measure is expanding term limits as opposed to setting term limits, which could be misleading to voters. Finally, we appreciate the Vice Chair's amendment, which removes the language about the constitutionally elected offices. By taking the best of both proposals, we can create a win for the people we serve.

Good morning, my name is Don Couch, and in a way of background, I have nine years experience as an executive assistant to the mayor of Maui County, and I'm six years experience as an elected county council official for the county of Maui. I've participated in charter change process firsthand, and know how difficult it is. One thing we did in Maui County is had a charter commission that had was full public And they took the year to come up with the proposed changes instead of a single Member coming up with a whole bunch of changes that you have to read in one meeting That's kind of crazy. The big thing here is the bundling the bundling is a problem you put everything in one There are some good ideas some bad ideas. Let's put some Related items together and and have the voters have a little bit more of a choice Each measure is significant enough almost to stand alone. I do want to talk about the term limits. Oh I guess I can't thank you.

Thank you. All right. We'll call the next three speakers forward. I believe it's a lore cauldron Doyle Morrison and Alicia Morrison

Alicia Morrison, where is the need for an independent ethics oversight? My understanding, elected leaders are required under AB 1234 to take ethics training. If you're seeking accountability, the duties of the grand jury service will look into the workings of government. Anybody can file a truthful complaint with a simple click of a button. On June 8, 2010, voters passed Prop B to amend the charter to a two-term limit for board of supervisors. A picture is worth a thousand words. I am not in support of three terms for anybody. It was a proposed amendment introduced on January 23rd to increase the number of times a person can be elected president. All government starts at the local level. Let's not forget January 6th. Respectfully, I oppose the increase to a three-term limit. Thank you.

Uh, Doyle Morrison. I believe in transparency, accountability, independent oversight. They're all great. However, with transparency, how many survey supporters have changed their status to oppose now that they realize the increase of current term limits was incognito? With accountability, the independent budget analysis and independent program auditor shall serve at the pleasure of the board in an unclassified service and may be removed at any time by a majority of the board. This dilutes accountability. Independent oversight, most reasonable people think that independent oversight is performed by an outside entity that can analyze and audit with impunity, but the board will appoint the independent budget analyst program auditor. I already question impartial independent results and appointments aren't even pending yet. If this manages to get on the ballot, the voters will have an opportunity to evaluate your transparency, hold you accountable, and act as your unified independent oversight and vote it down. And we will have expended our tax dollars and have no deliverable benefit. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We will call the next three speakers forward. Oliver Twist, allegedly Audra, and Karen Fowle. Karina Fowle.

Hi, good morning, Oliver Twist here. And when you talk about robust community input, what you really mean is what I call the hue crew of special interests. They're the ones that showed up and filled the room on the 21st. What this has led to is a circular economy where you feed them dollars and contracts and then they show up to show support for the things that you want. Again, the self-serving loop has actually increased our budget now over five years by 33%. This is unsustainable. I've been sounding the alarm. This needs to be reined in. Your changes and reform, air quote, reform, do not. Next, Jack McGrory, the infamous charter ticket guarantee. Look where that got the city of San Diego. Independent oversight, that's the foxes watching the hen house. You need, especially with Taro's accusations about quid pro quo. Lastly, no queens in San Diego. This deal stinks worse than the Tijuana sewage. Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors. My name is Karina Pugh. My pronouns are she, her, and I am speaking in support of item 24 on behalf of the San Diego LGBT Community Center. This proposal represents an important step towards strengthening transparency, accountability, and good governance at the county level. County residents and taxpayers deserve clear, accessible information about how public funds are allocated and spent, and this proposed ballot measure would provide greater transparency to help ensure that accountability. The creation of an independent budget analyst would also provide county leaders and the public with access to objective nonpartisan fiscal analysis to support informed and responsible decision-making. Since 2004, the City of San Diego's independent budget analyst has served as a trusted source of factual budget information for both policymakers and residents, while also contributing to improved budget oversight and public engagement. Establishing a similar office for the county has the potential to create those same benefits here. Ensuring voters can weigh in on these measures that strengthen transparency and public trust is essential to good governance. Thank you.

And we'll call the next couple speakers, Park Troutman and Michael Brando.

It's like watching Jerry Springer, so crazy. It's like, we could make it even more fun if you guys had like water balloons filled with, I don't know, sewage from the Tijuana River Valley. Joel, you know that Jezebels are gonna castrate you and Jim as they always do. I don't know if you could just ask to make a motion to give your balls back because like none of this is going to be beneficial to the people. The racket's still gonna go around even if you get what you want. But you know those ladies don't wanna do that. You know, I mean, it's obvious the way there's like shit throwing going on. That's why it's like Jerry Springer. It's really sad because you guys should come together and be like, how are we going to work together to change this, to make it so that everybody gets a chance to add what they want? Instead, unchecked and checked authority is taking place. That's so sad.

Hello, my name is Park Troutman. I'm with San Diego 350, a climate organization, and we continue to support the original package of proposed reforms. I specifically want to speak about the portion about giving the board a role in the next level of hiring and firing of top management. I used to work at the county for almost five years and worked on several items where we got direction and then had to return to the board. It was fascinating, a little disquieting to watch how the proposal that was generated within public health service as it moved up the chain of command that changes would be required by management about what the board secretly really wanted, which would always be the same thing as what that manager wanted. This proposal to change the hiring and firing, giving the supervisors a role, helps ensure that everyone is on the same page. Thank you.

