Thread by @shayshinecastle

Happy Friday night, #Boulder. I hope you're out doing something fun. We've got Part 1 of the city council retreat tonight: All focused on process.

There were quite a few suggestions made by council members thus far:
Meetings moved to Thursday (Weaver, Brockett, Wallach)
10 p.m. hard stop for meetings (Yates, Wallach, Friend)
Different council members lead study sessions (Weaver, Young)

Rules for adding in "emergency" non-agenda items (Weaver, Wallach)
Remove fourth Tuesday study sessions (Nagle, Yates)
Per-month pay vs. per-meeting (Young)

And a handful of one-offs:
Rename the muni building after Penfield Tate, the city’s first and only black mayor (Young)
Allow ppl from outside Boulder to serve on boards and commissions (Young)
Hold quarterly listening sessions with under-engaged part of the city (Swetlik)

Limit public hearings to 2 per meeting, unless not controversial (Wallach)
Move public hearings to the beginning of meetings (Friend)
Other changes to public hearing: Allow video testimony or speakers to be seated, off-site, etc. (Friend)

We'll see what rises the top tonight. There will be another hour-long discussion on emergenetics tonight (some faux psychology personality crap) that I will prob not tweet from, so maybe check back in around 5 or so for the real content.

Also, did you know you can see each council member's priorities and process suggestions at Boulder Beat? Just click on each one of their names to see individual priorities; I'll update the council-as-a-whole priority list after the retreat. boulderbeat.news/city-council/

We're getting started. Can you feel the excitement in the air?

Yeah, me neither.

So much "humor" happening already at this meeting. I'm glad for the joviality but I rate the comedy 2/10.

Swetlik going over Nagle's personality profile. They are a lot a like, he said. Neither is very conceptual: “We’re probably not going to be bringing a bunch of big ideas to council.”

Members got to pick their own partner for this exercise.
So far: Brockett y Friend
Yates y Wallach
Swetlik y Nagle

Prob would have been better to pick someone you didn't know as well. But whatevs.

Nagle on Swetlik: He's flexible, more than me, which I think is good when it comes to council stuff.

"Unlike me, who is usually pretty set in my ways" Swetlik is more "open-minded" which is also good for negotiating on council, Nagle says.

Joseph + Young are another team, which leaves Mayor Weaver paired with City Manager Jane Brautigam.

Young of Joseph: "I can poke holes in her wild ideas and she can help make me understand what it's going to do to society."

OK, that's probably all for now. I *really* hate this personality crap. Doing something useful and going through the meeting packet for Tuesday.

Hallelujah we are done with this personality stuff. And I got through 105 of the 395-page packet for Tuesday's meeting. *Bonus*

Moving onto process stuff. See earlier tweets for what everyone suggested.

We're talking one of Friend's suggestions to not rehash stuff and have redundant process. She's using CU South as an example in response to q from Wallach.

Yates: We all know CU South wasn't handled well. Do you see this issue somewhere else?

Friend: Sometimes you'll have ppl interested at the tail end of a decision, we saw with Alpine Balsam, and we need to unwind what's already been done and not follow the process that's in place.

Wallach: I don't disagree, but isn't that more of a problem with our engagement process? "How do we prevent a situation where 100 ppl are showing up in a panic at the last minute bc somehow we didn't manage to engage them."

I guess a better way to explain Friend's process suggestion is that staff, boards/commissions and council stick to the public engagement process that was improved/updated in the last couple of years.

So that things don't have to be rehashed.

Young: The open space master plan didn't have 100 ppl coming at the end of it. I believe that may be attributable to the process subcommittee (her + Brockett) meeting with 2 open space board members, meeting once a month.

"That's one of the things we might be able to do, to assign process subcommittees."

Sarah Huntley, engagement manager: "I'm thrilled to see this item" ... We've been working on this and have made process but have more work to do.

"I think the q of ppl wanting to go backward instead of forward is something important for ppl to think about. .. We have decisions that are nested in past decisions."

We need to explain that better, Huntley says. Also need to figure out how to engage people earlier.

It's "human nature" for ppl to engage when things come down to the wire, Huntley says.

Weaver: "Relitigation is a political tactic ppl use. Delay is defeat, in many cases. ... There will be ppl all the way, even after a decision point, who will be trying to get us to go back. ... We can't censor people."

Heather Bergman, facilitator: "When ppl ask you to go back, there may legit be cases where it's worth going back, but use that judiciously bc it does create a pattern of behavior that is not necessarily helpful."

Friend: Part of it is me asking us to not slide back in the face of political pressure on progress that has already been made.

Swetlik, explaining why he wants quarterly listening sessions for council in under-engaged areas and with under-engaged populations: "Everyone who frequents council knows there are certain ppl who frequent council."

