Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK I'm starting a new thread. Brautigam is addressing protocols for employees, per a Young q. I think I used the word testing but I meant temperature and other symptom checks.

Young: Will furloughed employees be brought back as we reopen?
Brautigam: If services they provide are resumed.

So, for instance, lifeguards won't be needed if the pools don't reopen, but if they do.... they will be rehired.

Council is going to vote on changing their rules/procedures for virtual meetings. Short presentation here: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/1D_Counci…

Carr addressing the attempts to disrupts Thursday's council chat. The issue, he explains, is that as a gov't, Boulder has to be careful about what speech and activities it allows and doesn't.

Here's how they're handling that: "Meetings are for conducting the business of the City of Boulder. Activities that disrupt, delay or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited."

Public speakers will have to limit their speech to whatever the topic at hand is. They'll also have to use their real name when signing up, which I think was already a rule.... ?

"Any person believed to be using a pseudonym will not be permitted to speak at the meeting."

LOLOL apparently someone at Thursday's meeting signed up with the name of a porn site.

Man I really wish I had tuned in. Although my anxiety would have been off the chart watching staff try to deal with that.

"Obviously the name of a porn site is not a real name," Carr says.

Things I never though I'd hear during a council meeting....

"When you have a virtual meeting, everybody in the world has the ability to get in," Carr says. "And there are some ppl in the world who have bad judgement."

We're talking process for public hearing. Sorry I'm not tweeting; trying to eat and keep my dog out of my business.

The person presiding over the meeting will mute ppl who act up. Carr prefers that to having staff do it because elected officials have immunity under the law.

I assume that extends to appointed officials like the heads of boards and commissions.

Friend worried about the delay it would cause to have an elected official make the call. "If a pornographic image pops up, you want that gone right away."

Speak for yourself. It's been a long, lonely quarantine...

Apparently whatever happened on Thursday was "clearly" not as issue of free speech, Friend says.

Carr agrees: "Absolutely."

Council going to vote on these rules tonight, before open comment, which is no longer starting the meetings.

Unanimous in favor.

That takes us right into open comment. 13 ppl signed up and on the Zoom call.

There's a virtual countdown clock. Fun.

Chelsea Castellano, from Bedrooms Are For People, raising some issues with the city's proposal for online petitioning. They sent an email today. boulderbeat.news/2020/04/15/cou…

The clerk is going to randomly contact 100 ppl who have signed petitions online. If 10 of them don't reply, it invalidates the entire petition.

That's a really high and unrealistic response rate, Castellano says.

"People who do not respond shouldn't be assumed to have committed fraud," she says.

"It shouldn't be harder to indicate that you want the chance to vote for something than it is to vote for that thing."

Amanda Mercado is talking about No Eviction Without Representation. She's really burning through her time without saying very much.

Jacquie Richardson is picking up where Mercado left off. Sharing data from the evictions report they did: 88% of evicting landlords have representation; 2% of tenants do.

No Eviction Without Representation will "drastically" reduce the power imbalance there and get at the root of homelessness.

Several other communities have pursued similar measures.

"The city needs to have mitigation plans in place" for the likely "tsunami" of evictions that will follow in COVID's wake, Richardson says.

Krista Nordback also here from Bedrooms Are For People. 5-15% response rate for clerk contacts is "maybe" likely: "90%? I don't see that happening. We'd be more likely to win the lottery."

Nordback also bringing up another point the Bedrooms folks have: That signers' names and addresses will be posted publicly online. That's dangerous, she says, especially for vulnerable populations.

City should instead do signers' initials and last 4 digits of phone number, she says.

There is precedence here. The city stopped making public contact information for board and commission applicants last year after one of the applicants (a domestic violence survivor) raised the issue.

They used to have email addresses, addresses, phone numbers. Now? Nada.

A couple of ppl also speaking in support of 20 is Plenty, which is being considered tonight.

Meagan Arango, also from NEWR, is speaking to the effort: "Tenants need free legal counsel bc they can't afford it on their own." Again, 2% of renters have lawyers in eviction cases while 88% of landlords do. Many tenants never even show up, she says.

"Are we OK with this critical imbalance? Are we content with rubber stamp rulings that force families into homelessness?"

Patrick Murphy, leader of End the Muni, also talking about online petitions: "We have 45 days. The city had 532 days to figure this out, and now we have 45 days."

I think he's referring to the time since citizens voted to allow electronic or online petitioning, in November 2018.

Ruy Arango from NEWR is also referencing Steve Pomerance's op-ed that apparently argued tenants don't need legal representation for evictions....?

Evictions have increased in recent years. And evictions will get worse due to COVID, Arango says.

"I think we're in a grave situation, and I'm worried there is a lot of human misery for us in Boulder at the tail end of this crisis."

SarahDawn Haynes, from Bedrooms4Ppl, asking that there be a cure period for online petitions, as there are for in-person efforts, rather than invalidating them without a chance to resubmit.

Stephen Haydel here to push for 20 is Plenty. More details on that later.

"73 neighborhoods have applied for speed management, which really shows ppl want slower speeds on their streets."

William McGrew, our last speaker, is from NEWR as well. Also asking for changes to proposed online petitioning rules.

As written, "they will almost certainly disqualify all the" current petitions, McGrew says.

"I would not be at all surprised if there was a response rate of less than half."

Also, the requirement for a Voter ID number for signers is more burdensome than requirements for signatures gathered in person. Most ppl don't know it or where to find it.

I, a reporter and Highly Informed citizen, indeed do not.

McGrew: "We're not looking for a handout; we just want a fair shot."

Joseph asking about requirements for online vs paper petitions.
Carr: We're going to discuss this later.

Joseph: "I found (Sammie) Lawerence's comments quite stressful." He's been coming for awhile... What is he asking for? Can we address that?

Carr going over Lawrence's arrest last year. My anxiety is like, yikes-level right now.

"I do not believe he is telling the truth," Carr says of Lawrence.

"I'm hoping that he moves on with his life. This is not healthy. I do really regret he spends so much of his time attacking an officer by name who is a very good officer."

Friend: I hear what you're saying, Tom, but there are inherent imbalances in the criminal justice system. What I hear is Sammie asking us to hear him. I'm willing to give him more time to communicate with us.

"If we can help him to heal, I would give him the audience."

I'mma wrap this thread for one on the next topic, whatever that might be.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!