Opinion: The need for more debate at council meeting

In my last Camera piece, I said, “If all it takes is the council similarly claiming something is an ’emergency,’ then the council could pass most anything ‘by emergency’ and avoid public hearings completely.” Well, the council did exactly that at their next opportunity, abusing Charter Section 17 by passing “by emergency” the new rules for council meetings’ start times and schedules.

Almost every definition of “emergency” I’ve found requires an event to be “unexpected” or “sudden,” and “demanding immediate attention” to prevent loss of life, property, etc. But the situation with “open comment” has been a mess since the war in Gaza got going. And after well over a year of failed attempts to fix the situation, it is hardly “sudden” or “unexpected.” If it is so serious, why weren’t these new fixes proposed two weeks sooner? Or why not wait one more meeting and get some public input?

All this raises the serious question of why the council does not promote serious public debate on how to fix this mess. The currently proposed “solution” is just one of many approaches that might/should be considered. For example, the council could hold a special session where there is real back-and-forth between the council members and the citizens who are pushing for various actions, like condemning Israel’s actions or divestiture of the City’s investments in Caterpillar and Microsoft. 

But keep this meeting focused on the appropriate role for the council. For example, many people legitimately think that foreign affairs are not the council’s business and not what they were elected to do. They need a voice also. Let the debate stay open until everyone has had their say, and then vote.

Such serious discussions between the council and the citizens are missing in lots of other areas, from the massive densification of Boulder (an estimated 20,000 or more additional housing units are already in the pipeline) to living within our water supply (per the staff’s own “severe” future estimate, our water supply will only meet slightly over 2/3 of our need), and our ever-increasing revenue/expenditures picture (rather than just focusing on tax increases.) By my calculations, the City budget — after adjusting for inflation and population growth — has increased by almost 40% over the last 10 years! 

Having faced similar situations when I got on the council some 40 years ago, it seems to me that improving the process is not rocket science. Even without going into the details of each issue, it appears to me that just asking the citizens for more money, or forcing existing residents to conserve more to provide water for a huge population increase, should not happen without serious debate, both within the council and between councilmembers and the citizens, on the underlying causes and possible alternative fixes.

Here are the steps I’d recommend: First, return the Council Agenda Committee to its primary job of properly preparing the agenda, so that all reasonable questions are answered within the agenda materials and not, as now, in separate Hotline emails right up to the day of the meeting. This means picking the mayor, deputy mayor and the third CAC member based on their having the necessary skills. For example, Councilmember Mark Wallach asks a whole string of detailed questions before most meetings, so he’s an obvious choice for one slot, assuming he gets re-elected.

The staff needs to prepare the draft agenda materials some weeks before the meeting, so the CAC has time to review it and work it over properly. Each CAC member should “represent” two other council members by making sure their explicit or anticipated questions are addressed in the material. Also, invite knowledgeable citizens to critique the draft materials on topics on which they’re well informed; this can really help.

In the council meetings, the mayor should make sure that citizens who bring up legitimate issues are responded to while they are at the podium (or on the screen), so that useful points get illuminated, discussed and debated, including the person testifying as appropriate. These should not just fester until the end. 

The goal here is to address all issues of consequence and leave nothing hanging. The test is that even those who don’t get their way should be able to feel that the issue was completely discussed and the council vote was fully informed.

This may seem like a lot of work. But, based on my experience, it isn’t. More importantly, it produces better results. And it minimizes doubts and resentments because the process is both open and complete.

 

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Why is Boulder sending out another biased survey?

No doubt many of you remember the surveys the city of Boulder sent out a couple of years ago that appeared to be so biased as to be essentially useless other than as propaganda pieces. Well, last Friday I and many others received another one of these sell-jobs enticingly titled “Family-Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods.”  Translating, this means adding the maximum density to the still surviving lower-density parts of Boulder that the council can do without violating the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. FYI, the BVCP cannot be changed without the consent of the County Commissioners, who have a lot more sense and are not advocates of unlimited growth at any cost. Fortunately, this limits the damage the “progressives” can cause, at least for the immediate future. In addition to the cavalier attitude of some of our council members about unilaterally changing the character and livability of our neighborhoods, the survey offends by asserting that this is an attempt to address housing cost...
Read more

Comments from readers on my column on the ‘Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods’ survey

I received many times the usual number of comments regarding my recent column on the “Family Friendly Vibrant Neighborhoods” survey and the willingness of some council members to ignore what the apparent majority of citizens respondents want. These came to me directly and also via NextDoor. Here are some of them, occasionally with edits for length and style: “Thank you for your editorial/letter about growth in Boulder. I thought I was the only one noticing and concerned about it!!” “The ‘progressives’ who have taken control of Boulder just seem to be developers in disguise.” “Neighborhood densifying: nothing has been said about PARKING — a disaster for those who do not have a driveway to park.” “Why do the ‘progressives’ just want to stuff more and more people (and cars) into Boulder? It just makes no sense.” “Collectively the community survey delivered a statistically significant ‘against’ the proposed changes … two to one not in favor, for instance...
Read more