Opinion: Clarifying the rules of engagement


At the last City Council meeting, Seth Brigham, a citizen of Boulder and former council candidate, was arrested by the police after attempting to raise issues about the behavior of certain sitting council members. The city manager has provided a detailed account, as well as recommendations to minimize future problems. But the fundamental issues are still unresolved.
What caused all the trouble was the council`s rule that “speakers engaging in personal attacks may be interrupted by the mayor.” The notion of “personal attacks” is vague, the word “may” allows arbitrary application, and the rule is inappropriate since many times citizens come before council specifically to criticize the actions of council members. What exactly is a citizen supposed to do if they disagree with the actions of a specific council member? If they criticize that person, they could be shut down. And what if the mayor “interrupts” one person but not another who says something very similar? Is there any recourse to this kind of favoritism?
Worse, having the police act based on direction by a council member (as happened in this incident, and as the city manager suggests should be the mayor`s responsibility) is terrible public policy. If a person addressing the council is in violation of the law or threatening someone physically, the police officer in attendance ought to be capable of making a decision based on his/her own training. But if council rules are so unclear as to require that the officer be told to act, then it`s better to just let the citizen speak for his three minutes. The council always has the last say anyway, so a criticized council member can correct any inaccuracies.
From reading the minutes of this year`s council goal-setting session, it appears that this enforcement of the “no personal attacks” rule resulted from some particularly thin skins on the council compounded by a strange attitude that criticism is not OK. Neither of these attitudes works if you are on the City Council. Harry Truman said it best, “If you can`t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
To avoid future incidents, the first step is to eliminate the “personal attacks” language. Note that Mayor Susan Osborne was confused about this rule when she said to Brigham before he had actually made substantive comments, “It`s not appropriate to call out any individual council members,” which is not what the rule says. The council could stick with their other rule, “All council members, staff members, and members of the public are requested to direct their remarks to the council action that they are requesting.” With some grammar fixes, this would keep remarks focused on city issues. Then the mayor could make objective determinations about comments, and if necessary ask the person to stick to topic.

Council members may still feel the sting of biting commentary. But that`s the cost of having the power to really affect people`s lives, people whose only real recourse is to wait for the next election — you better be willing to hear what people have to say.
The majority of the recent significant “attacks” have been related to real or perceived conflicts of interest. They came up around council members` business relationships with or campaign contributions from local developers. The proper solution is for council members to recuse themselves if there is even an appearance of conflict of interest. This would instantly remove the stimulus for such “personal attacks” since council members would have made every effort to act ethically. To provide further insurance, the council should strengthen Boulder`s very weak conflict of interest ordinance. This has been a long-standing problem; it`s time to fix it.
Some “personal attacks” have been related to real or perceived hypocrisy on the part of the council member. Perhaps the only thing that a council member can do to limit such allegations is to keep their behavior above reproach, and remember that there is value in being called to account for one`s inconsistencies, and reminded when one`s actions appear self-serving.
Respect for diversity and encouragement of citizen participation have been the hallmarks of Boulder`s political process. Let`s keep it that way by not having vague rules and police involvement in what is a valuable part of our civic life.

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: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more