During the public-comment period, resident David Bloom told the commission he believed the recent selection of the mayor and mayor pro tem had been prearranged in private, calling it "hypocrisy" and saying the process disenfranchised voters who supported other top vote-getters.

"It looked to me ... that the selection of the mayor and the mayor pro tem ... had all been prescripted ... out like a bookie theater ahead of time beyond closed doors," Bloom said, adding he felt voters were disenfranchised when commissioners selected a mayor pro tem without publicly considering the highest vote-getters.

Commissioners did not take formal action on the accusation during the meeting; the agenda proceeded to consent items and new-business presentations.

Later, after holding multiple closed sessions on attorney-client privileged matters and pending litigation, the commission returned to open session and the chair addressed a separate matter concerning the Community House. The chair said the commission viewed the Community House as a public trust and that recent plans by the Community House organization to sell its building had shocked the community. The chair said the commission would "use each and every available means to see to it that it remains a community asset used for the purposes for which it was donated."

Ending: The resident's transparency complaint was recorded during public comment and not resolved at the meeting. The Community House matter was discussed in closed session and the commission publicly stated its intent to preserve the property for community use; legal and procedural follow-up was indicated.