Thread by @shayshinecastle

I didn't preview this earlier in the night, but council is talking about some matters from the retreat. First up: Should council members be paid monthly? Or 26-27 times per year. (Different from per meeting now).

These are things that will have to be changes to the city charter, if pursued, and therefore OK'd by the voters.

Second proposal: Adding two board members to the Arts Commission, who requested it.

Third: Allowing ppl outside of Boulder city limits to serve on boards and commissions.

Nagle not a fan of that last one, unless it's limited to certain boards or geographic boundaries.

I have neighbors one street over in Gunbarrel who are in the county and can't serve; it would be OK if they could, she says.

Another suggestion, new since the retreat: Adding shorter, non-voting terms for CU students, to get them some civic experience.

Friend: Now that we're getting health insurance, there may be a conflict with being paid monthly. Is there any legal issue there?
Carr: Idk. We'll have to look at it.

Friend again: If we're expanding our boards and commissions outside the city to make them diverse, it's worth looking at other ways to encourage diversification. Not quotas here, but ways to do that.

"Do we want to be more intentional and add some language in" to existing language about gender balance, Friend asks.

She, Young and Nagle are on the charter committee. So council is weighing in on what that committee should explore.

Swetlik: What's our employment status?
Carr: You are employees.
Swetlik: How do we not make minimum wage then?
Yates: I actually looked this up. Elected officials are exempt from the minimum wage law.

Yates suggests allowing ex-oficio positions on boards for non-residents. Like the student positions, they would not vote.

Joseph: My concern is about having ppl outside Boulder on boards. I know I should be open to that bc I'm for diversity and inclusion. But what about a compromise? You have to live here for one year now; why not make that less time? And open it up to Gunbarrel.

"Even though I'm brand new here, I followed the rule and lived here for one year before I ran for council."

But you can persuade me, she says. What's the best practice from other cities?

"I want inclusion, but I want inclusion done the right way."

Wallach: I share Junie's apprehension about this, but I would have the committee do research on this and show it to us.

Swetlik and Yates agree.

With Joseph and Wallach.

Friend: It's just applying to the boards. It's not saying we put them on the board if there are concerns. "It's just a way to increase the options. ... I don't think we're forfeiting the right to scrutinize" applicants.

Brockett: Let's study it but not rush. There's concern in the community about this one.

Weaver: I would like a clear articulation of the problem we're trying to solve with this.

OK, so that's the first one: Charter committee will explore, at a leisurely pace.

Next proposal: Changing pay from per-meeting to per-period.
Nagle: "It's a decoupling."

That decoupling is exactly the concern of some. That ppl will stop showing up. Ya'll gonna make me sift through attendance records for the past 5 years, aren't you?

Swetlik: OK with two weeks, even though two weeks itself is an antiquated and outdated concept.

Have not heard that. Anybody got a think piece on that?

NVM, I found one. fortune.com/2018/12/06/biw…

Friend and Weaver OK with every two weeks.
So do rest of council.

So does* rest of council.
Or so do the rest of council members.

Next up: Increasing the number of board members. The Arts Commission is really overwhelmed, so this was their ask.

I think limiting it to Arts makes sense bc that's where the need is, Brockett says. And a cart blanche permission for us to add to other boards could be abused.

Rest of council on board with that, too.

"Finally giving a voice, even if it's not a voting voice, to people in our community who struggle to get on boards is awesome," Swetlik says, RE: suggestion to allow non-voting student members.

Wallach supports, "but I'm a little concerned about how we pick the individuals" so that it's fair, far-reaching and inclusive.

Young: Let's have the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board do the interview.
Council likes.
Friend: And have it on the academic year.
Council likes, too.

They're going to kick it to YOAB to handle.

RE: city clerk Beck, one petition approved for circulation. That's the No Eviction Without Representation ballot initiative. Have interviewed them; story to come soon.

Something else the charter committee will look at: Remote work possibilities for council members, like call-ins, during times of emergency such as pandemics such as the corona virus that was discussed earlier.

Friend: That's great. Will it help us over the next couple of months?

Not really, is the answer.

Brockett: Maybe we take that up if there's a citywide quarantine. Maybe community members video in and just the 9 of us are here, sitting in opposite corners.

Friend: It may not be a full quarantine, but what if the advice becomes don't come out in public?

Joseph: I'm very surprised we don't have some kind of emergency contingency plan.

"We have to move with the time," Joseph says.

"We are a government, and to not have one is very surprising to me," she says.

No emergency provisions in the charter; some in the code, though.

That allows city council members to meet outside the city.

It's up to council to interpret the charter, Carr says. It requires that you meet in public, that the meeting be noticed, etc.

Charter committee will work on a contingency plan; sounds like there's some wiggle room in case of a not-quite-quarantine-but-still-bad coronavirus situation.

That's all for charter stuff. @threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!