Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, I'm back bc Speer is asking about a meeting happening next week that includes two Boulder city council members (Wallach and Winer) with lots of community members, including many from Safer Boulder, over the issue of "high utilizers"...

that is, unhoused people who frequently "use" the cops, courts, jail and the emergency room.

This is a term from the homelessness world, but the group insists they aren't talking about homelessness: They're talking about folks with criminal records and/or substance use issues...

... specifically, as a subset of the unhoused population.

Anyway, back to the meeting. It's being held at the Chamber (but they are not sponsoring it; just letting their space be used) and the list of attendees has a lot of powerful folks on.

In addition to Wallach and Winer, it includes
BoCo Sheriff Curtis Johnson
DA Michael Dougherty
BoCo Commissioner Claire Levy
Police chief Maris Herold
Director of HHS Kurt Firnhaber
Municipal Judge Linda Cooke
and a rep from Congressman Neguse's office

Judy Amabile was also listed, but she can't go, she told me today.

Anyway, some concern from Speer over this meeting, which is NOT public or open to the press.

Speer: "It just made me wonder, a little bit, about open meetings, and the degree to which we are publicizing meetings," to comply with the law

Colorado law does stipulate that if 3 or more members of council (a 9-member body) are in attendance at a meeting in which they are discussing city biz/policy, it has to be open to the public and prior notice given.

That's not the case here, City Attorney Tate says. Only 2 members are going, and we don't count elected officials from other offices.

“We only count our own local gov’t body," she says.

City biz and policy *will* be discussed at the meeting. The agenda includes brief presentations from each of the above persons on their role interacting with "high utilizers" and then group brainstorming sessions on "actions and commitments."

I also asked city spokesperson Sarah Huntley about this today, because there are 3 or 4 city staff going (Herold, Firnhaber, Cooke and possibly deputy chief Stephen Redfearn, who was included in the email but not listed as an attendee).

The question basically was: Is this OK, bc city staff usually can't commit "significant" time to policy work without direction of council.

Not sure this counts as significant, but still. Huntley said it's common practice for staff members to meet with community.

Nor is this the first time such a meeting has upset folks: She referenced a meeting with a community group in favor of flood mitigation at CU South that included several city staff.

A group opposing development at CU South wanted to attend. Instead, the city said they could have their own meeting, but didn't have to force the pro-flood group to open up *their* meeting, bc it wasn't organized by the city.

Basically, elected officials have a dif responsibilities and obligations, under the law, than private citizens do.

I've asked almost all the elected officials going if there is still an *ethical* consideration to such a meeting being closed.

I mean, we're talking about reps from city, county, state and federal levels in one room, with no members of the public allowed.

No real answers on that; folks justly mostly confirmed if they were going or not.

I may follow up with a story; I'm not sure yet. I welcome any thoughts or feedback.

Sorry, one more: The response from the city and most of the elected officials is essentially that any constituents are free to request meetings, and that they generally try to accommodate those.

Of course, not every group might have the pull or power to get *that many* notable folks in one room, but that may speak to the persistence of these particular organizers.

Relevant tonight bc there's some overlap in this group and some of the critics of the POP appointees. And also bc Speer brought it up.

She doesn't get much of an answer other than, it's legal, so that's all for this one.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!