What we're missing is everyone else, Swetlik says: mobile home residents, CU students, etc. "I just want a more well-rounded perspective."

Brockett: Thank you for bringing that forward. I've found the (existing) chats with council to be successful at that, particularly the Spanish-language one.

Young: And that's going to become a regular outreach event.

Young asks Huntley what's being done to reach other communities. But Brockett has more to say first.

Brockett: Let's target our chats a bit more, like the Spanish-language one. Maybe do two general ones and then two targeted ones per year. Like Gunbarrel; we don't get out to Gunbarrel much.

Swetlik affirms desire to do geographic targeting and demographic targeting.

Huntley: We are more than happy to do as many chat sessions as you want. We recommended decreasing them to do more walks with council. We're also stepping up our targeted efforts; that's when we began seeing more turnout.

Going places where ppl are already gathering (BHP community rooms, Sacred Heart of Jesus church, etc.) has been very successful, Huntley says.

Council members supportive of Swetlik's proposition.

Friend: We were just on the campaign trail: We all found time for that engagement. Let's draw from that experience.

Yates suggests an online comment-gathering tool, a la the federal government. When a change is proposed, there would be a comment period and a central place to gather those — plus a factual description of what is being suggested to counter the rumor mill of NextDoor, he says.

Lakewood and Wheat Ridge do this, Yates says.

Comments would be publicly available; council sees all the emailed comments. They are publicly available, but difficult to search for and view.

Friend loves this idea but wants to make sure that a clear disclaimer should be included so ppl know this will be public info.

Yates: It shouldn't be anonymous. If you don't have the courage to put your name behind what you're saying, you probably shouldn't be saying it.

Friend concurs; but they need to know that it will be public.

Will likely require first and last name.

"This is just another opportunity to hear from the community ... from ppl who don't otherwise engage with us."

Young: How are we doing to prevent ppl from insulting one another? How do we keep ppl from using fake names? Do we need someone to monitor and delete unsavory comments?

Huntley: This idea (in Lakewood, called Lakewood speaks) would require some software costs. But maybe we can use existing BeHeardBoulder (online engagement platform) in a different way. It is moderated 24/7, it has a profanity filter. Ppl can sign up with whatever name they want.

In Lakewood, specifically for council and planning decisions, there are "workflow implications." They put up their documents (city council packets, etc.) up much earlier than we do, to allow more time for engagement.

Another interesting fact from Lakewood, via Huntley: Practically zero comments being submitted from 5-8 pm, which is when most of our meetings are held.

Friend: To stop it from descending ... NextDoor does have your name attached and it still gets really ugly. Can we limit it to one comment per user?

Yes, Huntley says. We can decide whether or not to allow comments on comments.

Council good with this as well; staff will explore

Going into some of Friend's other suggestions: on-site childcare for council meetings, translation services, and off-site meetings to help drive engagement

"I don't think I have all the answers," Friend says. "I'm just asking the questions to get us thinking about it."

Tanya Ange, assistant city manager: we need to do a survey first to find out what the community is interested in and then come back to council to determine what resources we need for it

Yates: I love the idea of off-site meetings; it comes up at every retreat. There's lots of reasons not to do them. I disagree with them.

One reason: We can't broadcast off-site. But we could start with a study session, which we don't have to broadcast. We can record and post later.

"It sends a really good message to community" to have us out among them, "at a rec center or a church."

Brockett: There's def some promise here.
We do occasionally offer translation services. Do we allow ppl to request translator in advance?

Yes! Available upon request.

Friend's idea is to have a translator at every meeting, the whole meeting. Not sure what that would cost.

Ange: That's why it's our suggestion to survey first. Maybe those people don't want to be at council chambers. We've heard the setup "can be very intimidating."

Brockett: ppl might not know translation services are available. Maybe we can make that more widely known.

Young: Council chambers can be a terrifying place. I think going out into the community ... is far more valuable and more worthy of expenditures than having a translator sit there for 6 hours and then never... nobody takes advantage of that.

Wallach: My initial thought at having off-site meetings was negative, but listening to Friend and Yates, I see the point. "I value experimentation. And I think holding study sessions in communities is an interesting way to go."

Weaver also likes this idea, if the study session pertains to a certain community (East Boulder subcommunity planning, for example.)

Also suggests accepting submitted video comment.

That would work for non-English speakers, which the city could pay to dub or translate.

Council agrees with off-site study sessions

CAC (the council scheduling committee) will handle that.

Brockett: As we think about off-site, remember that city hall is on all the major bus lines. We need to make sure sites are accessible.

RE: Childcare. Staff suggests using the same number ppl can call to request translation, also can be used for childcare and other services.

Friend pushing back a bit: I do understand, but making it available upon request is not equitable. It needs to be available.

