Some of the most interesting items at a public meeting revolve around the things that aren't talked about. Or, more like, the things that elected officials can't -- or at least shouldn't -- discuss that night.

Local governmental bodies give residents a forum toward the beginning of their regular meetings to speak (usually three minutes per person who signs up) about any item in the agency's purview that is not listed on that meeting's posted agenda.

It's a way to put individual issues on the board's or council's radar, as well as the community's, in a very public manner.

The trick is that the elected officials are not allowed to respond or converse about the issues brought up in non-agenda comment in the moment because to do so would be a violation of the Brown Act, California's open meeting laws.

Basically, a council can only talk about or act on items specifically listed on the meeting's agenda; the logic being a resident has a right to know what's being discussed -- and as importantly, what is not -- in a given public meeting.

It's an appropriate line in the sand to help ensure the public's business is always done, well, in public. Transparently.

But it can present a tricky situation for the elected bodies, politically. They can have people who don't necessarily know the law speaking very passionately and expecting an action or conversation that night. Then again, there are other speakers who use the opportunity to air grievances publicly where they know they won't get a response.

Often the officials want to engage the speakers and better inform the greater public, but to not hold their tongue would be a violation of their oath.

Most agencies in the Tri-Valley do a great job holding firm to following this law, even when faced with a room full of anxious speakers (or, these days, a crowded Zoom waiting room). You might hear a quick remark in transition sometimes, but seldom deep discussion.

It's tricky for reporters too. We prepare intensely for a city council or school board meeting by studying the agenda and researching those issues beforehand, but in some cases we have to pivot our coverage, completely cold, to a non-agenda item that often involves a lot of follow-up to contextualize appropriately.

The Pleasanton City Council saw decent turnout for non-agenda comment at its last meeting, and the topics were all quite intriguing.

Six speakers lambasting a proposed new trail in their neighborhood, one local resident originally from Ukraine lamenting the Russian invasion of his homeland and one employee union president lighting into the city amid tense labor negotiations.

"Thanks for calling in. Since it's not on the agenda, we're prohibited from commenting on this topic," Mayor Karla Brown said at one point in the March 15 meeting, to remind speakers and the public at-large.

A group of residents, mainly from Jorgensen Lane off Foothill Road, called into the meeting to oppose the advancement of a new trail in the Preserve at Meadowlark neighborhood near Pleasanton Ridge.

"We are here today because the city has broken its promise," longtime resident David Yamamoto said.

"While the original development agreement provided for the construction of a new trail in the open space, the city met that obligation when it constructed the Courdet Trail. We were shocked to learn that the city now believes that it is authorized to construct a second trail in the open space," he added.

Yamamoto and others brought up safety issues, environmental and wildlife concerns, views of the ridge and parking availability. They also criticized the city for a lack of communication with residents, and urged officials to find a viable alternative location or new amenity.

Not having heard of this trail controversy, I reached out to Barbara Harb, the city's new communications manager, for relevant background information.

She explained that the trail was a condition of approval for the Preserve at Meadowlark approved in 2006 for eight new houses and 22 acres of dedicated open space.

The project sat idle for nearly 10 years until a new developer took it on -- and the city moved forward with implementing all prior conditions of the project, including construction of a developer-funded trail, Harb said.

Construction notices went out to nearby residents in mid-December, and neighbors seemed surprised at the news. The city heard many negative responses, including at a community meeting, so work has been halted, Harb said.

The council, at the end of its meeting last week, asked that the Meadowlark trail project be placed on a future agenda. That date is to be determined.

Also still in limbo are the ongoing contract talks between the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department and the firefighters union, IAFF Local 1974.

Union president Joe McThorn had some choice words while urging the council to intervene into what he called "unfair, retaliatory treatment" by the cities' negotiators.

"The city of Pleasanton negotiating team is trying to erode our rights ... trying to impose unfair policies and want to open our contract to change anytime they see fit through a zipper clause. They are trying to impose policies no other labor groups are subject to," McThorn told the council in non-agenda comment. "This is clear retaliation for the arbitration lawsuits that have occurred over the past few years."

"We are already seeing the negative effects of being without a contract for 74 days. Some emergency responses are being delayed due to a lack of coverage," McThorn said. "We are seeing the loss of good candidates to apply for firefighter positions who are going to cities that have a current contract and current good relationships such as Fremont and Hayward. We are also seeing a lack of candidates in the fire chief position, which is normally a highly desirable position."

He added, "All other labor groups in Pleasanton and Livermore have a fair and reasonable contract. We are only asking for the same contract and fair treatment."

While the council did not respond that night, the two cities issued a statement this Tuesday where they confirmed contract talks have reached impasse and disputed issues include wages, benefits, staffing and a drug testing policy -- the latter in part because a local fire captain allegedly tested positive for cocaine on duty.

The other speaker was Andrii Vladyka, a Ukrainian national living in Pleasanton.

"I would like to raise the awareness of the City Council and local community of the current situation in my country. During the last three weeks, over 2-1/2 million refugees have left Ukraine, thousands of civilians have been killed, hundreds of thousands of people are subjected to humanitarian crises. We are thankful to the U.S. government, United States nation and to all other nations around the world who are helping Ukraine to overcome the crisis and win the war. However, what is being done currently is not enough," Vladyka said, in part.

"When it comes to matters of geopolitics, there is not much one can ask from a Pleasanton City Council meeting, and we can only do things that are in our control. Therefore I would like to ask you to write to your elected officials and ask to increase military aid to Ukraine and establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine," he added.

We'll have to wait and see how the council answers.

Editor's note: Jeremy Walsh has been the editor of the Pleasanton Weekly since February 2017.