RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - The Rancho Murieta Association Board has revised how public comment is handled at its meetings, a change that narrows when residents may speak and removes the opportunity to comment on agenda items after board discussion.

Under the current format, public comment is limited to a single open-forum period at the beginning of each meeting. Once the board moves into agenda items and discussion begins, the microphone is closed to the public, and no additional comment is taken before board votes.

Board President Patrick O’Hern said the change is intended to keep meetings orderly and prevent a small number of speakers from monopolizing discussion.

“They have an open mic for three minutes at the beginning of the meeting and then they can’t talk about it at all,” O’Hern said in a conversation after the Dec. 16 meeting. He added that residents who want to follow up can submit comments by email or contact General Manager Rod Hart directly.

O’Hern and Director Scott Adams, both attorneys, emphasized that RMA is a private homeowners association, not a public agency, and is governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act rather than the Brown Act.

“They have an agenda, so they know what’s coming up,” Adams said. “There are different ways we are doing it, and this is the way we did it.”

Before the policy revision, RMA agendas allowed two separate opportunities for public input. Residents could speak during a general public comment period on any issue within the board’s jurisdiction, including items not on the agenda, subject to a reasonable time limit. In addition, public comment was opened on each agenda item after board discussion and before final action.

That second opportunity has been eliminated. While residents may still comment at the start of the meeting, they can no longer respond to points raised during board deliberations.

The revised agenda language also formally establishes a three-minute speaking limit per person, with discretion for the president to adjust time limits depending on the number of speakers and the length of the agenda.

O’Hern said those limits are necessary to maintain control of meetings, noting that there have been times when large numbers of residents wanted to speak.

“There was a period of time when we had 20 people wanting to speak,” he said. “Otherwise they will go on and on.”

O’Hern acknowledged that he has occasionally allowed residents to speak outside the formal public comment period when he believed it was appropriate. At the most recent meeting, resident Tom Shewchuk was permitted to comment during discussion because O’Hern said he already knew the substance of his concern.

“I knew where Tom was going to go with it,” O’Hern said. “So I let him speak. And I’ve let other people speak, too.”

However, those instances are discretionary rather than guaranteed under the policy.

Reduced Resident Input

The most significant impact of the change is not the three-minute limit, which is common at many public meetings, but the loss of the ability to comment after hearing the board’s discussion.

Board deliberations often introduce new information or clarify assumptions, making post-discussion comment more informed and meaningful.

Under the new structure, residents must anticipate issues and speak before discussion begins, without the opportunity to respond to points raised during deliberation.

The revised agenda cites several sections of the Civil Code and the Davis-Stirling Act. Civil Code §4930(a) requires that members be given a reasonable opportunity to speak on agenda items before or during board consideration, but it allows boards to set reasonable time limits and procedures.

O’Hern said the board researched the issue before making the change and included statutory references on the agenda to explain the legal basis.

“We didn’t just decide we were going to do that,” he said. “We did a lot of research.”

O’Hern told the River Valley Times that the revised language was published several months ago (on the Sept. 16 board meeting agenda) and didn’t draw any comments at the time.

“Nobody ever asked,” O’Hern said. “You’re the first to ask.”

While the policy appears to meet the minimum requirements of state HOA law, it represents a shift in how resident participation fits into board meetings: from interactive, item-by-item input to a single, front-loaded comment period.

As O’Hern noted, the approach mirrors practices he has seen elsewhere.

“That’s how we did it at the Stockton City Council,” O’Hern said, referring to his experience with public meetings. “Once you’re done, the council goes on and does its business.”

For residents, the change does not eliminate public comment, but it does change its role: from responding to board discussion in real time to offering input before deliberations begin.