Michael, transparency, accountability, how funny. You guys can't even manage a meeting. It's almost noon, and because the Tuesday agenda was over-stacked, it's pushed now, to now, and it's gonna go late with the land use meeting. You can't even manage a meeting. then you mix the meeting agenda items up so people get all confused. And so you're talking about transparency and accountability with this. This is part of that. You've demonstrated your character, Monica. You're the one who wanted to limit not agenda speaking time to 60 seconds. So this show that you're putting on is a bunch of lies. Each one of you have things against you that you've proven by your character. We've got Paloma over here who intimidates people at sand dad intimidate speakers and you're trying to cut me off now. Go ahead.

No, sir. I, I, I pause your time. I want you to have your full amount of time. I just would please ask that you stick to the item. I understand you have opinions. Um, I would just try to rope those into the subject matter.

And that proved that you're digging your hole deeper. How good can it get? You're in trouble.

Next three speakers are Mary. Portland Bates and Matthew Gardner.

Mary Suriano, President of La Jolla Town Council. Item 24, oppose. Item 25, support side-by-side slide. This will go to ballot because the majority, Tara, Aguirre, and Montgomery. Intentions on the ballot needs to be transparent to voters. Headline, board of supervisors wants to hire and fire positions that are independent. How is this accountable and independent? If the people do not like the decisions that are being made on this board to unseat a county board of supervisors extended seat up to 12 years or to 12 years will be nearly impossible. The people are tired on not being heard. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Portland Bates, the President and CEO of Lemon Grove's Chamber of Commerce. I'm here in support of item 25. My favorite quote is, the noblest motive is a public good. The county motto is plastered on every county building, county outreach, and anything county related. I'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Sheriff Martinez, District Attorney Stephan, and a broad coalition of community leaders operating under the sentiment that our county motto represents. Our county charter is the Constitution of San Diego County. It should never be altered behind closed doors, and it should never be weaponized for political gain. Respectfully, I ask the board two questions. First, is your vote today noble? And second, is it for the public good? It's your duty to protect the integrity of county government. It's your duty to protect and make sure that the millions that you're governing billions of taxpayer dollars are made in open and public with full participation. And it's your duty to put legal uncertainty behind us. Thank you.

Hello, thank you. My name is Matt Gardner. I am a board member of the Mission Beach Town Council, but speaking on behalf of the general and business communities here in San Diego. And I do have to say this, I am in support of Mr. Anderson's proposal here, and I believe it keeps all the best parts of item 24, but keeps the best parts of protecting the public good, protecting the public interest, protecting And the safeguards that are there, when five people vote on increasing their own power and taking off their own limiters, that really is an egregious thing. I think if anything, if you pick and choose the best of what is there, the power that is necessary to complete your job, that should be for future generations and not for your own. Those limiters are there for a reason. You know, Supervisor Montgomery's step, you mentioned earlier, you do get paid for what you do, and it is a hard job, and I recognize that. And that hardness is there for a reason. The difficulty is a proof of if your ideas are good enough to convince everybody as a pool of supervisors, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right, it's worth doing hard. So please follow Joel Anderson. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll call the final in-person speakers. Nadia, I believe it's Moshe Ryan and Summer Ismail. And then recalling Allure Cauldron.

All right. Good afternoon, honorable members of the Board of Supervisors, county staff, and leadership. My name is Nadia Mushirian-Binderup, and I am the special assistant to Sheriff Kelly Martinez. Sheriff Martinez sends her regards. She couldn't be here today, but I am speaking on her behalf. Sheriff Martinez respectfully urges the board to take a thoughtful and measured approach to the county charter reform effort and supports revisions that preserve transparency, accountability, and the safeguards that have long supported effective county governance. The county charter establishes the framework for how our government operates. Changes to a governing document of this significance deserves careful consideration, not only for their intended goals, but also for their long-term impacts and potential unintended consequences. While the Sheriff supports efforts to strengthen transparency and public trust, reforms should also preserve the protections that ensure county operations remain effective, impartial, and accountable. The sheriff appreciates the opportunity to have conversations and considerations the chair and vice chair have taken to remove the language that voters do not have the power to change at the county level. Thank you.

Good afternoon, County Board of Supervisors. My name is Summer. I am a student at SDSU getting my master's in public administration, and today I'm going to specifically talk about the term limits. I think that the proposal has good intentions. Thank you, Supervisor Joel Anderson. But I think we should acknowledge the work that has been put forth by the current County Board of Supervisors, so why go back to square one? I think it's important. And just because it hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean that San Diego cannot be a leader, as we have been historically. different initiatives and I'd also like to acknowledge just because that we extend a term limit doesn't mean that that is a finite reality the people are always in charge of electing someone so if the people are capable of putting their vote where their heart is and making sure that our county board of supervisors fully represent the people and their interests and if they don't like how boards the supervisors are acting that they we can mobilize and always use our vote and that is why we have fought so long to have that and we want to ensure that our Board of Supervisors reflects the people's needs and carries out what the community wants in an effective manner. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Alor Calderon. I'm the director of the Employee Rights Center. And I was one of the people in one of the organizations that work on items 24. As stated, we need the kind of transparency, accountability, and oversight that the original proposal puts forward. We have been part of many, many audiences like this one where the way in which the county's budget is being applied does not have the kind of transparency and the kind of accountability that we have required in order to be effective in the things that we need from the county government. We really don't understand why we need to lessen the accountability measures that, you know, Supervisor Anderson is looking for. And I would end by saying that if there is term limits are good for the supervisors, they should also be good for the sheriff and for the attorney general, for the brother, for the people and staff. Thanks.

