Thread by @shayshinecastle

Guess I should get this tweet thread started, eh? It's Tuesday night, so that means #Boulder city council. Our first meeting after summer vacation!

On tap:
Public hearing/council feedback on (partial) redevelopment of Diagonal Plaza
Community Benefit 2.0
Council work check-in

TOTALLY forgot, but this was supposed to be council's triumphant return to chambers, with some staff and public at home. But technical issues scuttled the hybrid meeting so... we're still fully remote. Trying again next week.

Mayor Weaver announcing the public input period for the "reimagining" of Boulder's police dept, going on now through July 31. Link: beheardboulder.org/reimagine-poli…

There's other stuff at BeHeardBoulder.org, too (Alpine-Balsam, parks & rec, pollinators, etc.) The mayor usually doesn't announce those surveys, but I guess the police one is important.

Not gonna thread this, exactly, but council is making some changes to its procedures. Kinda boring stuff, tbh. You can read about it here: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Electr…

The most significant is when council can "revisit" a topic they've already decided on. Many issues have brought this up, but most recently homelessness. Those in the minority felt that spending $3M on enforcement was a "material change" that warranted a new discussion.

This matters bc a topic can't be revisited without a material change.

There was no official definition for what a material change is (minority argued that city money should count) but there is now. IMO, it's kinda worse than not having a definition at all.

Now a "material change" is defined as something that, "having occurred before the prior council meeting, would have made it unlikely a majority would have supported the prior decision.

Nothing about city spending, or changes in law or fact.. just... if the majority wouldn't change its mind no matter what's happened, the matter is decided.

Which I guess makes *some* sense, but even if the vote is unlikely to change, if FACTS have, elected officials should at least have to make the same vote in light of new facts, and do so in the public eye. In my opinion.

Brockett also having issues with the new definition of "material change."

"That seems like something that's unknowable," he says, how a past council would have behaved

He's suggesting more specific language: A change in fact or law that is significant enough to make one or more council members change their vote.

Friend also concerned about the material change definition. She likes Brockett's suggestion. But agrees its "unknowable" how council members would have voted.

Also doesn't like the suggestion that a revisited topic can ONLY be discussed for 15 min. "That just seems a little strict," Friend says.

Wallach on board with both Friend and Brockett's suggestions.

Guess I am going to thread this after all.

Young wants to tweak Brockett's language. "Significant to whom?" she says. That's "a subjective term; we need to define it."

A "super-majority of council" should decide if a material change has occurred, Young says.

Weaver: Why a super majority and not just a majority?
Young: Bc we'd be re-litigating.

Yates: Prefers Brockett's language, and suggests not putting a specific time limit but instead letting the council scheduling committee to decide time. Revisits of topics should be "brief," he says.

Lots of discussion over when public hearings can be held. That is, which portion of the meeting (which defines how much public notice there is).

And then some convo over what constitutes "disruptive" behavior that the mayor can interrupt and try to stop. I don't think cursing counts, but that's kinda what prompted this whole thing: Bad language and insults of staff.

We're back to talking about public hearings again. Ah, the tedious nature of city government. I love it.

Still at it.

STILL haggling over language.

Weaver: "I figured there would be some discussion on this one; I just underestimated it."

We've finally moved on.

I'm just realizing that Junie Joseph is not here tonight.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!