The Boulder City Council is considering new rules for public participation at council meetings following months of public comments, protests, sign waving and interruptions in the council chambers over the Israel-Hamas war. The new rules are likely to prompt a debate between the desire for accessible and orderly public meetings and the right to free speech.
Following a request from councilmembers in April, city officials proposed a set of revisions to the council’s rules and procedures. The changes seem intended to address recent disruptions to city council meetings caused by residents calling on council to pass a resolution in support of a ceasefire in the war. Earlier this year, councilmembers voted 7-2 to abstain from opening a process to create such a resolution.
Councilmembers have described chatter and arguments among attendees as distracting. Flag waving and poster displays have blocked people’s views and access to aisleways. Chants and shouts from the audience have prompted the mayor to call for recesses during public hearings.
The proposed rules would allow only one person at the podium to speak at a time, with certain exceptions for people who need assistance or interpretation. The city clerk could exclude people from speaking at a public hearing if they had already spoken at the prior meeting. Posters larger than 12-by-12 inches would be prohibited and all signs must be held by a person, not propped up on chairs or other surfaces. The mayor could move the in-process meeting to a virtual forum.
Most councilmembers generally support changes to the rules for public participation as a means to make the meetings feel more safe and accessible. But some have raised concerns over the implications for free speech.
Last week, councilmembers considered adopting the rules without a public hearing. Councilmember Lauren Folkerts requested further discussion before voting.
Folkerts acknowledged the reprehensible comments made by some residents, such as those denying the Holocaust. However, she argued that restrictions to free speech are increasing across the country and referenced the arrest of students on campuses protesting the war. She said she wants to be particularly sensitive to new restrictions on public participation at city council meetings.
“We need to balance making sure that we are providing space for people to make requests of the government,” Folkerts told Boulder Reporting Lab. “That is an important role that city council plays. So I’m pretty sensitive to making changes.”
Councilmember Tara Winer said she has found chatter and poster waving particularly distracting during recent meetings. Moreover, Winer, who is Jewish, said she has received xenophobic and antisemitic emails, including one she shared in which a man wrote she was “genetic garbage much like vermin and should not be allowed to procreate.”
“To me, the rules are to keep us councilmembers safe and to keep order so we can get the work of the city done,” Winer told Boulder Reporting Lab. “There is too much going on in the audience. People’s views are being blocked. There is a lot of murmuring and talking. And it’s very hard to concentrate. And we have big decisions that we have to make that affect people’s lives.”
She acknowledged the right to free speech, but she said hate speech is hard to handle. Before council meetings, she said she often checks the list of names of people signed up to speak at public hearings so she can prepare herself.
“It’s super not fun,” Winer said. “For every open comment on Thursdays, I’m like ‘you can do this.’”
Council rules prohibit councilmembers from weighing in of foreign affairs, with certain exceptions. During the council’s retreat last month, councilmembers requested city officials draft separate rule changes that would further restrict councilmembers’ ability to weigh in on foreign affairs.
The Boulder City Council has yet to schedule a meeting to discuss the proposed rules changes.
John,
Please correct this piece in reference to the multiple hate-filled emails Tara has received. They are not XENOPHOBIC. They are explicitly ANTISEMITIC, using tropes from the Nazi era.
Journalism should be exacting in its language. This is an explicit example where the public should be alerted to the presence of antisemitism.
Thank you
Updated. Thank you.
There can be restrictions on free speech, but only as to place & time, not content. This is a thorny issue. Free speech does not not protect people from hurtful or disgusting content. I abhor Holocust deniers & antisemitic speakers, but they have First Amendment rights.
Such a waste of valuable time in our council meetings, They already said as expected we’re not addressing foreign affairs. Our once peaceful town has its own issues to deal with. I see a lot of hate and rage with these people but they’re barking up the wrong tree. If they are that passionate about this war get on a plane and go help them get food or get aid for Pete’s sake! 🙄
First, council’s rule states, “Council shall not act on a foreign policy or national policy issue on which no prior official city policy has been established by the council or the people, unless sufficient time and resources can be allocated to assure a full presentation of the issue.”
