Thread by @shayshinecastle

We're talking about another city ballot item, to make the charter consistent RE: rules on referendum petitions. Presentation here: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

We haven't talked about this at all, so it took me by surprise.

"It wasn't part of our original planning," attorney Kathy Haddock says. It was "a good catch by a citizen." (She doesn't say who, but I've got a few guesses)

In a nutshell, a city working group recommended lower signature limits for (some) petitions. The voters then OK'd those in 2018. But the charter hasn't been updated for everything yet.

Sections of the charter conflict about how many signatures are required for a referendum petition
Section 44 = 10% of average of voters in the last two city council candidate elections
Section 46 = 10% of registered voters at the time the referendum is filed

Section 44 = updated in 2018, after election working group
Section 46 = written in 1981

This ballot item would make the 2018 change the rule, amending section 46

It would also amend Section 38, which includes the Section 44 language but is more wordy. It would simplify that language.

So not the most exciting item, but important, bc when the city has conflicting rules about petition signatures, it can get messy. (See: Bedrooms Are For People)

Making the charter consistent reduces the risk of legal challenges. And it just makes sense: Rules should be clear.

In case you're wondering what a referendum is: A chance for voters to reject a legislative measure newly passed by city council. People can petition for the opportunity to put the law to a vote, where the community as a whole can decide to keep or discard it.

You can find that lovely nugget of info, plus much more on Boulder's direct democracy goings-on, here: boulderbeat.news/boulder-101/bo…

Dang, missed the whole public hearing. But the council votes to put this on the ballot.

Gonna just keep this thread for the other city ballot items, bc they're all kinda small. Next one: Council pay.

Staff presentation: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

Council right now is paid per meeting, up to 52 a year. But the rest of the city is paid on a regular schedule, like every two weeks or similar.

This item would make council pay align with the city's schedule.

It is NOT a pay raise. They would still make the same amount.

Not a lot of cons to this one... except that (possibly) it would maybe not incentivize council members to show up for meetings.

This is not typically an issue. Most ppl attend most of the time. But Nagle, for example, has missed quite a lot of meetings.

Still working to clarify if council members currently get paid for ALL meetings, or just the meetings they attend.

If it's the former, then this is a real non-issue. Plus, it's such a little amount of $$ that you could argue it's not much of an incentive anyway.

Second part of this gives explicit permission for council to appoint subcommittees (they do already) of generally 2 ppl but *never* a majority of council.

It also requires subcommittees of 2 council members (plus staff, others) to recruit new city attorney, city manager or municipal judge (also already being done).

Basically, it makes official what council is already doing.

And clarifies that council members not on said committees may attend but not participate. This is to discourage subcommittees from doing work the whole council should do, for transparency.

No more than 2 council members can meet and discuss Official Business without the meeting being open to the public.

Which reminds me...

This ballot item also removes language allowing executive session (meetings closed to the public) of city council. They were used for municipalization, but not since then.

Lots of convo about council members attending subcommittee meetings they're not on. Some suggesting additional rules for that (other than that they can watch but not participate).

My recommendation would be to get a freaking life.

OK, we're voting. Both these items will be on the ballot.

Still unclear if they're one ballot item or two. And if it's one, why they are together...

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!