That's the short-term fix, Ange says. Longer-term, we'll do the survey to find out what would be helpful for public.

Ange, RE offsite meetings: If we have to rent a venue, bring in chairs, that will be a cost. We'll have to determine if we can accommodate that.

Nagle: Are we going to get a thorough report on how much this will all cost? Bc we have budgetary needs, including public safety which are pretty important.

Staff will return to council with cost info before doing anything.

OK, moving on from engagement to boards and commissions.

First suggestion, from Young: allowing ppl with "close ties" to Boulder to serve (rather than living in Boulder). It would have to be OK'd by the voters first.

She suggested that to get more diversity. The police oversight task force followed the "close ties" rule and we got more diversity, Young said. There are a lot of ppl who work in Boulder, spend time here, but don't participate bc they can't.

Wallach wants a definition of close ties.

Young: Work, do a lot of activities, participate in other things, use the rec center. I think we'd need to set some criteria. Groups that have already done this can provide some guidance.

Wallach: I like the concept of works in Boulder. I'm not sure someone who comes in to use the rec center has the sufficient nexus.

Brockett: I like this. Criteria is important.

Good Yates q: Would you apply this to all boards, or are there certain ones that you think are more important?

Young doesn't answer. Asks a q back: How would you distinguish?

Yates: Human Relations Commission makes sense. Transportation, since it flows out of our community, makes sense, too. But I see how ppl might be resistant if it was, say, Planning Board.

Yates: I'm just asking the question.

Young: Idk how you could pick and choose boards. You're in a way making some judgements as to what kinds of ppl would apply to which boards.

City attorney Tom Carr weighs in: I would just replace living in Boulder with "close ties" and then give council flexibility on those ties and which boards.

Assuming the public agrees, of course.

Carr: "My recommendation is if you do it, do it with flexibility so you don't have to go back to the charter."

Friend: I might prioritize residents. And we required a certain % of diversity representation. Are we trying to back into that result and going forward in it and requiring that our boards be more diverse.

"Do we want to get at that more directly?"

Weaver: I'm concerned about how we define close ties. I lived outside Boulder for 20 years; my understanding was limited. Building owners who live outside Boulder could apply. "There are definitely slippery slopes."

Nagle: "I'll play devil's advocate on this." I kind of agree with Weaver. ... but there's a lot of smart ppl west of Boulder. Maybe we just open it up to Boulder County. "There are some ppl who use Boulder as their town even if they don't live in it."

"What I hear a lot from that community is how insane the traffic is, how dense it's become and yet they can't do anything about it."

Nagle: I'm not sure requiring diversity would be a good thing. "I don't want to just check off a box and not have the best person for the job."

OH MY GOD.

OK, moving on even though, seriously? Again?

Swetlik: We have a lot of ppl in this town who don't apply to boards and commissions, so going outside the town...

Young: Idk that quotas is ever a good thing.

Council is cool with at least exploring this. Reminder, it will have to be OK'd by voters.

Another Friend suggestion (though how we'll accomplish it, idk): Reducing partisan appointments to boards and commissions.

Also: improving diversity of members and maybe compensating them a bit.

Perhaps with city benefits.

Friend: I encouraged a formerly homeless woman to apply for the Housing Board. She's trying to catch up financially, so it's hard to commit to something with no financial reward. I want us to think that we're asking ppl to commit to work with no compensation ....

...and yet trying to get diversity.

Ange, up again: Right now, boards and commission members are classified as volunteers. Those groups are not within our HR system; they're not recognized as employees.

Friend: They do get RTD passes, right?
Yes, Ange says.

City employees get rec center passes, but they pay the tax on those. Ange: Right now, we don't have a mechanism in place for board members to pay that. Would they pay upfront?

Would cost $27K/yr for all board/commish members to get rec passes

Carr: We have contract with RTD to provide those to board members and all downtown employees. So it's Dif than an employee benefit.

Joseph: I think it's a great idea.

But she has qs.

Friends: My thought was benefits that employees and council gets that aren't $$. But I'd be open to talking about $$.

Weaver: I'm not against this, but there are lots of Dif levels of board service. Not all boards are equal. Maybe we'd want to sort them.

BOZA and BURA hardly ever meet; just a few times a year. Vs. Planning Board, which meets all the time and has long meetings.

Ange: Maybe we use time commitment as a threshold.

Ange: Plus there are volunteers in many systems/dept that give thousands of hours of time. What about those ppl? Why would they be Dif from boards and commissions? We might want to consider those criteria.

Wallach: I agree with Weaver to sort through boards and see where "heavy lifting" is being done. Also, means testing: "Someone who drives up in a Tesla does not really need a rec pass."

Swetlik: Maybe we explore a public-private partnership, like board members get 50% off at Sweet Cow. I would utilize that.