Thank you. And we will now hear from those that have requested to speak by phone. Again, when it's your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted. You'll then hear a recording that will tell you to begin your comments. And we'll go ahead and begin with our first caller.

Hello, it would be The amendments make this better and somewhat more palatable. Much of this is still self-serving and tends to promote partisan politics while not doing that much for transparency or independent oversight of county government. new charter amendment that there are did item 24 needs to be rejected um in particular uh appointing an auditor and so on budget analysts who can be fired uh they aren't independent at all um thanks to joe for insurance for introducing a much more reasonable alternative. There are some good additions and changes and while not perfect, it's a hell of a lot better than changes in agenda item 20. Thank you.

Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker. Our next speaker is Consuelo. Your phone is connected. You may be muted. We'll come back to you. Go to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Becky Rapp and I'm here today in support of Supervisor Anderson's alternative charter proposal. The public approved two four-year terms for county supervisors and current supervisors were elected under those rules. If the county wants to debate longer-term limits for future supervisors, that is a conversation voters can have. But existing supervisors should remain under the same rules the voters already approved. I also want to note that supervisors should be required to live within the district that they represent, even though state law already established residency requirements. We should not be opening the door to weakening that expectation. I appreciate Supervisor Anderson for listening to community concerns and bringing forward a proposal that restores guardrails, protects independent oversight, and respects the will of the voters. Please preserve the current two-term limit for existing supervisors and support the revised proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hello, my name is Russell James. I'm speaking today on item 20. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

I'm speaking today on item 24 and 25. As it stands, What I've seen today as far as discussion, I think it's pretty obvious that this item needs to be discussed and collaborated on much more before it's in any form to be put on the ballot for the voters. As it stands right now, I would have to vote no on 24 as a voter, and I would support Supervisor Anderson's proposal, item number 25. Transparency. Collaboration and cooperation, accountability all needs to be put forth. There's some very good things in the item 24 that should stay. And thank you.

Thank you. Go to our next speaker.

Good afternoon. I'm Anne-Marie Hogan, retired California city auditor on behalf of the Association of Local Government Auditors, ALGA. We commend the board for taking action to strengthen accountability by establishing an independent performance auditor program auditor. One, ALGA and the Federal Government Accountability Office, the GAO, agree that both elected and legislatively appointed auditors can be independent and effective. Two, the Charter must spell out one critical expectation, require the auditors follow generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States and the GAO. The Charter should establish an audit committee with members appointed by the Board collectively knowledgeable about audits and financial performance and governance matters. ALGA volunteers would be pleased to work with San Diego County about establishing an audit function that will ensure independence, accuracy, and objectivity. ALGA is the primary organization.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next caller.

It's truth. Today, Tara admitted that the state crazies are going to pass a bill that will finally get their progressive puppets into the sheriff, DA, and tax collector seats. Monica, people don't want you in jail. People want you progressives in prison. This whole thing is a charade of democracy, hence the public getting 60 seconds to address two major bastardizations to our so-called Constitution, allowing foreigners to become supervisors. And that's because Tara is a commie, not a mommy. This is Tara's transparent bait-and-switch, ensuring her reign of terror is indefinite by openly deceiving voters to get them to crown her county queen. Hashtag no queens. Tyrant Tara and her marionette Manuela and minion Monica are not interested in modernized government. They're interested in a power grab. Their campaign funders, SEIU, that funded the cap on term limits in 2010 to get rid of Republicans, now want permanent dictators. Tara's own staffer said her item was flawed, so nothing should be on the ballot other than Tara for prison 2026. We need accountability for Tara being found guilty of abusing her authority at the part-time lover bar in North Park. Good job, Joel.

We'll go to our next caller.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. I think for many of us who've been listening, it's been very confusing regarding what's going on with 24 and 25, particularly because so many changes were made to item 24. And so I'm wondering what's the procedural situation since we've made that many changes. Is this a final vote or since it's been changed, will it come back yet again for another vote? we could use some clarity for what that means. And I also agree with a fellow who spoke about bundling so many important items together. It's very confusing for the electorate to understand that. For me, the item of most concern is the idea that you wouldn't live in the district you represent. That's a serious issue. I can't even imagine representing an area that you don't live in. It's hard enough to even understand the culture and the climate of each of the community planning groups, let alone the area that those planning groups are in. Someone needs to look.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Louisa Veltman, yesterday many of us rearranged our schedules, took time off of work and drove to speak only for the item to be postponed because the chair was absent. That is no way to treat the public. I urge you to unbundle this charter overhaul. Ethics oversight and independent budget audits are long overdue and should not be used as a bargaining chip. Bundling items, bundling them with the extension of terms forces voters into an unfair trade-off. Voters deserve separate clear measures so we can support real accountability without extending your time in office. Essex and fiscal oversight should already be standard, not a facade to justify more terms. Please separate these measures. If the measures remain bundled, my second choice is to support Supervisors Anderson's proposed amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next caller.

