To: Yountville Town Council
From: Carrie Hays
RE: Public Comment on Public Comment
Date: June 15, 2026
From experience and observation, it seems Public Comment can at times be frustrating for everyone involved—Council, staff, and community members alike. Because the Brown Act limits dialogue on non-agenda items, Public Comment often feels like a one-way process. Speakers share their input, Council listens - and then silence follows.
While legally compliant, that experience can leave Public Commenters wondering whether their input mattered, asking themselves: “Why bother preparing and presenting a comment?” This reflection that led me to a question: What would make Public Comment both legally compliant and genuinely productive?
In researching this question, I found a consistent theme:
The most effective public bodies treat Public Comment as more than a procedural requirement. They treat it as a source of information, insight, and community intelligence.
Why do Public Commenters feel unheard?
Public Commenters experience the process as:
1. One way communication. Rather than collaborative, comments are at times met with silence with no indication that anyone even heard or understood the comment. This is especially frustrating when elected officials espouse – and ask for – collaboration and engagement yet don’t model collaborative behaviors themselves.
2. Lacking transparency — There is often no (follow-up) explanation of how public input influenced decisions or not – nor explanations of the reasons behind decisions. This limits the chances that the public will support Council decisions because there’s no explanation of the “why” behind decisions.
3. Lacking accountability. There is no explicit or documented follow-up on recurring issues.
The result is people rightfully conclude, "They listened, but they didn't hear." And that leads people to find other avenues where they will be heard: in community-initiated gatherings, social media posts, Letters to Editors, and email exchanges expressing ideas, concerns, etc.
What Makes Public Comment a Legally Compliant and Productive Structure? Research shows the most effective officials treat public comment as intelligence-gathering and constituent service, not a procedural formality to endure. The Brown Act and Rules of Order set a floor, not a ceiling.
So the key question is not whether elected officials agree with every comment. It’s how can elected officials turn public comment from a one-way valve into a genuine feedback loop — all without touching the legal constraints? A public body that wants a genuine feedback loop asks: "Can residents and our stakeholders clearly and explicitly know how their input influenced our thinking, even when we ultimately make a different decision?" Since the Brown Act prohibits elected officials from deliberating or taking action on items not on the agenda, responding substantively to public comment on non-agenda items is legally risky. However, I learned that constraint can be used as a shield when it isn't strictly necessary.
There's meaningful room to improve - and stay within the rules.
Within the Brown Act, an official may:
1. Briefly respond to factual questions or correct misinformation (not deliberate).
2. Direct staff to follow up with a commenter.
3. Place an item on a future agenda in response to a pattern of public concern.
4. Acknowledge the commenter's concern without substantively engaging the merits.
Rosenberg's Rules explicitly encourage the chair to thank speakers and briefly summarize what action will follow.
What specific practices might elected officials put into place if their goal is to strengthen public trust, transparency, and community engagement?
During the meeting, Council can:
1. Establish a clear, consistent speaking-time policy and announce it at the start — commenters feel more respected when expectations are set up front.
2. The chair briefly restates the commenter's input for the record, asks if they restated it accurately, (without engaging in discussion) and notes whether it relates to an agenda item or will be referred to staff. This signals the comment was heard:
"Tonight we heard concerns about transparency in the Town Manager recruitment process, requests for greater community involvement, and questions about timeline and cost. Commenter, did I summarize your input accurately, or did I miss anything? To be consistent with the Brown Act, please answer only yes or no."
3. Avoid the appearance of a "dead wall" by making eye contact and nodding to speakers.
4. If a commenter raises something that is on the agenda, the chair can note it will be addressed during that agenda item.
Structurally:
1. Create and publicly announce a written response protocol — e.g., staff will follow up to every Public Commenter (whether making comment in person or via written submission) in writing within a published and set number of business days.
2. Add a standing "Council/Staff Response to Prior Public Comments" item at the top of regular meetings — this is fully Brown Act-compliant and closes the loop publicly.
3. Post a Public Comment log on the agency's website summarizing comments received and staff responses:
You Said We Did Explanation/Reasoning
Increase community
involvement
Evaluated community panel
models
We wanted to learn what models
would meet our needs and budget.
Improve transparency Published recruitment
timeline
Sharing more information leads to
more commitment and support.
Provide candidate criteria Added criteria to
recruitment materials
Ensure public knows the criteria for
candidates.
At a later meeting, explicitly connect actions to prior comments.
For example: "In the last Council meeting, several residents requested increased community participation. In response, staff evaluated three options and is recommending Option B for these two reasons..." Procedurally under Rosenberg's:
1. A chair can model attentive, respectful listening and responding which can improve the culture of the dais – and holds other elected officials accountable to the same behavior.
2. Rosenberg's encourages the chair to briefly explain procedural limitations to the public in plain language (e.g., "Under state law, we can't discuss items not on tonight's agenda, but here's how to get this in front of us...") What might elected officials avoid?
1. Any back-and-forth that resembles deliberation on a non-agenda item — even well-intentioned dialogue can expose elected officials to a Brown Act violation.
2. Selective responsiveness that creates equal protection concerns and erodes public trust: Responding to some Commenters but not others or allowing some Commenters to speak more than once while denying that to others.
3. Cutting off speakers before their time expires without a stated procedural reason — Rosenberg's requires this be handled consistently.
4. Inconsistently managing Public Comment:
• Allowing some Commenters to exceed the time limit but others not. • Allowing applause (or other nonverbal communication) at times and for select speakers but at times, disallowing.
• Expressing appreciation for input from some and remaining silent after others have spoken.
To Wrap-Up:
I began this research asking:
What would make Public Comment more satisfying and productive for everyone involved? I end with a different question:
What actions will you, as the Yountville Town Council, take to make sure Public Commenters know their input influences your thinking — even when you ultimately make a different decision? Carrie Hays