Much laughter.

Brockett: What about a discount on rec center passes? That would solve the means testing and the HR angles.

OK, council wants staff to explore this.

Now talking the thorny subject of partisan appointments to boards and commissions.

Friend: "I think it's a bit of an elephant in the room. So let's go ahead and talk about it."

Having sat through the process, it gets *very* partisan.

Which makes me shake my head, laugh and cry a little about Nagle's comments on diversity being a bad idea bc the best person should get the job...

Members — Nagle included — have voted for WILDLY unqualified persons simply bc their politics align.

Joseph: I welcome Friend's idea. It's important to have diversity of voices and political opinions. But it's the 9 of us who vote... so how do we change the process?

Friend: idk the answer. I just wanted to talk about it. Is there a way to improve the process?

Young: Partisan typically means Dems v. Repubs. What you're talking about is affiliation with some group or identity. ... How do you eliminate that part of it?

Wallach: I'm just not sure it's a workable concept. We don't give civil service exams for the positions. And the composition of council changes over time. One year the appointments veer in one direction, the next year another.

"The real concern is to get more diversity ... and to get ppl who are qualified to do the work."

Wallach: I don't think any council members take these appointments lightly and just say, you're in PLAN, you're in.

Swetlik: Having gone through the boards process, I try to look for ppl who have a commitment and dedication to do the work. Less so in ideology and more in, are they going to do the work?

Young: Council looks at expertise or perspectives that are missing from the boards. Maybe we can just follow Swetlik's comments and strive to appoint through that lens.

I like everyone pretending these aren't partisan appointments.

Young: "Different council have different ways they operate. Let's wait and see how this council operates."

Weaver: There have been councils that have been more or less focused on appointments. The ones that get, what you would call partisan, like Planning Board .... that's where council look at policy preference. Other boards are almost all about experience.

Also, pretending these appointments aren't idealogical ignores the traditional pipeline from boards and commissions to council.

Brockett: There have been times I've seen ppl not get appointed bc they were seen as being ideologically aligned with a certain group. I hope this council strives to not do.

RE: diverse representation, I'd love for that to be something we focus on. Charter includes gender diversity, but we should look at other things: age, ethnicity, etc.

That was Brockett, btw.

Brockett: No quotas in the charter, but this should be something we consider.

Joseph: I understand the idea of not having %. But if we add in the charter, it wouldn't be comparable to that. We can't put % in the charter, but saying we want more diversity... "I'm not sure that's wrong."

Carr: They're not employees, so you don't have the same issues. We certainly could draft language that made it clear diversity by various demographics would be important to consider by council members.

Friend: How did we do it with the police oversight committee? Didn't we want a specific number of ppl?

Yes, Carr says, but that wasn't in the city charter, just the group's charter.

Friend: "Leaving it up to the whim on individual councils doesn't give me a good feeling." Watching appointments last year, .. "I would watch ppl who were very qualified candidates not get through" for what seemed like idealogical reasons, and not just the "big" boards.

Yates: It's fine for us to have an "aspirational understanding" of the need for diversity, but let's not put it in the charter.

RE: partisanship: "Idk how you legislate that. I think we have to look each other in the eye and say we're looking for balanced boards."

"We have a handful of ppl to choose from and we do the best we can."

(Those were both Yates, btw.)

Wallach on diversity: "I think it's more than aspirational but less than statutory." Would also not add language to charter.

Here's my story from last year's board and commission appointments: boulderbeat.news/2019/03/23/aff…

Try and tell me it's not partisan.

Young: The training for boards and commissions are done by the idealogical groups. Maybe we should do community-wide trainings, not in respective camps.

Bergman (the facilitator): Before you do appointments, why don't you revisit this conversation?

This is all very relevant, bc applications are open now: bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commiss…

Apply. I'll live-tweet your interview!
See, the job is not completely without benefits.

omg the facilitator just said council slut and I really felt that.

Have never heard the word slut in a council proceeding before. I Stan.

Bergman: "The community watches what you do. And they draw conclusions."

We're going back to the diversity piece: Who supports putting that on the charter?

Enough so that the charter committee will explore that.

Little break for dinner. Returning at 6:50

We're back. Brautigam breaking in with a warning to council: "You didn't say no to anything" on council procedures. "This is getting to be a heavy lift particularly for the city manager's office."

"We'll do all the things you ask, but you're not going to get it in, like, a month."

Weaver: If you bring back the stuff we said to go forward with, you ask us to prioritize them.

Two categories left on the procedure front; tomorrow is all workplace priorities.

Young suggestion: Changing the way council is paid from per-meeting to per-month.

They get paid, like, $10K a year.

