Thread by @shayshinecastle

Next: A very boring discussion on council process that may be livened up by the aforementioned Drama, which I will now explain.

documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

Briefly, councilman Yates does a monthly newsletter. It's wildly popular; he's got like 4X the readership I do.

He uses this newsletter to talk about what's happening at council.

These newsletters often spur strong responses from his readers, who email and call council en masse.

Recently, he wrote about the proposal to change council elections to even years.

Councilwoman Speer had some issues with his take on this, and is proposing a rule / discussion about how council members represent themselves when discussing council business in non-city capacities.

Not really sure where that's going to go, because of course council members are free to say and do pretty much whatever they want on their own time. They could be formally censured by their peers, I think, but I've never seen that happen.

And if it didn't happen when a councilwoman compared killing prairie dogs to the Holocaust, it ain't ever happening.

I personally found Yates' take on even-year elections to be lacking in context. For instance: He questioned whether voters would vote down-ballot in even years. We know they do, bc Boulder Beat did an analysis. boulderbeat.news/2022/05/12/eve…

And I know he reads Boulder Beat.

I often find his newsletters to be lacking in context and outright misleading. If I had the time, I'd do a response to them each month adding in facts and correcting things. But I don't.

Plus then I'd have to do the same thing for Friend's newsletter, for balance, which I know I've read but honestly can't remember the last time.

If you're interested, let me know!

Anyway, that's the T. Most of this discussion will be incredibly boring. But I expect that one could get spicy.

Or not. Speer might just make her little speech and everyone else will just sit there in awkward silence. My money is on that.

Enough with the gossip. Back to actual, boring business.

Here's that presentation again: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

Here are proposals for process changes:
First: Lift COVID thresholds for hybrid meetings as COVID has become endemic. That means limits on how many hybrid meetings members can attend, how many members can attend virtually per meeting, and how much notice they must give

That's not happening now bc Boulder is in high transmission. So they're still virtual, after a couple false attempts.

Pam Davis: "The fluctuation, the interruptions of services for staff and public have become disruptive." Outbreaks can be addressed through other means.

So that means once Boulder goes back down to Medium transmission again, operations will revert to "new normal," even if Boulder goes back to High transmission later.

NRV: We will do masking if that happens

But generally, we've done what we can do with air filtration and vaccinations and other protections.

Speer: "I love the idea of going back, I just want to take precautions. COVID is still out there, it's still mutating, and vaccines don't seem to effect long COVID. This has been a mass disabling event."

Friend: What are other cities in Boulder County doing?

Davis: The county would be in person but they're having supply chain issues that is holding the technology back. For the most part, our counterparts are meeting in person, with masks depending on COVID levels.

"We are one of the slowest communities in the country to return to in person" meetings, Davis says.

Friend: Assuming Boulder goes to Medium transmission tomorrow, what's the first date we could be back in person?

Davis: When we return to Medium transmission, per the CDC, we would give it a week and then return. I think the earliest we're looking at is August bc study sessions are remaining virtual for now.

Benjamin: When would we welcome the public back?
NRV: "That's your call."

Winer: When we had our May meeting, we had an outbreak of sorts. Did we have the HEPA air filters then?
Yes, Davis says
Winer: "So I guess it didn't work."

That was this, in case you forgot. boulderbeat.news/2022/05/12/eve…

"We didn't even have the public, and we had that large outbreak," Winer says. "I'm not comfortable."

Folkerts: Do we have a limit on the number of people who could participate virtually?
Sarah Huntley: 1,000 people. But we could upgrade if we needed to.

Lord, can you imagine a 1,000-person city council meeting? I shudder to think.

Folkerts: "I'm personally comfortable returning to in-person, but I don't want to impose that" on anyone.

Friend: "I think we all ran for this office to serve the community. Many of us have other jobs or go to restaurants, live our lives. I'm not clear why we are one of the last in the country" to get back in-person. "Psychologically, I think there's value."

Wallach: "I think everyone on this council would prefer to be in person. I have had COVID, I would not like to try it again. For those of us who have family members that are immunocompromised (and) subject to dire consequences," I don't want to return until transmission is low.

Brockett: "I don't want to force anyone to do something they're not comfortable with." I'm ready to be back in person, but let's let other council members participate virtually.

Yates: I wouldn't want that to last very long.

Yates: What we need to decide is what our policy is moving forward. Can council members occasionally participate remotely, if they are traveling or under the weather? Or, like Winer tonight, on Babywatch.

Benjamin: I don't think it's fair for us to have "quotas on people" for their remote attendance. We're in a pandemic.

We do need to be careful letting the public back in, Benjamin says. Maybe require masks if we are at Medium or High transmission. Maybe reduced capacity.

Benjamin OK with going back. Yes, transmission might fluctuate, but "that's life. That's going to be COVID life for the foreseeable future."

Winer: "Our meetings are 5 hours long. I think we should maintain flexibility.

"When I feel comfortable, I am dedicated to this community." But our meetings are long, and they could be crowded.

