Opinion: Two governmental issues highlight the importance of the ‘golden rule'

Many of you are probably familiar with Lorie Smith, a website designer, who asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block enforcement of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. This Act would have prevented her from refusing to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. Apparently, Ms. Smith’s objection comes from her religious beliefs, and the case is being argued regarding whether her combined First Amendment rights regarding freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are being violated.

Rather than jump to a conclusion, I’ve tried to sort out the arguments being made. But the analogies and parallels that I’ve read get increasingly convoluted. Finally, I found a government website called “Constitution Annotated — Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.” Reading through the First Amendment section, it became clear to me that even the most extensive and sophisticated arguments will not resolve such issues.

So, I tried to step back from the details and asked myself what the point of public religious organizations really is, and how their positions differ (or don’t) from what one derives from direct spiritual experience, which presumably should be the basis of religious beliefs and practices anyway. For me, this goes to the heart of how far the “free expression of religion” really should go.

To me, the golden rule — “…do to others as you would have them do to you…” — is a good example of a fundamental ethical principle. It’s based on an underlying spiritual experience that we are all one, however stated. (By the way, the positively stated version may have come from a much earlier negative version, “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”) But over the centuries, and even now, there are actions and attitudes promoted by religions that are fundamentally at odds with this principle. So, it seems there need to be limits on the First Amendment’s “free expression.”

This is a long way around to the topic that I’ve discussed recently: the need to fix Boulder’s petition process for initiatives, referenda and recalls. My goal here is that those who make the decisions about the rules do so as if they are the ones that these rules affect. In other words, the decision-makers follow the golden rule.

The good news is that apparently the council’s Charter Committee will promptly take this up at their first meeting in 2023. However, any resulting charter amendments will not be voted on until November. That would leave the whole of 2023’s initiative period under the flawed current rules. And the whole problem with the misstated title for the CU South referendum started right in the beginning with the petition format that the city required. (The city required a title and a summary, whereas the state version just has a summary; the state version would have been used except for the City Code amendment passed a few years ago exempting Boulder from the state law.) 

So, I hope the council will swiftly pass ordinances to fix the problems; I have already written up suggested options for them. This would be following my political version of the golden rule — the “3 up rule”: when you screw up, own up and clean it up.

Another issue to which the “golden rule” should apply is Junie Joseph’s recent decision to continue occupying her council seat along with representing District 10 at the state legislature. I have serious problems with her move. She was picked by the Democratic vacancy committee to run for Eide Hooton’s vacant seat partly on the assumption that she would not continue on the council, since she had not asserted otherwise, and the vacancy issue was discussed. And when she won the November election, she confirmed that she would be vacating her council position.

Then, suddenly, she reversed course and decided to keep both her council seat and the legislative position. To me, that’s a plain violation of the golden rule — to let people believe one thing and then violate that trust. And additionally, there is the massive workload and time demand at the legislature added to the council work, as well as the need to refrain from voting when conflicts exist, which are guaranteed to occur, especially for larger cities, like Boulder, and counties. (The state Legislative Office of Legal Services wrote a memo at the end of November discussing these issues in detail.) 

Junie should resign her council seat. The council will not only survive with eight members until next November; it will work just fine.

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