"The rationale is that we spend a lot of time on council outside of the meetings. It doesn't seem rational to just pay for the meetings," Young says.

To be clear, this wouldn't raise the pay, just change it from per-meeting to per-month.

Nagle and Swetlik support with thumbs up.

Friend does as well, for reasons doing with health insurance.

Wallach, too: "I couldn't agree more strongly."

Nobody mentioning that it might de-incentivize attendance.

If you get paid whether you show up or not, what's the compulsion to show up?

I guess I'll have to track attendance now, too.

All council in agreement to explore this. I believe this will require an OK by voters bc it's a change to the charter...?

Another Young suggestion: Having different council members lead study sessions. Other council members supported this as well.

Nagle supports it for ppl who want to, but "I personally have no interest in doing it."

Weaver echoes: It should be voluntary.

Yates: We should have discretion for council members with expertise to lead study sessions in their wheelhouse.

Council will just pass that rule and voila it will be done. No voter OK needed.

Wallach, Brockett proposed moving meetings to Thursday nights.

Brockett: "The motivation there is to make council a more doable commitment for council members who have day jobs, city staff ... as well as community members who have morning commitments."

Monday morning (8 a.m.) is council agenda committee. Then late Tuesday nights, then back to work on Wednesday morning, Brockett says. It's a tough rhythm.

Nagle: Not to be the rain cloud but that's going to make me miss 8-10 meetings per year. Young will miss a meeting every other month.

I guess it won't matter bc you'll still get paid under the per-month change.

Swetlik: Can we time it for 2 yrs out?
Brockett: I was hoping for sooner than two years, but it wouldn't have to be immediate.

Maybe after summer recess, or starting next year after winter break, Brockett suggests.

Along with this, Weaver wants council agenda committee to move to Monday evening.

Friend: Wouldn't that require staff to be at work longer on Mondays?
Yes, Brautigam says.

The soonest this change could happen is July 1, bc of staff schedules.

Staff has agenda meeting right after council's on Mondays. "Every dept director's schedule is going to have to change to accommodate this," Brautigam says.

And what about interplay of Planning Board, etc., she asks. "We haven't looked into it" yet.

Monday afternoon for council agenda would be better but still have impacts. They used to be at 5 p.m. on Mondays but last 2-2.5 hrs. "That cannot happen."

Wallach: I'm more than happy to accommodate staff for a transition period, but I think the change makes sense and makes life a little bit easier.

Nagle: I love the idea but I ran for council knowing meetings were going to be on Tuesdays. If it's a study session, no big deal, but if it's a voting thing.... I don't think it's fair for those of us who made a commitment.

"I know my schedule for the next 20 years."

Brockett withdraws request.

It will be revisited at a future retreat.

Weaver still wants to move CAC. (council agenda committee)

Rest of council agrees, except for Friend concerned about staff working extra hours.

Brautigam: We need to figure out how to phase it in.

Weaver: I know that some time in the distant past, they were in the afternoon. They somehow worked out then.
Brautigam: It didn't work well.

There was "last-minute scrambling. We were happy when it flipped to the morning," she says.

We can do it, but "we need some grace from council" if we can't get stuff turned around by Tuesday night's meeting.

Yates: How does it work on holiday weeks now, when CAC is on Tuesday instead of Mondays?
Brautigam: They can work. "I'm just asking you to commit that if we can't get something done quickly, there will not be negative consequences at a public meeting for that."

Bergman: So don't yell at them. This is going to be tough.

Young: Don't we need 24-hr notice for things?
Carr: Yes and no. You are required to provide notice of items, so it would be hard to add an item to an agenda. We don't do that very often.

"I don't think there's a legal obstacle. It just compresses the time."

Friend asks if council meetings can be Wed. or Friday.

Girl, I know you're married but some of us out here are NOT and we are trying to have a life.

Says the girl live-tweeting from a city council meeting on a Friday night.

But council doesn't like that either, and there's a Wed. conflict, so that goes nowhere.

Weaver: If we commit to keeping CAC to an hour, start at 4:30 and staff who have to be there come in 30 min later in the morning. What about then?

Brautigam: I feel the room moving in that direction, which is fine. Can we have a couple weeks to think about the ramifications for our schedules? Then we can pick a date for it to start.

Her words said fine. Her tone said not fine.

Nagle asks that it not be implemented until July, bc she'll have to leave work early on Mondays in addition to Tuesdays to attend those meetings when it's her turn.

OK, so that will be explored.

Friend: I think it's bearing in mind the Tipton report that staff being frustrated by council actions. "They don't get to be heard here while we're about to botch their schedules. I don't think it's right for the 9 of us" to make that call without them being here.

Brockett: I think it's important to see how this will work for ppl. Maybe we ask this is part of the thinking when you take this to staff.