Announcement from Friend: Your insurance company has to send you 8 free COVID tests per person, per month. "Use them."

Here's some more info on that. Something more officials than "Friend says" hhs.gov/about/news/202…

NRV: "We as a city will be requiring masks if we have high transmission, bc that's what the CDC recommends." We can require masks at medium transmission if you prefer.

All night, folks have been saying "at/in red" or "at/in yellow" which I have just automatically translated to high or medium transmission

Council less enthusiastic about returning in person if they have to wear masks

NRV: We need to get legal guidance on what we can require. If you want the public to be masked, staff and council should be, too. We can distance public in attendance, but we don't have 6 ft between council members.

Moving on to other council process proposals. There are 21, and that one took 40 min. So this should be fun.

Next: Changing up the way the city reimburses council travel.

Currently, the city gives $1,500 per council member for individual travel (for things like professional development, etc.) and $20,000 for group travel.

That doesn't mean council travels as a group, but it's for things like National League of Cities where every council member can go. It covers hotel, transportation, food, etc.

The proposal is to eliminate the group travel fund and give more to individuals and the mayor
- $5,000 per mayor (who has more responsibilities)
- $4,000 per member

Travel expenses in recent years have not approached these amounts. The highest group travel 2018-2021 was actually 2020: $16,721

And only 2 council members used individual funds: $54 and $17

2018 was the highest year for individual travel, and reimbursements were $150-$926

So not a big deal, but still a change in the way your $$ is being spent. Thought you'd want to know.

Another proposal: Do Chats with Council at community events like Fall Fest, Boulder Creek Fest, Tulip Fest

These are informal opportunities to meet with council members

General support for that

I'm not going to tweet every proposal; just the ones with impact to you. Or anything dramatic.

A couple small tweaks as council continues its valiant attempts to make meetings shorter. We'll see how it goes.

And some not-so-little tweaks: Should council change the way it's discussing / scheduling landmarks?

We've had a couple discussions recently that went WAY long. Landmarking is a quasi-judicial process, so I think it's required that council OK these with a formal hearing.

I'm seeing Boulder's new planning director Brad Mueller for the first time. This would require a code change, Mueller says. Landmarks are historically quick, "feel-good" things.

"It's been a little more unusual the number of more-involved ones, maybe under this council."

Mueller calls Mayor Brockett "Your Honor," which Brockett resists.

"I don't answer to 'Your Honor'" he says, "but Aaron will do."

Mueller arguing we don't need to create rules for these one-off instances which rarely happen. But Boulder loves that!

We've reached the spicy part. I've got my baby carrots ready (I didn't have any popcorn)

"I’d like us to discuss how we represent each other’s motives and intentions in a way that’s accurate and conveys the trust we show for each other as colleagues when we’re in these meetings," Speer says.

Her voice is shaking. She sounds nervous.

She also doesn't name Yates. She just refers to statements "one of us made in a newsletter last week."

Maybe that's polite(r) but it's also fucking weird. We all know who it is... Just say it. You want council to be able to disagree with more cordiality and transparency. Start by being honest about who/what you're talking about.

But that's just, like, my opinion man.

But I see council do stuff like this all the time. They'll talk around things instead of naming one another directly. It's insane.

It's probably some polite political thing that I would never do. Which is why I'm not in politics.

Wallach: "People have a right to vigorously promote their beliefs. I don't want that to cause you pain, but I think it's important for people to be able to advocate in that fashion."

That was a double-sigher

"To the extent you're asking council members to restrain their speech," Wallach says, that's not a value I can get behind.

Wallach: "It will happen to me, and it will happen by me. That's the nature of robust debate in a democratic society."

Idk how you take that from something philosophic to something actionable, Wallach says.

But Boulder loves philosophy!

Maybe they can do a resolution. Boulder loves those!

Speer doesn't really answer Wallach's question, but does say, "It's not at all to stop us from talking about things we are interested in. It's asking us not to focus on each other, our intentions and motivations, but rather our policy proposals."

Wallach repeating something Dan Williams said on the campaign trail: "The remedy for bad speech is more and better speech."

Speer: Maybe this is a question about venues we don't all have access to. "If I'm being misrepresented, what do I do about that?"

This is a perfect example of healthy disagreement, Speer says, this discussion we're having right now.

Benjamin: "We have an obligation to reduce the polarization in this community." Addressing how we address the public is "the first step" toward either adding fuel to the fire of polarization or creating unity.

Benjamin: "I don't see this as a restriction on speech. I see this as an empowerment of better speech."

Friends: "I personally try very hard not to say publicly disparaging things about colleagues. I don't think we're a team bc we're individually trying to advocate for what's best for the community. We accomplish more, though, if we are cordial."

"You don't want to kneecap the other person," Friend says in a sports metaphor I actually appreciate. "You want a legal side tackle."

I've called out things peers have said in the past, Friend says. "I'm leery of signing on to things that would infringe on my ability to use my voice in a way that is earnest and honest in trying to advocate for the community."

