Thread by @shayshinecastle

We're talking initiative petitions now. Presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/3A_Initia…

Carr leading, so we're going to go fast.
Three petitions: One to provide legal representation to everyone facing eviction

That would be via a $75 per license fee on landlords. Affordable housing exempt, obviously

Carr reminding council we're not debating the merits of the measures now; just establishing criteria to see if the petitions can make it on the ballot since signatures can't be gathered anymore.

Second petition effort: Stop the muni and reallocate the utility occupation tax to other climate measures

Third: Amending Boulder's occupancy limits of 3-4 unrelated persons and instead tying it to the number of bedrooms +1 person

That one is a charter amendment, so it's different from the first two.

Signature requirements and deadline:
Eviction Representation: 3,336 signatures by June 5
Reallocate UOT: 3,336 by June 5
Occupancy Limits: 4,048 by August 5

The deadlines can't be changed bc of the city charter (first 2) and state law (occupancy limits) BUT council can just place the measures on the ballot itself.

That's why we're here: Council wants these efforts to have "significant community support" before they put it on the ballot but haven't defined what that means

Crap I just got kicked out of the Zoom!

Carr: I think state law would allow electronic signatures, if you pass an ordinance.

Carr: You could give a deadline extension, XXX days after the stay-at-home order is lifted

Swetlik: Do we know how many signatures we have?
Carr: No one has submitted; they usually don't until they're done.

Friend: I think we should be cautious in saying you can still collect signatures after the order is lifted. We still don't want ppl approaching one another in close proximity.

Brockett: "I'm interested in maybe allowing things to proceed in one fashion or another. I'd hate to abandon direct democracy entirely this year."

But agrees with Friend: We don't want strangers interacting and passing papers back and forth "for a good long while."

Wants to explore electronic or online signatures to count toward criteria of demonstrating community support.

Swetlik: Considering we're moving toward allowing online petitions anyway, it makes sense. If we can verify them.

Yates: Under the electronic option, council would adopt an ordinance allowing signatures to be submitted that were gathered electronically.

Clerk will verify them like she would with paper copies.

Carr: I don't think you can verify them against voter databases. You can verify that they are a registered voter but not their signature.

Yates: Couldn't they be hand signatures? You could send out a PDF, have ppl print it out, sign it, scan it and send it back. Clerk would have a piece of paper no different from in a normal year.

Omg who has a scanner anymore? Is that still a thing?

Talking about state requirements now. Takeaway: Risk of doing scanned signatures isn't any greater than it will be next year when online petitioning is up and running.

Friend bringing up my point about printers and scanners: It seems cumbersome.

Yates: I agree. There are equity issues: Not everybody has access to printers and scanners.

Swetlik: I think in terms of verification and making sure we didn't have names of ppl who didn't actually sign it. Maybe we can make signatures searchable so ppl can check the list.

Young: Setting a threshold is not something I'd want to do. I haven't thought of a way of doing that without having criteria be subjective.

Brockett: We're not going to figure it out tonight, but I want to move something forward. Can staff make suggestions and bring it back?

Nagle: Does staff have time?
Carr: I can get that back to you.

Friend: I'm interested in moving forward. Let's get it on a fast timeline. Ppl are working pretty hard on this.

Young: We're not saying you can't move forward; distancing is just making this hard. If ppl came up with a way, they could move forward.

Carr: I'd be reluctant to suggest that since state law says we should all be staying home.

Joseph wants to know how many signatures groups have gathered.

If they're close to 3,000 I'm not sure it's worth all this fuss, basically is what Joseph just said.

No Eviction Without Representation said they had 1,600 signatures.

End the Muni was certified March 8 so it might have a few but things started shutting down soon after.

The occupancy limit one was approved to start the day of the stay-at-home order

Yates: I'm not really a big fan of judging what is a good enough effort / enough signatures that we should put it on the ballot.

The purpose of this process is direct democracy, he says. If there aren't 5 members of council who want to put these things on, I'm not sure we should. It's "regrettable" that these get impacted, but it's also regrettable that 737 city workers got furloughed.

"I'm not going to be real thrilled about now, in April, committing to folks if they get enough signatures by X date that we'll put this on the ballot in September."

He would be OK with electronic signatures.

BUT, he says, what would prevent someone from using publicly available voter registration information and signing up 3,000 people?

Carr: You could require a phone number or email address and have someone go through and randomly verify. That could reduce the risk; I don't ever think you're going to eliminate it.

Maybe I'm tired and I'm an idiot but... isn't this a lot of handwringing for things that still have to be approved by the voters?

It's not like we're talking about passing these measures into law: It's about allowing the ppl to vote on them.

Friend: "If we have a will, I think we'll probably have a way."

People need hope. "I don't think this is the right year to tinker with democracy."

Nagle: "I'd like to stick with the letter of the law. You have to get exactly what is required by the state or by us."

I think this would have been a better process if it didn't include the actual content of the initiatives. Bc then council wouldn't be influenced by politics.

Wallach agrees with everyone. "I have no idea what to do. I'm in a state of total indecision, so more information would be better."

Young: I'm OK with looking into how to do this electronically.

Not in favor of creating criteria to demonstrate significant public support: "We need to follow our own rules. I don't think this is the time where you start to make up new rules."

"If they don't get the signatures, I'd be very reluctant to say close enough, you get to go."

Brockett: If we require someone to supply a phone number or email with the signature, somebody could call a subset of them. If you emailed 100 ppl and 5 of them said, what? I didn't put my name on there, that would be very telling.

Yates summarizing: I think ppl are willing to have Carr come back to us "really, really soon" with ideas on gathering electronic signatures, within existing deadlines or extended ones.

No appetite for a "good enough solution" that council considers to place the measures on the ballot themselves.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!