Opinion: Learning from the election

 This year’s Boulder City Council election was unlike any other I can remember. Although roughly the same number of people voted, frankly I was surprised that it wasn’t more, given the hot button issues like the Bedrooms and CU South ballot issues.

And then there was the name-calling, fake web postings, etc. I don’t ever remember seeing anything like this in past elections. It seems obvious that something is seriously wrong here. And I know people are disengaging, and from my observation, it’s because they think that they don’t count or the processes don’t work.

In my opinion, the next council needs to start off with a bang, and not just repeat the last two years’ way of operating, which seems to have suppressed active participation in the process of policy formation, not encouraged it. So here are some suggestions for the first meeting and beyond:

Return to calling the first part of the Council meeting what it should be — active Citizen Participation, rather than passive Public Comment, as currently. Allow everyone who wants to participate a chance to do so, and get rid of the current lottery for spaces. Council business can afford this extra half hour once every two weeks.

Actively engage with citizens who have something useful to contribute. But be willing to tell those who just rant to “cool it” so that they don’t waste everyone’s time. And for topics (on the Agenda and otherwise) that are controversial, actually invite people from all sides who can contribute something useful, and interrogate them so that everyone gets the benefit of their knowledge; there are always people in Boulder who know a lot on any subject. This can also speed things up, since the mayor can then ask others to just say, “I agree with so-and-so” rather than repeating what’s already been said.

The Council should also seriously start looking for legal approaches to reduce the bad behavior that occurred in this election. Immediately ask the city attorney and the district attorney to research the options, and contact the Colorado Municipal League attorneys, both past and present, to see what ideas they have. Make this a priority while it’s still on everyone’s minds.

There should be a serious look at maintaining candidate independence. Boulder’s election laws intend to reduce the role of money in elections by limiting contributions to $100 per person. But when multiple other groups collect money and collaborate (including with the candidates), this limit becomes pretty meaningless. So it’s time for another elections working group to look at possible solutions. Get this started now, while the issues are on people’s minds.

Bring in some real outside legal expertise to do an unbiased review of the use of closed-door meetings where two council members serve as advisors to staff. This excludes and angers citizens, and apparently violates both the Charter rule and the Colorado Open Meetings Law, CRS 24-6-402. Or shortcut the process and just tell the staff that all meetings, including any such “advisor” or “sub-committee” meetings, should be open to the citizens, with proper notice, publicly available Zoom links, and complete minutes.

The Council Agenda Committee should return to doing a careful review of agenda items before they ever get to the Council. This means actually reading the material, and not just spending the CAC meeting on scheduling. The material should anticipate and answer all questions that councilmembers and the citizens might have, to the extent possible. Material should be unbiased; simply supporting the current Council majority perspective does no one any good, and angers citizens who think or know differently. Material needs to be organized so that the critical analysis is up front and clear, and not buried in pages of text. (I know all this can be done, since the CAC did it in the past.)

Think seriously about the goal setting session. Whatever process is chosen, the key is to shrink the work plan to what is really achievable by a relatively inexperienced council within the two-year term, even if the larger goals might take longer. And make sure that all items have a solid commitment behind them, and didn’t just make the list through vote trading.

Finally, take a serious look at the good work done by the Dialogue Boulder folks regarding more effective citizen participation in governance. They’re a very diverse group and have come up with lots of interesting approaches.

 

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