Thank you, Walker. This proceeding is offensive, confusing, and yes, we need an open hearing for charter change, especially with proposed heavy benefits to existing supervisors. That alone signals why the UT endorsed an opposition candidate to Montgomery's staff to, quote, put the spotlight on, quote, truly awful decisions made by her, Lawson Reamer, and Aguirre, including misleading elements in Lawson Reamer's reform plan. Let's not forget those three manipulated emergency reserves to pay county employees millions in bonuses, clear indication self-interest and concern for employees, supersede constituent concerns as reflected in Lawson Reamer's plan. Thank you, Supervisor Anderson, for attempting to eliminate politicizing points. And by the way, presidents only have two terms. Supervisors don't need more. No on this plan.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. This is Andy Hanna, San Diego City Auditor, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Association of Local Government Auditors, which is the primary organization for the local government auditing profession in North America. ALGA commends you for considering an independent performance audit function for the County of San Diego to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and transparency of county government. and we encourage you to work with us at ALGA to design an audit function for the county that is both independent and effective. One thing that's especially important, whether an auditor is elected or appointed, is that the auditor have appropriate qualifications and be required to follow generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States to ensure that the auditor is independent, accurate, and objective. Thank you for your time, and please reach out to us at ALGA for assistance. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next caller.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. My name is Michael Stein. I'm a resident of LA Gardens. I'm here today in support of Supervisor Anderson's proposal for a more transparent, accountable, and balanced county government. Or as I heard today, I am also in support of a combined measured approach. What stood out to me about 25 is that it actually listens to the concerns raised by the public over the last proposal. Supervisor Anderson's version restores guardrails instead of removing them. It prevents political interference in staffing decisions, strengthens truly independent oversight, protects against interference in government contracting, and avoids legally questionable provisions that could create confusion and mistrust. most importantly this proposal respects the public it recognizes that the government reform should never be rushed self-serving or insulated from community input many residents took the time away from their jobs and families today because they care deeply about how this county is governed they deserve transparency thank you your time is up we'll go to our next caller

Good morning, Supervisors, and congratulations, Chair. My name is Lydia Chavez, and I'm here representing the Singleton, Shriver, and Capacity of my role as Political Director. I'm here today to support the Chair's proposal because we think many people in San Diego are looking for the same basic things from their government, transparency, accountability, and trust. For the last year, community members, labor leaders, policy experts, and residents have spent real time working on these charter reforms because people want a county government that feels more open and more accountable to the public. What I appreciate about the original proposal is that I tried to move us in that direction. It created a stronger oversight, more transparency around decisions, and more tools to make sure the government is actually working for residents. That's why I'm concerned that some of the amendments being proposed now weaken those accountability measures instead of strengthening them. A charter should be about building the best long-term system for the county. These rules are supposed to outlast all of us. At the end of the day, residents want to know that decisions are being made openly, taxpayer dollars are being watched carefully, and powerful offices are still accountable to the public. I hope the board keeps the strongest parts of these reforms intact.

Thank you. Your time is up. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hi, this is Dori Rattray in the unincorporated District 5. I'm in favor of Supervisor Joel Anderson's charter proposal, item 25. As for item 24, I think it's only appropriate for us to delay a vote on that one because we have not reviewed it in the public. I also agree with term limits. They should never be retroactive. Independent oversight is always appropriate because it's independent, not dependent upon the people that work for you. I agree with letting the chair or the chief of staff hire. I agree with open bidding and fairness on contracts and protecting the civil servants. We're the unincorporated and sometimes we're invisible, so I'm hoping that you're hearing our voice. and you will be residing in your district when you are voted in office. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, honorable Board of Supervisors. My name is Mireya Bowman, and I'm the president of the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association. My comments today, as well as those that I contained in my letter that was submitted to the board yesterday, are specific to the term limits addressed in item number 24 and addressed in item number 25 by way of revision, specifically concerning the elected offices of the DA, the sheriff, and the assessor. To truly serve our communities and provide true transparency, it is essential that change not only be founded in noble and ethical purpose, but that it must be in conformity with current law. I thank Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp for her suggested friendly amendment, item number 24, to remove the language pertaining to the elected offices of the DA, the Sheriff, and the County Assessor. And on behalf of the San Diego Deputy District Attorney's Association, I thank you all very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Noah Yiyik. I'm a resident of District 3 and a researcher with the Center on Policy Initiatives. I urge the Board to support Supervisor Lawson-Reimer's original charter reform package. The original proposal delivers real oversight, real transparency, and real accountability. Supervisor Anderson's amendments keep the title of reform while stripping out the parts that would actually make the county government answer to San Diegan. The original proposal requires board confirmation and removal authority over senior county leadership, because the people overseeing billions in taxpayer dollars should answer to someone voters can hold accountable. Supervisor Anderson's proposal removes that accountability. We elect a lot of people, but the Board of Supervisors are uniquely responsible for how our county functions day to day. The original proposal makes sure that responsibility extends to the departments running it. Supervisor Anderson's proposal breaks that chain. Vote yes on the original package. Don't hand San Diegans a degraded version with the word reform slapped on it. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to our next speaker.

Hi, this is Alejandro Martinez with MidCityCan. Definitely want to support the original proposal from D3, from Lawson Reamer. As someone who works directly with a lot of these departments that we're asking to be overseen appropriately, and in the way that voters are demanding the voices of the community. I think it also needs to be taken into account that this has not been something that has been done behind the scenes. This is a year of organizing with community voices, business leaders, organizations. This oversight is long overdue. We need to really establish a new way of overseeing our body departments because what's working right now is frankly not working and it's causing unhealthy and violent communities and we just need a change and this proposal does that. So I strongly recommend this for our youth, our communities and for San Diego County at large. So thank you D3 for doing this and thank you very much. Have a nice day.