A Wallach suggestion: Limiting public hearings to 2 per meeting, unless they're not controversial.

This goes hand-in-hand with another suggestion I and others have made with hard 10 p.m. stop for meetings, Wallach says. "I'm an advocate for thinking more and doing less."

Three public hearings is just asking for trouble.

Brautigam: I think it's a great idea. What I want to bring up is the last council decided that every second reading of an ordinance would have a public hearing. This council decided that non-controversial ones would be on the consent agenda, no public hearing. Is that OK?

Weaver: Any council member can request that something be pulled off consent agenda for a public hearing.

Bergman: Previous councils pulled so many stuff off the consent agenda for hearings. So maybe have some criteria around that.

Actually she said the last council.

THIS council OK with putting non-controversial second readings on consent agenda.

Also agrees with limiting public hearings to two per meeting... BUT Carr breaks in to say that public hearings are required for some things: Landmarks, etc.

They're quasi-judicial and not usually controversial. If you have two items and then a landmarks call-up you have to do, you're kind of stuck.

Wallach: I think that's up to CAC to keep things tight.

Friend suggested that substantive public hearings be moved to the beginning of meetings, along with some other changes to public comment and open comment.

"I don't understand why we don't put anything with major public interest before open comment," Friend says. As a constituent, I've had my issues come up at 10-11 at night.

Yates: CAC does try to put high-interest items as early as possible

Brockett seconds

Young: It's always a balance. At CAC, we do look at it and try to do that. I've known CAC to move matters items to the front for that reason bc there is a lot of interest.

But staff needs to be there as well, so we consider them in scheduling, too.

Carr: Current rule is that expected substantial public comment items are placed on the agenda early; critical short items may be placed first as deemed by CAC

"I don't think we need to make any change. We need to try to follow the current rules better," he says.

Friend: In terms of public comment, can we give notice of approximate time they'll need to be back to testify? That would be helpful.

Bergman explaining the lottery system for open comment, which precedes every business meeting. That was a change from a couple years ago bc there were *dozens* of ppl showing up at every meeting. Now, 15-20 are chosen by lottery.

Friend brining up that there's an online signup and lottery for that, then an in-person signup and lottery. It's confusing.

Carr explaining why that is: For ppl who didn't have computer access, and those who just showed up to speak.

Carr: Open comment is important, but less so than when it was created bc ppl have more ways to weigh in. Namely, email.

Weaver: Council meetings are much shorter than when I first joined (10:30-11 rather than 1 a.m.)

Young also wants to keep current system. Apologies if I'm not explaining it well.

Joseph has suggested that leftover campaign $$ in city council elections be donated to nonprofits, and non-recyclable materials as well

She donated hers this year to a major nonprofit, "but I could have left it to a local one" if there had been a list. She wants to create one.

Bergman: Do you want this to be a requirement or just an option?
Joseph: Whichever would be easier to make it happen.

Swetlik: Can you force ppl to have to donate their $$?
Carr: We'd want to look at it. I'd prefer if it were voluntary, bc it does involve campaign finance and you get into all sorts of Constitutional issues. I'd want to think about it some more.

Brautigam: If it's not a requirement but staff should give a list of local nonprofits... we don't have that list. We do have a list of nonprofits that the city gives $$ to. "Impossible" to create a list of all nonprofits in the city.

Weaver: If you take the city matching $$, you have to donate the leftover to a nonprofit, right?

Half back to the city, half to a nonprofit.

Yates: It seems burdensome to discriminate against the Red Cross bc they're not local. And when it comes to non-money stuff, where would you draw the lines? Clipboards, rubber bands? It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure a requirement is necessary.

Wallach: Effectively, this is what we're doing.

So that will not be a requirement, but language in the campaign handbook will be updated to emphasize donations to nonprofits.

Another Friend suggestion: Have staff develop council memos with pros and cons of proposed changes, rather than just highlighting the benefits and staff recommendation

Brautigam: "We definitely can do that, as long as council doesn't expect that we're going to make up stuff." Just bc we have five pros for something and the only con we can think of is it will cost more $$, we're not going to spend time coming up with more cons.

Carr: My concern is that I don't want this to be, 90% of the memos we write are routine. I hate to have staff go and think up why we would oppose a simple open space purchase or something there's not going to be any controversy over.

Perfect Boulder example for that: City leaders can't think of any cons for purchasing more open space when we can't afford to maintain what we have...

Carr suggests just making it for big items.

Wallach: I have not found it difficult to ascertain pros and cons on my own. I haven't found memos to be either one-sided or crafty in the presentation.

Sorry, but back to the open space example. Literally no information available on the most recent open space purchase of how much it would cost to maintain. Staff needs to do an analysis before that is determined.

Young to Friend: Isn't that council's job to think of pros and cons?