As several public commenters mentioned, our Nabus (Palestine) sister city relationship is long established. If we can’t speak up for our sister city, which is like all of Palestine is under apartheid worse than South Africa’s, according to Mandela and Bishop Tutu, what kind of sisters are we?
Not much “time and resources” are necessary to read the 80+ pages in South Africa’s complaint against Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The court’s own findings are also available:
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192
If these are good enough for the highest court in the world, they should be good enough for Boulder. The parts I’ve read are overwhelming.
Tara Winer’s comment, ““For every open comment on Thursdays, I’m like ‘you can do this.’” reflects not just her Zionist position on Palestine, but her and Matt Benjamin’s abandoned attempt, along with the National League of Cities, to abolish open comment altogether which was stated openly in a hotline email and reported on poorly (leaving out the part about eliminating open comment)
by the Camera. I’ve been to most of the last eight council meetings and plenty of other subjects were brought up.
NOBODY is reporting on the important things that citizens bring up constantly at open comment, for example:
On May 2nd, long-time resident Mike Marsh testified, “At your March 7th hearing on the Darkhorse development, staff said public feedback was roughly even but that’s because only written emails were counted.” When oral testimony was counted too, the public was two to one against the development, which is what an honest staff would have told us.
Yes, this kind of outrage causes “murmuring” that Tara complains of, so distracting from the important business of pulling the wool over the community’s eyes about our own testimony, and on so many other things.
At the beginning of every open comment. The city clerk reads a statement about how “the city has co-created a vision with community” for public discussion. They may have had some managed process, but in 2017 at an actual hearing, citizens unanimously testified against and Council unanimously enacted changing each person’s allotted time from 3 to 2 minutes.
I have since viewed the websites or called the city manager’s office of all 10 larger Colorado cities, and they all give citizens 3 or 5 minutes. The list is below.
Regarding Tara’s calls for “safety,” there were half a dozen police at both the most recent meetings, amazing overkill since there have been zero incidents of violence. One of the police told me that this order did not come from the chief.
I’ve been to hundreds of council meetings over 45 years and have never seen anything like violence except when Seth Brigham stripped down to his boxers to get attention to the corruption of then-councilman George Karakehian omitting from his financial disclosure that he is partners with Steve Tebo, ensuring lots of conflicts of interest. Brigham collected $10,000 from the city: https://www.dailycamera.com/ci_16133356/
Open comment brings out some of the most important things happening in Boulder, like some letters to the editor.
I am one of the “usual suspects.” I have previously written to council that I think it would be fair to prevent us from speaking at consecutive meetings, but only if there are more applicants registered than there is time for, which is when their lottery kicks in.
Denver: 3 minutes each
Colo. Spgs: 3
Aurora: 3
Ft. Collins: 3
Lakewood: 3
Thornton: 3
Arvada: 3
Westminster : 5
Pueblo: 5
Greeley: 3
Boulder: 2
As to Evan, my sentiments exactly. Half the time the comments go right by me, trying to listen to an auctioneer cram their message into 2 min. Might as well just send it in, as folks are repeatedly asked to do, but then no one else knows the issues. In 35 years of voluminous to tiny messages, I’ve never gotten a response.
Yup, we have citizen activists in Boulder!
I have a definite opinions re the “war” in Gaza, but do not re how to handle meetings and comments, except for three observations:
1) Citizen activists can be really annoying.
2) I’m glad we have them – this is democracy – squeaky wheels deserve attention.
3) Everyone is safe and secure in Boulder. We have issues that require attention, while people elsewhere have horrible issues that would benefit from our assistance; thus the logical attitude is being grateful for being in the top 1% of the world and supporting those who are in the bottom.