Thank you. And we will go back to Consuelo to see if she has comments.

Hey Ryan, thank you for coming back to me. Okay, Consuelo here. So, yeah, so, yeah, the previous caller, we just need to change. So let's just do more of the same, right? Okay. So 25, first off, no on item 25. Joel's revisions. And item 24 does nothing to safeguard against entrenchment, extending term limits and creating elective administrative offices, turns public service into the permanent political employment that people have been warned about. So if adopted by voters, gullible. Naive, I mean, doing the same thing over and over. Anyway, if adopted by voters, the change would establish the framework for extending the term limits of other county elected offices in the future. So, yeah, Joel didn't even try to change the total deceptive title. And, yeah, once again, both sides are corrupt, and Joel is part of the problem. Got it?

Thank you. Your time is up. And Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay. So I'm going to go to the chair first. And I think for Supervisor Anderson, there may be some response. And so I want to make sure you have the opportunity to do that. But I want to do it in a way that is, you know, wholly responsive. Yeah, and then we'll go to Supervisor Desmond, if that's okay. Okay, Chair Lawson-Riemer, are you good to...

Yeah, I appreciate you calling on me. Thank you so much. I appreciate it very much. First, I just really want to thank all the public commenters for being here and for participating in this important conversation about governance in our county and how to make our county government actually work for everyone. I know these are complicated issues and everyone's taking a lot of time. Even folks who we might not fully agree on the outcome, but I think we are all committed to a process of making our government work better, and I really appreciate that. I mean, I think a lot of the comments today did really reflect what I've been hearing over the last year of kind of the reforms we need to make. I continue to support item 24 with the amendment proposed by the vice chair and moving forward that with one small kind of clarification and question. I do understand the importance and the gravity of what we're putting forward and I want to make sure it's that we don't inadvertently in the drafting process something potentially became more ambiguous than necessary because my, and this goes to section 401, and that's regarding the requirement that supervisors, the residency requirement that supervisors live in their districts. And that was, it was always my clear direction to county council to maintain district elections. But I also did ask that they go through the charter and identify if there was any pieces of the charter that were potentially confusing or not in alignment with state law. So to my recollection, the red line in 401, the small red line, I think there were three words, was suggested by county council during the drafting process to align with existing state law, which already requires district elections. and that the three-word deletion had no legal effect because it preserved existing district elections in accordance with state law, which was my intent. But if there's anything we need to do, according to kind of under county council's clarification, to ensure that that intent is clear, I think it would be helpful to hear that now so we could incorporate that moving forward. So I think this question is just for county council. If you could... clarify sort of your intent and reason for including 401, those three lines in 401, and whether it has any legal effect, and if there's any suggestion you would make to ensure that everyone is clear that there's no movement away from district elections intended by this charter reform. I think that is a question for County Council.

Thank you, Chair Lawson-Reimer, and I do agree and can affirm that our office's understanding of your intent was clear, and that was to maintain district elections. And in the drafting process, the recommendation was to delete the language here that was always intended to align with existing state law, which already does require district elections. The deletion of the three words in Section 401 doesn't change the legal effect of the provision since the district elections are already required under state law, but it does allow for, if state law were to change, then it would allow for a different method of voting should the county decide to do that. So if the board would prefer to retain that language in Section 401 that was proposed to be stricken for additional clarity, that revision can certainly be made. And the current amendment was not, again, intended to alter that district election voting. So it remains up to the board if they choose to keep the language in, that would not alter the proposal.

Thank you so much, Damon. I really appreciate it. So I think just to recap, keeping it in or taking it out has no legal effect, which was my understanding initially. So for me, whatever my colleagues prefer, I just want to do whatever is clear. So as sort of the seconder of the motion, if the vice chair would like to remove the three-word strike, fine with me. If she wants to keep it, fine with me. It sounds like it doesn't have any legal impact. But, of course, the intent is clearly not to move away from any district election structure. So if that's... I'm fine either way, I think, would be what I would say to the vice chair. But I definitely do not want to move away from any district election requirement.

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And just on that point, I think it's good to... be clear that with this charter revision that we want supervisors to live in the districts that they're running for. I think putting it back in might be a better choice. Putting those three words back in, I think if I'm understanding correctly, it would be clear that our constitution requires that residency.

You're correct. And you would not be able to run outside of your district currently, regardless of what took place in this vote. The law would prohibit that.

Right. OK. And I guess my thing is, if the law did change, then I don't think I'd want it to change locally.

And if the law were to change, then the board could come back if they chose to propose a change that would align with a new method of voting. But again, that would be contingent upon state law changing.

Okay. Open to, well, I will say, I want it to be clear that this county constitution does not allow for that. And so I think that would mean retaining those three words. which is what I understood our vote last time to be. Okay. So that also for clarity as a part of the motion. And we can do that and the chair has said that she's okay with that. Okay. Let's... Definitely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor... Down from nine down to eight. Okay. Supervisor Anderson, do you have anything before we go to Supervisor Desmond?