Friend: There have been examples I felt info was presented on the pros and I had to ask info about the cons. And we don't have the info even to know what the cons might be and what questions to ask.

"Yes I do think it's our job to figure out if something is right and wrong, but in some senses I don't feel we're getting all information flushed out."

Young: It could be perceived as political, bc one person's pro is another person's con.

Weaver: I generally feel that staff does a good job of bringing us information. I can't think of but a few memos that weren't well put together.

"I think staff knows that we expect good information from them. I really think this is what we get now. Developing pros and cons is kind of our responsibility."

Asks that Friend bring up future memos as examples so he understands more where she's coming from.

Young wants to rename the municipal building after Penfield Tate, Boulder's first and only black mayor. Memorializing POC who have contributed to the city was part of the racial equity resolution passed recently.

boulderbeat.news/2019/12/19/bou…

Tate was not re-elected after he advocated for LGBTQ equality in the city. This was in the 1970s.

Brautigam: There's a big process to rename the building, that involves the community.

Tate was also subject to a recall effort, along with another council member. Tate wasn't recalled; the other member was.

The only recall efforts in Boulder history, Weaver says.

Yates and Nagle suggest getting rid of one meeting a month: Fourth Tuesday study sessions.

Wait.. Yates withdrawing that for this year.

Suggesting that if Young's proposal to pay per-month goes into effect, then they'll cut a meeting.

Sounds like an old bait-and-switch. Change up our pay and then we'll do less work!

Now discussing the hard 10 p.m. stop for meetings, suggested by a few council members.

Weaver: "Hard stops are really bad. What if you're in the middle of a discussion and you have to postpone it?" Then you have a continued hearing you have to schedule. "Hard stops will end up cramming the workplan very badly."

Weaver: We should make a commitment to make our comments, move on. And agree to do big stuff by 10 p.m. and then cleanup after if needed.

Yates: Let's not schedule things to go on that long.

(After 10 p.m., that is)

That's a four-hour meeting.

Young: This is all a function of work plan.

Bergman: We'll remind you of this tomorrow when you have all these shiny new ideas.

Bergman: There is some personal accountability in meeting performance.

Talking less, etc.

Wallach: I'm OK with the concept that we might not get everything done in a particular council. I prefer better consideration of a few items.

Let's not do anything after 10 p.m. that requires staff. If we want to be gluttons for punishment, that's on us. But let staff leave the room. Same for public comment.

Carr: Current rule says that all council meetings be adjourned by 10:30; agenda check by 10 p.m. No new substantial item can be addressed after 10 p.m. and nothing new after 10:30. All meetings adjourned by 11 p.m. unless council votes to extend.

Carr: Do you want me to change 10:30 to 10?
Wallach: I do.

Friend also proposed this, but now she's playing devil's advocate.

I'd like to propose that we ban the phrase devil's advocate.

Friend's point is that we don't want to have staff sit there all night and then cancel items.

Yates: We've been pretty good at that. It's happened a couple of times.

Swetlik: Those who cast this in stone, I want your butts in seats at 5:59 p.m. I don't want to be door-guying ppl in from the kitchen.

He is *always* there early.

Weaver: The time we get really wound around the axle is when there's a big meeting. Community groups turn their ppl out. At public hearing, you have to hear everybody out.

A hard stop disenfranchises members of the community, Weaver says. Wants to keep rule as-is, and let CAC try to stick to scheduling 4 hour meetings.

Straw poll on current rule
Brockett: Agnostic
Joseph: Leave it
Young: Leave
Weaver: Leave
Swetlik: Leave
Friend: Leave
Yates: (I couldn't hear)
Wallach: Change
Nagle: Change

So no hard stops at 10 p.m. but council will try to schedule shorter meetings.

OMG ARE WE DONE YET? idk how I'm going to sit (and tweet) all day tomorrow.

More Friend suggestions: Ways to make public testimony more comfortable, such as allowing speakers to be seated, lowering the dais, video testimony, floating ic. But we should ask community what they would like.

So that will be added to the survey we discussed hours earlier.

Friend wants to look at changing elections by using rank choice voting or maybe changing the number of council members. "I know ppl have been reluctant to raise salaries, but maybe it would be easier if we had fewer council members."

Also, direct election of mayor.

And incentivizing not using yard signs (bc they're not recyclable) or encouraging use of materials that are recyclable.

So lots in there.

Young: When Jill Grano resigned, the work for everybody went up.

Wallach: Agrees with yard sign, but everything else is "a massive, very heavy lift, and I think we have other things we need to be focusing on."

Changes to our electoral system, a time may come for that but its time is not here.

Yates: I'm not sure this is something we'd want to take on this year. We'd probably have to stand up our election working group again and have them looking at it.