Winer gets the closest to naming what this is actually about by referencing odd- and even-year elections. (That's what Yates wrote about recently, in case you forgot)

Winer: "I try to speak about subjects, not people. I also recognize I'm going to make mistakes. I ask forgiveness, or I say to myself, 'Don't do that again.'"

Brockett: "We want to try hard to model behavior" that doesn't "stoke deep divisions."

That puts vulnerable people at risk, Brockett says. For example: I've seen "over and over" that female council members get emails with the absolute worst criticism and language that I don't get, that male council members don't get. "It's appalling."

"We can't police each other," Brockett says. Maybe we can agree "that we will always strive to speak truthfully about each other in public, to say things that to the best of our knowledge are accurate and true."

Idk what we could codify that's legal, Brockett says. "Free speech is a thing." But it could be an "intention."

I won't share Yates' newsletter, bc it is missing that crucial context, but this is (part of) what he wrote:

"When politicians seek to extend their own terms, you need to look closely at their motives. Do such politicians have your best interests at heart, or ...

"... are they seeking job security for themselves and like-minded candidates? There may be good intentions, but the look is not so good.

Maybe the motive here really is to get more people to vote in city council elections, under the belief that quantity is better than quality.

"Maybe the proponents sincerely believe that voters
who currently opt out of odd-year city council elections will, once presented with a council race in even years, become informed about local issues and make good choices."

As someone who called the extension of terms a power-grab, I get that argument. But I never suggested that was their main motive. To me, it's a means-to-an-end debate. Is the juice worth the squeeze?

What Yates failed to do is accurately represents what the juice is: 30,000 more voters ON LOCAL MEASURES, on average, according to 10 years of local election data.

So I get why ppl are upset. And maybe I'm jaded. And no, I don't think he's doing a great job at promoting *informed* debate. He's doing a great job politically, tho, bc he's a politician. This is what they do.

Joseph: There's a level of accountability that belongs to elected officials. We should be transparent and accurate. Have I always been accurate? Probably not. But I've always tried to be transparent.

I understand what Speer is saying, Joseph says. I've experienced it, even from some of you here. I keep it to myself; kept quiet and kept pushing. "It's sometimes plain ignorance. ... whether it's sexism or any other ism."

But this is important, Joseph says. We talk about equity and diversity and inclusion. We can't talk about these things in theory. People of color are not a theory. LGBTQ is not a theory.

"We are a very smart community. We say all the right stuff, all the time," Joseph says. Our actions need to match.

We need to push ourselves to be better. This will help that, Joseph says to Speer, thanking her for bringing it up.

Speer: "This right here is how we can have a hard conversation through disagreement. This was a beautiful model."

"What I'm trying to do is not constrain us but invite us to a higher level of discussion," Speer says.

I don't want to go down a civility-pledge path, Speer says. But I do want us to speak truthfully about each other, to stick to subjects rather than individuals.

There were other references in Yates' newsletter to his colleagues — several actually. No direct name-calling, but just kind of continued reference to the council majority and my colleagues and a general 'What where they thinking?' tone.

Brockett settles on an aspirational statement that council members will strive for truthfulness and accurateness, which the city attorney says is fine.

Wallach: If it's aspirational, fine. If it's something we're trying to enforce against one another, I have a problem. "Speaking truthfully is in the eye of the beholder."

Friend bringing up council's response to ex-council woman Nagle's Holocaust comments, and noting how tricky that was. They all condemned her statement without really addressing her. It was interesting to watch.

I'm not interested in committing to not speaking in any particular way, Friend says. I don't want to limit my voice.

Benjamin: Again, I don't think this is a restrictive statement. It's an empowering one.

Winer: "I think appreciating one another's nuances and the nuances of human kind is what I'm looking for." I try to be truthful and accurate, but I also "like to tell a good story, you know?"

Speer: When people say something in meetings that mischaracterizes me, I can correct that. When we're out in public, I can't. And as Folkerts said, that sticks to me more than others.

We can make a commitment to each other, she says.

The city attorney will craft something and bring it back. I anticipate more discussion and a split vote.

Yates said nothing the entire discussion.

I mean, no one named him, so why would he?

Back to shorter meetings: A couple last proposals to do fewer declarations or develop guidelines around them (Winer) and develop guidelines for weighing in on non-local current events? (Friend)

Wallach: We should stick to local things
Benjamin: "I don't want to put guardrails on it." If people want to speak on things, they should be able to.

This is also a free speech kinda thing, too, in a way.

Brockett: If we're quick about it, it's fine.

Friend is OK with that, so she drops it.

Taylor Reimann has already done some work to reign in the declaration/resolution process.

There are 48 regularly scheduled ones throughout the year; 12 get long readings and 25 never get read at all. They're just in the council packet.

11 on the annual schedule are proposed for short readings

Those changes will be more apparent through the rest of the year and beyond.

Joseph: Can we bring additional ones up if they are important to us?
Reimann: Absolutely. We're just trying to have a "predictable rhythm"

There were more proposals (on boards and commissions) but it's late so we'll discuss those another time.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!