Well, some of the speakers perhaps got here late and misunderstood and didn't hear me, but I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to 12 years. I'm just saying that it would be newly elected, would qualify for the 12 years, the three terms. But current members, because of the confusion of, I don't have it in front of me, of the Assembly Bill 428 that's now law, some people have said, Their interpretation would be that you can't make it retroactive and that we would have three additional terms, not one additional term, but three. And I wanted to eliminate any kind of confusion so nobody's prohibited from voting for the reforms, because these are important reforms, based on them thinking we're going to get three terms, not one additional term. So that was the distinction, because I heard a couple of people say, that they liked the three terms, but that wasn't my point. My point was the law is pretty specific. I understand, though, that's why we have judges, because many attorneys can have different opinions. There was one other issue somebody brought up, and that wasn't ... They alluded that I didn't support the independent auditor. Absolutely, that along with the ethics commission I support. I didn't make a change, although I was a little confused when we have an ethics department with the district attorney's office why they weren't contacted and included in it. I'd be interested in what improvements they would have for us. I'm not sure there are any, but I'd be interested in their opinion. But all I was suggesting was that the person be elected. I wasn't suggesting that I didn't support it. I absolutely do. The other thing is we've had a constant flow of folks saying that so many people worked on this, this coalition that put it together. Is there a list of this coalition that we could look at to see who's in the coalition? I'd be very curious how many people from District 2, District 1, District 3, District 4, all were included in this coalition of putting the charter together. My coalition was much smaller. I looked at what was provided, and I just tried to parcel out what people would find objectionable. Finally, I have a question for County Council. As we move forward, When you're doing an initiative, there are very strict rules and communications and the rest, not using public resources to campaign for something, but how can we communicate what's been decided here into our districts in a way that's informative, and yet we're not crossing that ethical line of campaigning with county resources?

Thank you, Supervisor Henderson. Our office is actually presently preparing something for the board members that would provide some guidance along those lines that we're happy to share after we get through this process, but that is part of our plan.

Can any public events occur, like maybe county staff is there presenting it to the public, so it's not just a white paper? Because, you know, we all spoke, and I thought, in a very clear manner, yet we had people get up right after we spoke and not understand a word we said. And I blame me for, if I don't communicate well, not the person listening. I should be accommodating them. But we had so many people got up and say things that... were not the discussion. If we just send out white paper, they may come to the wrong conclusions, just like on AB 428, where some attorneys say it's three terms and others say it's just one additional term. Is there a way that we can do that? I know I've repeated myself, but the magnitude of this vote is probably the most important vote I'll place on this dais.

So for public education purposes, there's nothing prohibiting you from having events where factual information is being provided on the proposals. When it crosses into an advocacy lane, you know, then there could be some problems, but there's certainly nothing prohibiting you from any public participatory event where factual information is being shared.

Thank you very much. My staff was sending me something completely unrelated. Bad staff. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you, Supervisor.

