Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, we're in the home stretch now. (Supposedly) 1 hr left in which to prioritize all the work plan items.

This list has fewer planning items than in councils past. So.. rather than prioritize them all against one another, we can balance them by dept.

At least some of them.

We're talking about Friend's suggestion for gathering emissions data for a better understanding of housing/transportation + climate change.

Steve Catanach going over what data that might be: in-commuters, city limit traffic flows, concentration of high-density and lower-density housing, etc.

Council's OK with exploring that. It won't bump anything, so no need to prioritize.

Another Friend add: Comprehensive audit of city policies to check alignment with sanctuary city status. Staff will start by asking dept. what they're doing as it relates to the sanctuary city ordinance.

Council OK with that, too. It is doable without bumping anything, so again no need to prioritize. (As I understand it)

Next item: Bilingual emergency communications (Joseph)

Council OK with that. Can be done with current staff time. Soaring right along here.

Downtown/Hill alley activation will be pushed to 2021 work plan.

That was a Yates thing.
Guess I didn't need a new thread, since we already covered all of this.

To clarify, we're going over NEW workplan items, in addition to carryover from last council.

Next item, also from Yates: Pursuing city authority to demolish derelict structures.

Council thumbs up. Staff will proceed.

OK, something from yesterday popping up: Implementing rank choice voting, direct-election of mayor.

Staff can explore, come back in 3Q and then put on 2021 ballot. But Weaver is suggesting a working group, so might have some more discussion here.

Carr: What I'm suggesting that any changes be put to voters in 2021, but it wouldn't be in effect until 2023 election
Weaver: Do you feel comfortable leading analysis of different voting choices?

Carr: Brining some more info, yes: Background, history. Then check in with council to see what you're interested in. That's the time to bring in a working group.

Young: This was on my list, asked for months ago. I left it off before I sent it in. I reconsidered for two reasons: I think the problem that we're trying to solve, that I was trying to solve, is the slate thing and the divisiveness that brings about in our elections.

But that wasn't the case in this election, she says. Nobody was elected who was in extreme of "whatever those camps were."

Bro, we all know what the camps are! Just admit it!

Second reason she bumped: Wants to finish online petitioning first.

She would push first step further to 2022.
Yates, too. "I suppose study session would educate me on what problem we're trying to solve." Right now, idk.
Ditto for Wallach. "I'd like to make progress on concrete items."

Nagle, too, I think.

Joseph is with Friend in the minority. "The point of ranked choice voting is about giving ppl more choices. A lot of ppl have issues with at-large. It would be bridging that gap."

Weaver not in favor, but says Brockett probably would be.

"I've often thought these type of election changes should come from the electorate" via a petition, he says.

So this one is off the work plan.

OK, I guess we're moving on...? I guess there wasn't much prioritization to do.

Other project that I'm 99.9% certain is getting added to the agenda is a higher minimum wage, for which there was much council support.

And, of course, changes to homeless service.

I guess this thread won't be as helpful as I thought it was.

Oh well, we've moved on to council agreements. Friend asking why there's a "rule" that council not receive emails and texts during meetings.

How is it Dif from ppl coming up to speak? And ppl aren't following it, she says: I've seen it.

There's no punishment, Carr says: it's an agreement among council members. But it was put in place bc there were ppl texting council members while someone was speaking during public comment arguments to refute the person speaking.

And council members were texting each other to strategize with each other on how to vote, Weaver says.

Nagle: Ppl text me as well. I'm not going to tell them to stop. I've texted Lisa (Morzel) in the past to ask a clarifying question bc I was new. I don't mind if somebody does that. But, yes, to make strategies I 100% agree we shouldn't be doing.

Weaver: We should not be texting or emailing each other at all. If you want to ask a q of someone, just ask them as part of the conversation.

Bergman: If public sees a council member on their phone at the dais, they draw conclusions from your behavior.

Wallach: To me it appears a little bit disrespectful. But I don't care if ppl disagree with me.
Yates agrees.

Man, they're like two peas in a pod.

Joseph: It's based on the honor system, so that's really on the individual council members. Whatever you decide, is fine.

Young: It feels ick to me and I don't do it.

So those council agreements will be amended to specify that no electronic communication will occur during quasi-judicial matters, and members won't communicate with each other electronically at all.

Weaver wants to talk about the working agreements over the mayor and mayor pro-tem elections.

Basically just reminding everyone of the process.

"I just don't want this year to happen again," he says.

Now talking mid-year updates. This is all just little stuff; feel free to log off.

July 14, council will do a 90-min check-in on what projects are getting keyed up for latter half of the year and 2021

Man, we're already talking NEXT retreat. Friend wants to do it in council chambers so it can be streamed.

Yates, too: January 2021 long study session in council chambers. (2019's mid-term update was at the Boulder Museum and it was PACKED)

We were crammed in there.

OMG I think we're done! There's a closing exercise.

I'm still not sure what's on their workplan for 2020-2021...? I'll try and pull it together for you.

OK this closing exercise is kinda good. Old council members: What do you wish you knew when you were new?

New: What did you wish council knew while you were at home watching a meeting?

Wallach: What I would have said in the past is to wonder why everyone had to speak on every issue. "But this council seems to be much more economical in our comments."

Weaver: At first I thought you just got on council and things got done. Then you get on council and realize there's this entire process between you and getting things done: public comment Phase 1 + 2 ....

"A lot of ppl want to be involved in the process, and you have to make room for that. And time for that."

Yates: "What I know now is that the act of governing and making decisions is not an adversarial process. It's a collaborative process."

"The way to get stuff done is to sit down with my colleagues, to collaborate and get things done."

Bergman: "You were once a very feisty council member."
Much laughter.

Young: Don't make assumptions of ppl. And listen to both points of view.

Nagle: I always wondered why things don't get done. Then you get on the other side and it's like, oh, now I feel just as helpless as I did on the other side. "If you don't have a majority, it's not going anywhere."

Joseph: I attended meetings for 6 mos. before the election. I thought these ppl are just always talking and talking. I came from a field where you have an idea and you just do it.

"Research is as much an important part of the process as getting things done."

Friend: I have nothing. I've always asked all my questions and it's an honor to be sitting here with you.

Brautigam: This is mostly to let you know how hard our staff worked to prepare the info you received.

Giving some shoutouts. I have to say, this packet was a major improvement over last year's.

Kudos.

Weaver: On behalf of council, I'd like to thank staff very much. This is the smoothest running retreat I've been part of (since 2013). He says kudos, too!

We done! 20 min early!

@threadreaderapp please unroll, for what it's worth.