Opinion: Former council members oppose shift to even-year council elections

 I thought Camera readers would be interested to hear from other former council members about the proposed shift to even-year council elections. I contacted over a dozen former council members with whom I’ve stayed in touch. Eight volunteered to share their thoughts. Below are their comments in alphabetical order.

Cindy Carlisle:

Boulder’s non-partisan odd-year elections focus candidates and the electorate on an informed discussion of local candidates and issues. Electors aren’t distracted by the noise and money of national campaigns in even years. Citizens concerned about the city’s future and how it’s shaped participate, examining items both mundane (capital improvements) and exotic (Campaign Finance Reform!).

Roughly one-third of the city, some 35,000 people, are CU students living here for, generally, four years. Changing local elections from odd to even-numbered years only to attract a transitory population — who can vote now — seems counterproductive to sound governance. Keep Boulder odd!

Allyn Feinberg:

One of the most important things about our city council elections is that they are non-partisan — candidates don’t run as Democrats or Republicans, but on their ability to contribute leadership to our community. Moving our municipal elections into even years will certainly have the effect of making them partisan. So voters will be diverted from considering a city council candidate’s values and knowledge of issues and will end up focused on their real or perceived party affiliation. This will be as bad for Boulder as it has been for the rest of our country.

Bob Greenlee:

For as long as anyone can remember local Boulder elections have been held in odd-numbered years unincumbered by even-year excessive political posturing and voting distortions that occur when voting in our nation’s politically charged national elections. Unfortunately, a majority of Boulder City Council members have already indicated approval of major changes in our local election process. They may be deceiving themselves and the public about what a marvelous idea this is!

Dick Harris:

We treasure the miracle our predecessors have created in Boulder. That’s why many of us came here. We’re different and like it that way. We don’t need or value the blurring of our local decision-making with state and federal partisan elections. That’s what we will get if we switch to even-year voting. And to try out a new approach in the midst of national political chaos is a horrible idea having unpredictable consequences.

Spense Havlick:

The present election schedule on odd years has served the entire community very well (including thoughtful CU students who became informed about local issues and local candidates). If state and national issues are on the ballot, a larger turnout does not deliver a better educated or better-informed vote. Many voters may never get to the local issues at the end of the ballot. And the cost of a heavier, longer ballot to mail both ways should be a factor to consider. Our current system is not broken.

Lisa Morzel:

City council and local initiatives impact the community most of all. Successful elections require an informed citizenry who understands the intricacies of ballot measures and candidates. Reasons promoting an even-year change (more people will vote) are red herrings and they assault grassroots local elections and democracy at their basic core. Keep local elections in odd years. Maintain an informed vote!

Andrew Shoemaker:

Citizens who don’t vote in odd years do so because of lack of motivation rather than lack of opportunity. It’s learning about the local issues, rather than the act of mail-in voting that takes motivation. Moving city council elections to even years won’t assist voters in casting informed votes. Having to learn about and vote on national, statewide and local candidates during the same election year will make informed voting more burdensome for all of us.

Mary Young:

Voter turnout, regardless of election timing, is lower for low-income folks. Yet, outreach, regardless of timing, typically focuses on likely voters. I’d like to see us commit more time on local outreach and information dissemination about the policy stakes to unlikely voters in odd years. Increasing council compensation could encourage more diverse residents to run for city council. The work is demanding and the pay abysmal, a situation that discourages potential candidates. These efforts might do more for increasing representativeness (if that’s the goal) than moving to even-year elections.

My conclusion:

I hope the voters will stick with our current system. It gives the voters a better opportunity to participate and to vote in an informed and thoughtful manner.

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