Let's go to Supervisor Desmond. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had comments on both 24 and 25, so I might go a little long. Is there any way we can get those two ballot measures up? Anyway, while you do that, I don't want Everybody to know, and after hearing everybody and getting many phone calls and a lot of, you know, from both sides on this issue, this is, as the supervisor pointed out, one of the most important things that we're going to be voting on here as a board of supervisors in my time as well, having a massive change to the county charter. I'm very supportive of creating an ethics commission, an independent budget analyst, an independent program auditor commission, and increasing fiscal transparency. Those things are things we can already do ourselves. But I think the devil's in the details. And item 24, I'd be honest with you, I think is one of the most deceitful and self-serving efforts I've seen in my time in public office. The title of the agenda item is Modernizing the San Diego County Charter to Strengthen Transparency, Accountability, and Independent Oversight. That's the smoke that's masking the term limit increase for sitting electeds. The ballot language also sounds great. It's marketing it as a transparency and accountability measure. You have to read all the way down, at least halfway down through it to find out for the term limit increases. However, these appealing ideas, the Ethics Commission and independent auditors are just masking the true intentions of extending our own term limits to give ourselves more political power. And I don't think sitting county supervisors or any elected officials should be doing that at all. This is about the people, not about us. The measure title and ballot language, I think, are misleading, and I don't think there's anything transparent or accountable to it. So if we read the fine print in this proposal, section 500.4 would require several top level positions be approved by the board before they're hired. And to me, that's a troubling proposal that would effectively make leadership positions in the top county government now political appointments. 501.9, non-interference clause, historically regulates how supervisors and their staffs interact with county staff. We can't tell county staff what to do, which is good. We shouldn't be. The CAO, it's that person's job to give staff direction, not us. There's an additional, in Section D, grants the Board of Supervisors and their staff the ability to weigh in on the hiring or firing of more than 600 Managerial positions in the county. The board should not, under any circumstances, interfere with the hiring process of county management up and down the organization. And including in the confirmation process of these positions would change the hiring fire process of hundreds of leadership positions from merit-based to political patronage and spoil system. Section 600 would extend the supervisor's term limits from two years to four years for a total of 12. Quite frankly, I think 12 is kind of the sweet spot and where it should be. However, we, in 2010, there was an initiative to limit the supervisors to two terms. Passed with 68% of the votes. People of San Diego have spoken. They have spoken and that is the law right now that they should have that we, when we were elected, it's two terms. So the five of us here ran with that understanding, and now that we're in office, we want to change the rules for ourselves and give ourselves an extra term. I think this is ridiculous, devious, and hypocritical. The current sitting supervisors should be exempt from being able to serve a third term, period. Section 702 creates an independent budget analyst and program auditor, which is good, I support. But how independent are they? We, the board, would dictate the salary of these independent offices and the choosing of who they are. This begs the question, who are they independent from? I think they should be reportable to this people, not to the board, the supervisors, or the electeds. Section 111, or no, Section 711, established is the Ethics Commission, which sounds good. However, the Ethics Commission members would be appointed by the supervisors. And reportable to the supervisors. And they're supposed to investigate and hold us accountable. So to me, this is pretty much a farce. I think one thing we should do is implement the good pieces of this reform, which Supervisor Anderson has brought forward. We can create an ethics commission, fiscal transparency requirements, and establish independent creative auditors, all without a charter change. The problems I think are baked in are the self-interest, extending the term limits, and establishing direct political control over county staff. The charter reform package is being sold as accountability and transparency effort through the creation of these commissions, but if you look under the hood, these are all optics to sell to the public while we sneak through a self-serving extension on the term limits. I can't support This self-serving effort to extend our own term limits to give us sitting politicians more power. That's item 24. So on 25, last month, Supervisor Anderson said the charter reform package was the biggest thing he ever voted on. He said it many times today. I agree. In the past month, though, we've heard from many people voicing their concern about the charter reform package. Supervisor Anderson, I appreciate all your work and effort spent last month listening to your constituents, taking their feedbacks, and creating a new county charter amendment that keeps the transparency and accountability in and removes the self-serving political sections that people complained about, which I commend. This should be the lawmaking process taking in public feedback and incorporating it. The people have been clear from what I've heard, they don't want to see supervisors smoke and mirroring the public and grabbing a third term. The new ballot language clarifies that the new term limits would only, the new ballot language that Supervisor Anderson proposes, that it would only apply to future new supervisors. We know the county doesn't have the authority to place term limits on non-supervisor elected officials, and that's been cleared up. We don't need a political confirmation process that would compromise our leadership again. I do not want I that's not part of this proposal It keeps the old contracting language in place to prevent the supervisors from meddling and pushing their self-interest and provides the integrity and transparency of both of both good things So I would like to see if you if you look at these two Charter the board. This is the ballot language in Item 24 is the top one. Item 25 is the bottom one. The only difference between the two, the main difference between 24 and 25, is in 25 they took out, or Supervisor Anderson's proposal, took out the confirmation of certain county leaders. So we would no longer have that confirmation ability of county management. And the other difference, so it takes out the confirmation of us having the ability to hire and fire people within the county. And then also it takes out, it increases the term to three limits, but it's only for future boards of supervisors. That's the main differences between these two ballot measures. I support item 25. I appreciate the time and effort in allowing me to speak here, but this is a big change, and I want to make sure we get it right, and I think Supervisor Anderson is one I can agree to. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. So we have a motion on the floor and a second. Chair Proffin, would you?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank again all the residents and community members, organizations, advocates, civic leaders that came out and spoke today. To get its core, this item is about something very simple and very important, and I think it's something that we all agree on after much discussion. The public's right to know and the public's right to decide. Residents deserve a county government that is transparent about how decisions are made, accountable for how public dollars are spent, and clear about whether we are delivering real results for the people we serve. That kind of accountability is not partisan. It is basic good government. And it is how we build trust with the communities we represent. San Diego County, as we all know, is large, it's complex, and responsible for services that touch people's lives every day. I would say well beyond just pot filling, pothole filling. The public should be able to see into that work and understand it and have confidence that the government is acting in their best interest. This proposal moves us in that direction by strengthening transparency and accountability in a way that is ultimately placed before the voters. I want to be clear, this board is not making that final decision today. Our role is to empower the people of San Diego County to decide at the ballot box what kind of county government they want going forward. I believe the public should have that choice. For that reason, I will be voting in support of the motion on the floor. As amended by the Vice Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor Anderson.

I have a question for County Council. Can both be moved forward since it's not the final vote? We have a second reading. Can both be moved forward today so that further discussion could occur throughout this process? We don't have a list of who put together item 24 in terms of community, we still are getting some additional information. I actually said that there's some language issues that I need county council to fix on mine, my suggestion, but that would give us more time to mull over all the elements. I'm really trying to get to yes, but there's still elements I can't get to. Is that possible?

Supervisor Anderson, both could move forward today. Ultimately, if both pass at the next, the result would be two ballot questions.

Well, I'm not asking for that because that would be crazy. But I was hoping for the additional time so that we can take in all the considerations because this is the first time anybody's heard my proposal, and it may take a little time to think through. Then Madam Chair, is there a consensus on the board of wanting to see both move forward today, or is it strictly one and only one? And the reason why I'm asking is I'm looking for compromise in any way I can get it.

Yes, I appreciate that. I think I can only speak for myself. I've been pretty clear. I voted for what is now item 24. I voted for that last time in April. I was interested in hearing what you had brought forward. The amendment on the floor includes kind of two of those concepts, right? And but you know I think that this is still a sound reform that I would prefer to support over some of the other ideas that you had And so I just I would say I can only speak for myself.

That's kind of where I where I'm at Since this board is not nine people Your word holds a lot of weight

Just quickly, I wanted to remind Supervisor Anderson that, if I remember correctly, there was a binder this big, if not, maybe not 1,300 individuals, but 100 organizations that was given to us of the coalition that moved this forward. during the day that we heard that item. It might be somewhere in your office.

That crazy text I got, it was through the... Madam Chair, you ran a great meeting. I now have broken 1,400 names. We were at just under 13. Another 100-plus folks sent letters of support of 25. Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate it.