"I'm not sure what problem we're trying to solve."

Brockett: I love the idea of rank choice voting. I think it's a work plan item, rather than process. I'd be interested in tackling that.

Young echoes that. Not that she's interested, just that it's a work plan item. "I see it in the same bucket as online petitioning, which we haven't wrapped up and tied a bow on yet. I wouldn't want to take on another item like that."

Swetlik: Can we say we can't use these types of signs in local, municipal elections?
Carr: I think so. I'm more concerned about our current code under the First Amendment than banning signs.

You could ban plastic yard signs.
Weaver: There's a state preemption on material bans.
Carr: For containers, I think. I'll check on that.
Weaver: You do that.

Sassy Sam, at it again!

Weaver suggests that if candidates take city $$, they can't do yard signs.

Swetlik: I'd like a living wage. I never voted for it bc I never thought I'd me a city council member. It's hard for ppl to vote for a living wage when they have a certain idea of who a city council member is.

This will be kicked to tomorrow, though Weaver's yard sign suggestion gained approval from council.

omg guys I'm *exhausted*

Wallach suggests developing criteria for emergency votes by council. I made this suggestion bc I was a proponent of the opportunity zone moratorium, he says. I'm glad we did that, but I'm not sure it needed to be an emergency.

Carr: This is something that troubles staff, too. We've done I my time 5-6 moratoria. Usually a council member or 2 comes to staff and says there's this real big problem we have to address and if we don't do it on emergency basis bad things will happen.

Carr: We draft it and the rest of council says, where does this come from? You're not supposed to work for 2 council members.

Didn't know this: The rule for emergency votes came from Boulder, in two court cases. If a legislator says it's an emergency, a court won't question it, Carr says.

"There are times I regret doing what we've done," Carr says.

Carr suggests council policing itself rather than hard-and-fast rules.

90% of emergency ordinances we pass are passed bc of a deadline, he says.

Wallach: That's my suggestion. Creating guidance.

Council largely agrees on that. No ideas on what those might be, though.

Yates: "In my time on council, we've had a few moratoria. I think it's true to say that in retrospect, none of them were emergencies."

Brockett: Could we put guidelines in the council rules?
Yes, Carr says.

Young wants rules about resolutions that council does on big federal issues that they really don't have any real impact on. What's the point other than making ppl feel good, she asks.

Weaver: If something is in our legislative agenda, we don't need a resolution on.

Good use of the word subsume from Young. Love that word.

Sorry guys, I'm drifting. It has been a long night.

Other council members OK with developing guidelines for resolutions, limiting them to (maybe) local issues. Council's legislative committee will handle that.

Yates suggestion for new items that come up: Put it in the parking lot; we'll do a July check-in and then see what, if anything, gets called up from the parking lot.

Friend: That's hard for me to support. Sometimes important things come up, like the vaping issue. I wouldn't want to remove the option.

Yates: There would be an emergency exemption and the proposing member would have to convince at least 5 members that it needed to be added to work plan.

References 5G as an example of something that definitely was NOT worth being added.

Wallach: Maybe a requirement of health, life and safety for emergencies.

Weaver bringing up assault weapons ban. It is a health, life and safety thing, but it wasn't a big problem in Boulder. "We can write all the council rules we want, but if 5 council members or more want to do it, that's just the way it's going to be."

Brautigam to council: You almost never say no to nods of 5. I want you to think, when one comes up, do you really want to do that thing, or are you just saying no to be nice?

Yates: "I'm suggesting we not do nods of 5 except in emergency situations. We say to ourselves, this is the work plan for 2020 and we're not going to screw with it unless somebody is going to die."

Bergman: Is that what the whole retreat is about? Protecting yourselves from yourselves?

Much laughter, including from me.

Guys, we're in the home stretch. 8:45. 15 min left!

Yates reminding council that members can't request staff to do anything on their own: Direction has to come from council as a whole.

That's been an issue in the past, Yates says. Carr reads the official rules.

Brautigam: If we lived in a world under the strict provisions of that charter, then the council members would need to ask me about the traffic signals at X,Y,Z intersection, or about a homeless thing. It saves time if council member knows the right person to ask.

I've told council to do that. But, "they're supposed to tell me that they've been talking to you and what they're talking about."

SO, council can talk to staff, but Brautigam needs to know about it. And they can't ask staff to do anything.

A Weaver reminder of the "no surprises" rule. Members should explain their thinking and any info about decisions in a Hotline post. No major new proposals during meetings.

An example: Apparently Frederick fired its city manager from the dais the night of a meeting.

Another reminder: No council member responses to Hotline posts. That is technically an un-noticed meeting.

We're talking council snacks.

I'm not kidding.

That's all for tonight. Tomorrow: Work plan and priorities.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!