Opinion: Government as a two way street

 I’ve engaged in a number of conversations recently about the need to defuse the increasing polarization that is occurring around almost every issue in Boulder. We face complex questions around issues such as growth, affordable housing, our energy future, and racial equity. But our governmental processes, at least as far as they involve giving ordinary citizens a role in the decision-making, have become more and more of a one-way street, with input being depersonalized and almost no interaction. As a result, there is no realistic way for most citizens to have meaningful discussions with our decision-makers.

The expanding importance of these issues has resulted in citizens feeling an increased need to engage, supported by real fears of the consequences of not doing so. But at the same time citizens are experiencing a decreased ability to actually have any influence or effect on the outcomes. This frustration comes from feeling that no one is listening. In particular, many citizens sense that participating or testifying is just pro forma, and that the council members will do what they have already decided to do anyway. This feeling is accentuated when fundamental decisions are made before the formal city-run outreach is even started.

This feeling of being disregarded by the power structure leads to what people now call “populism”, where complex issues are turned into slogans, and people instantly take rigid positions on whatever the current issue is. As a result, simplistic solutions are pushed – and unfortunately sometimes adopted – without real in-depth discussion of their consequences or alternatives.

The good news is that council members are finally taking a look at their engagement processes. And some basic fixes are occurring. But what is missing is a fundamental re-evaluation the council’s role: Rather than operating as if they were elected to make decisions for the masses, they need to make decisions with the masses. We’ll know this is happening if, during the debates, council members represent all the viewpoints that need to be considered, even those not their own. With the legal power all on one side, this will require interactive communication distinguished by an honest willingness by those in power to listen for what might change their minds or inform them of something they didn’t know or hadn’t thought about.

The current practice, where citizens testify, identify issues, or propose solutions, and the council just sits there and then acts, leaves the citizens who participate feeling like they don’t even exist. Many have said that it’s like talking to a glass wall, and so have given up. I certainly have had that experience. And staff-generated summaries of public meetings makes people feel just like depersonalized statistics, especially when their strong feelings or cogent arguments seem to be ignored.

Getting elected doesn’t make anyone smarter or better. If anything, the opportunity to serve is also an opportunity to become more aware of how many other smart people there are in Boulder, and that on any issue, some of them may know more than the council or staff.

This suggests that the council could personally invite specific citizens who are well informed on hot button topics to speak, and then ask them questions to get information and perspectives that the council cannot get from the staff. This also lets other citizens know that the council is paying attention.

Council members could also participate directly as equals with their appointed citizen working groups. Then they will have to struggle with the complexities and compromises inherent in good policy formation, and actually discuss the issues face to face with their informed citizenry.

Another way is for the council agenda committee to ensure that all agenda material is complete before being debated, so citizens don’t have to testify multiple times. If the data and analyses are done well, then the council will receive the needed public feedback the first time the matter is heard. And then the council debates will sound more like the discussions that informed citizens are already having among themselves.

Sometimes this may require publicly critiquing staff presentations or the council’s own work. This helps because then the citizens know that the council is not glossing over mistakes or missing info, and will have more trust in the process. Doing this may be a bit unpleasant for staff or council, but not acknowledging mistakes just leaves things hanging.

Taking these actions is not a cure-all. But they will help restore our sense of community. And our political process will be closer to a two way street.

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