The future of public comment at the BOCC

By Soncirey Mitchell
Reader Staff

The Bonner County board of commissioners maintained an uncharacteristically reserved first half of its regular business meeting on Feb. 20 — unanimously approving airport grant applications, the Justice Services’ purchase of a Chevrolet Equinox and continued improvements to county roads and bridges, among other nuts-and-bolts agenda items — before once again sparring over public comment. 

Though the argument over the extent of free speech at business meetings remains, the commissioners voted to hold a separate meeting, at an unspecified date, dedicated exclusively to hearing public comment.

With Chairman Luke Omodt absent on Feb. 13, Commissioner Asia Williams brought the previous business meeting to an immediate end by refusing to second the motion to adopt the order of the agenda because it did not include a public comment section. This standoff with Commissioner Steve Bradshaw, who chaired the meeting in Omodt’s absence, inspired her Feb. 20 action item, “Discussion/Decision Item for Public Comment.”

Bonner County Commissioners Luke Omodt, left; Asia Williams, center; and Steve Bradshaw, right. Photo by Lyndsie Kiebert-Carey.

“The state law doesn’t require public comment in our business meeting, but we required it by writing this ordinance [1-200], so unless and until public comment is removed out of the actual ordinance, Bonner County needs to continue public comment without obstruction to the community,” said Williams, making a motion to adhere to the current ordinance.

Omodt begins each meeting by reading Ordinance 1-200 of Bonner County Code, which states that BOCC business meetings “do not constitute public hearings wherein the public has the right to be heard on every agendized item.”

The ordinance additionally empowers the chair to set boundaries for public comment, stating: “[A]t the discretion of the chair, everyone may be afforded an opportunity to speak on a particular issue, if recognized by the chair” — though it further stipulates that the chair “will not under any circumstance entertain comments derogatory in nature toward any board member, staff member, elected official or member of the public.”

Omodt seconded Williams’ motion, then immediately moved to alter its basis.

“I will then step down from the chair and make a motion to amend that the board of county commissioners holds a meeting with all elected officials for public comment,” he said.

When questioned by Williams, Omodt could not specify the frequency or duration of the proposed meeting or meetings. Bradshaw seconded the motion to amend, and it later passed without Williams voting for or against it.

“That’s not really an amendment, that’s a whole new memorandum. My actual motion is addressing the ordinance itself, and so you’re just adding a different item onto the agenda,” said Williams, adding that she was not opposed to the idea in and of itself, but that the board still needed to address public comment in the regular business meetings. Bradshaw then asked Deputy Prosecutor Bill Wilson, present on Zoom, to confirm that the law does not give attendees the absolute right to speak at BOCC business meetings.

“You’re talking about the state statute. That’s correct, it doesn’t require it. If you read our local ordinance, though, it does speak to a public comment [section]. There’s language in that addressing public comment, so I think that the setup we have now, allowing that at the end of the meeting, is probably in keeping with that,” said Wilson.

He went on to explain that Senate Bill 1304 — which requires that “all meetings shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public testimony,” according to the Idaho Legislature’s website — could resolve their arguments about public comment, should it pass into law. Under SB 1304, officials still have the ability to limit the overall time allocated to public comment, though they must give each individual a minimum of two minutes to speak.

“So are we required to follow laws that might be passed, or the ones that have been passed?” Bradshaw asked, to which Wilson responded that the former already knew the answer.

The argument continued, distracting commissioners to the extent that when Omodt called for the vote they were unsure of what they were voting on.

Williams voted to pass Omodt’s amended motion, despite having argued against it, and Bradshaw voted against the amended motion, despite having argued for it.

“I’m asking for a point of clarification. I thought that we already voted on your amendment of the motion and then we were on the original motion,” said Williams. “If we got it wrong, I would like to fix it in real-time.”

Omodt did not allow Williams to ask the clerk to clarify what they’d just approved, instead calling a five-minute recess before opening the meeting for public comment. Three attendees had the opportunity to speak, though Omodt ended the meeting without hearing testimony from Williams, Brandon Cramer or Rick Cramer — the latter who was trespassed from BOCC meetings on Jan. 30 — triggering a slew of protests from those present in person and on Zoom.