Of course. Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you. I appreciate everybody's binders. But, okay, call me crazy, but I think if this is really truly about the voters and their choice, we should give them that choice. Let's put our money where our mouths is and let the voters decide. We should approve both items 24 and 25 and place both of them on the ballot. Supervisor Anderson. Supervisor Anderson. I'm trying to put both items 24 and 25 on the ballot so that the voters have a choice between those two items, between those two measures. So if both measures are on the ballot, voters will have a real choice because we're getting binder fights up here of who's got how much better support. Let's let the people decide. Let them have the real choice and let them decide on what kind of transparency and accountability they want to see in the county. With the conflicting ballot measures, you put both of them on the ballot. The one with the higher vote wins. So I'm going to make a motion, a substitute motion, to approve both items 24 and 25 and put them both on the ballot.

From a procedural perspective, and the clerk or county council can correct me if I'm wrong, it is entirely possible for both to be on the ballot, but we still have to take two separate motions.

I got a motion on the floor.

Just a point of order. I believe that we would have to amend into the language that what would happen if both passed. So if we were going to do that, you would have to amend your language. I mean, if you're open to it, you'd have to amend your language. that you have amended. If you're not open to it, then you have your answer. By the way, I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on TV. Perhaps county council could confirm or deny what I've said. I don't think I'm clear, Supervisor. If both were to go on the ballot and both passed, generally, there's some language that says if this passes, it supersedes all others. So, right? Because you couldn't have two things pass. You can't walk on both sides of the street at the same time.

They're conflicting.

In Prop 103, that language was in there. There are other instances where they did it.

I'm being informed by my co-counsel to my left that we would not have to have any additional language. It would be based on the determination by the registrar of voters, whichever measure had the most votes, which would be the one that would prevail.

Thank you for that. Thank you for the question. I am where I am on it. That's what I just stated. So, there's any further discussion?

Substitute motion made by Desmond. I don't see a second, so it would fail. I always give a courtesy second to all my colleagues.

Yeah. And I, I mean, we can take that substitute motion first. I don't know if it's necessary. Let me, can you indulge me for a second on this?

I think we'd have to bifurcate it though, because you have to vote on 24 and 25 separately. So the substitute motion would have to be amended.

So here's it. I'm happy to, um, If you want to put an emotion on the floor first for item 25, I'm happy to vote on that first, but we, okay. And, and just, just for clarification, that is our County council. We, we are the policy makers, so we can vote on anything we want. Our County council has said that's not an appropriate or legal motion, but it does have a, it does. It is moved and it does have a second. Okay.

Uh, uh, ma'am chair, uh, it's very gracious of you to allow 25 to go first. If 25, uh, goes first, uh, um, I think that, I think from my perspective, it, it accomplishes the goal. Um, uh, I don't know. Uh, I'm happy to keep my second from my colleague, but I would be okay with that. Um, And if it failed, it failed. But at the end of the day, I get a vote. And in my entire career, I've never served in the majority, so I've never assumed a vote. I just want to make sure that my constituents are heard, and today they were heard.

Supervisor Desmond, do you wish to keep the same motion on the floor? Okay. So the motion is that both item 24 and item 25 move forward. It does have a second. We have been advised legally on this motion. And with that, we will take a vote.

I'm just looking to counsel to make sure that this is procedurally okay. I know 24, 25. The vote can proceed. The vote can proceed, okay. And then Supervisor Desmond, just to clarify, we're voting on Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp's amendment? Or is it, it's 24 as written in the board letter?

No.

As written.

Oh, as written.

And then just one nuance to Supervisor Anderson's item. It was set to come back, I believe, June 23rd, but with the board calendar change, it would need to actually come back June 25th. So recommendation three, we'd need to update second reading on June 25th. Okay.

Sorry, Ryan.

Yeah. Sorry. Just trying to make sure we have all the fine details just in case. Okay. So we have a substitute motion by Supervisor Desmond, seconded by Supervisor Anderson to pass both item 24 and 25 as written with recommendation three amended to come back as a second reading on June 25th. And then since we have Chair Lawson-Riemer remote, it will be a voice vote. So I will begin the vote. Supervisor Anderson.

Aye.

Supervisor Desmond? Yes. Chair Pro Temigiri?

No.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stupp?

No.

And Chair Lawson-Riemer?

No.

And that motion fails with Supervisor Anderson, Supervisor Desmond voting aye, all the supervisors being present voting no.

The other motion.

We'll go ahead and take a vote on the other motion, which was motioned by Supervisor Lawson-Reamer, seconded by Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp, and Supervisor Anderson? No. Supervisor Desmond?

No.

Chair Protemagiri?

Yes.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp?

Yes.

And Chair Lawson-Reamer?

Yes.

And that motion passes with Supervisor Anderson and Supervisor Desmond voting no, all their supervisors being present voting no.

And I'd like to make a motion for item 25. Yeah, we've done every other combination possible. That's the only one left.

I don't know, maybe you pulled something out of your pocket.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor for item number 25. Is there a second?

Yes.

Okay. We have a second on the floor. Let's go ahead and vote.

Okay. Supervisor Anderson. I actually have a presentation for it.

Okay. We have a motion for item 25. Motion by Supervisor Anderson. Seconded by Supervisor Desmond. Supervisor Anderson. Aye. Supervisor Desmond.

Yes.

Chair Pro Temigiri.

No.

Vice Chair Montgomery-Stepp. No. And Chair Lustenramer.

No. No.

That motion fails with Supervisor Anderson and Supervisor Desmond voting no, or aye, and all the supervisors being present voting no.

Okay. All right. I think that I would like to push through another item, but I think we need to go to lunch. And so let us take a break, and then we'll be back at 2 p.m. Thank you, everyone.

The board is in recess until 2 p.m.