Opinion: All three proposed Boulder charter amendments should be rejected

First, the big shocker: Ballot Question 2C more than triples the pay for the mayor and council members! Beginning in December 2026, pay would go up to 50% of Area Median Income for the mayor and 40% for council members. It wasn’t so long ago that council members were not paid at all. For much of my time on council, we all were volunteers. Council members worked hard to do a good job, just because it was their civic duty. But after pay was added and then increased over the years, in my observation, council’s performance deteriorated.

The role of the council used to include unbiased and complete agenda preparation, full and open discussion of issues at council meetings, giving all citizens enough time to say what they needed to, then listening and asking questions, and making decisions based on facts and not just abstract values.

Now, the agenda materials are not reviewed by the Council Agenda Committee, which was created expressly for that function. The CAC just does scheduling. Citizens who want to speak only get two minutes; the number who can is limited, and they are randomly selected. There is no apparent council-citizen interaction. It’s like talking to a brick wall. Council members almost never have serious disagreements, and important issues are routinely ignored. 

Maybe instead of raising pay, we should try cutting it. Sure, some people might not then run for office. But council members might remember that their role is to serve the citizens, not their egos, prejudices or wallets. Vote “no” on 2C!

Ballot Question 2D would dramatically expand the ability of the council to hold what are called “executive sessions” — meetings of the full council that are held in private with just city staff; no outside observers are allowed.

For the 40+ years I’ve been involved in local politics, Boulder has had an open government, perhaps the most open in Colorado. The basic rule is enshrined in Charter Section 9, “All meetings of the council or committees thereof shall be public.” The only exception is for a committee of two “to screen applications for city manager, city attorney, and municipal court judge, to evaluate the(ir) performance …, and to consider recommending disciplinary actions …” But any discussion or action must be taken by the whole council at a public meeting.

Under 2D, all this would disappear. As before, executive sessions would only be announced “in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is to be held.” This typically has meant providing very little information as to what’s really going on.

This becomes dangerous because these new sessions include all council members, and can cover real estate and property deals, discussion with attorneys, negotiation strategies, personnel matters (unless all of the relevant employees request an open meeting), interviewing finalists for city manager, attorney, municipal judge, and city auditor, plus contract negotiations. There is not even a requirement that a qualified third party be present to ensure that the legal limitations are followed. So, I fully expect that these will be private free-for-alls, with no significant limits on discussions. Vote “no” on 2D!

Finally, Ballot Question 2E targets board and commission members by severely weakening the criteria for appointments of board members for Transportation, Water, Housing, Police, Environment, etc. (It does not cover Planning, Open Space, and Parks and Rec, which are in separate parts of the Charter.)

Question 2E does this by eliminating the current requirements that people appointed must be “well known for their ability, probity, public spirit, and particular fitness to serve.” It only requires that they be at least 18 years old and reside in Boulder. There’s no requirement for diversity of points of view (other than that they not all be of one “gender identity”).

Worse, 2E allows board members to be removed for “nonattendance to duties, conduct unbecoming a member, and any other reason not prohibited by law.” So, the council does not need to provide any justification whatsoever to force someone out. Combine that with the power to change the number of members at will, and we will likely end up with boards and commissions that just rubber stamp what that council wants.

Finally, the boards lose their right to speak to the council on plans and expenditures, or to appeal a decision. This again suppresses input at meetings. Vote “no” on 2E!

Please do not support these charter changes. They will drastically damage our decision-making process and our ability to have a real say in deciding Boulder’s future.

 

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