The Boulder City Council voted 7-2 on Jan. 9 to temporarily shift its meetings online through mid-February in response to ongoing disruptions from protestors demanding the council adopt a resolution calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war.
The council meets in person in the council chambers every other week or so. These meetings include an open public comment period — often dominated by protesters over the past year — during which about 20 speakers are selected via lottery. On certain weeks, the council meets virtually.
In deciding to move all meetings remote, councilmembers cited city code allowing them to limit in-person participation when “a public health or safety concern exists.” Some councilmembers noted receiving feedback from community members who no longer feel safe attending open comment periods due to the disruptions.
The move is the latest in an effort by councilmembers to manage these disruptions that have delayed votes and other council business. Chatter in the council chambers and shouting directed at councilmembers prompted about a dozen recesses last year.
In February 2024, the council informally voted 7-2 against discussing a ceasefire resolution, citing rules that limit their authority to weigh in on foreign affairs. They have reiterated this position, as well as condemned certain public comments at council meetings as antisemitic. During a Dec. 19, 2024, meeting, protestors were removed but allowed to watch virtually from a lower level of the building, where their shouting could still be heard.
Over the past year, the council has taken incremental steps to reduce disruptions while grappling with how to balance maintaining order and protecting free speech. In May, councilmembers adopted rules banning large flags and posters that they said obstructed views. More recently, they moved their time for responding to public comments until the end of meetings to avoid prolonged conversations at the start. Police presence at council meetings has also increased, with at least six officers present at the Dec. 5 meeting.
Mayor Aaron Brockett said in an interview that these measures have been inadequate. Brockett said he proposed the virtual shift as a temporary fix while the council considers long-term options.
“The level of disruption has definitely been frustrating because it’s made it hard to get the business of the city done,” Brockett told Boulder Reporting Lab. “I 100% support the right of people to come to council meetings and to make themselves heard, but would expect people to do that in a respectful fashion, and to do so in a way that lets their fellow attendees also express themselves.”
He said councilmembers are planning to consult with the city attorney on potential next steps.
In a Dec. 30 email, Councilmember Mark Wallach proposed limiting public comment to city business and having officers escort people from the room or ban them from future meetings if they are repeatedly disruptive.
“This is craziness,” Wallach told Boulder Reporting Lab. “We just can’t continue with meetings that are extended for 45 minutes each time we are public, and which lead to the clearing of the room, and lead to the inability of speakers on other topics to speak to their representatives.”
Mayor Aaron Brockett and Councilmembers Ryan Schuchard, Nicole Speer, Tina Maquis, Tara Winer and Mark Wallach voted in favor of the move to virtual meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Folkerts and Councilmember Matt Benjamin voted against the measure. Councilmember Taishya Adams spoke out against the shift but did not formally vote against it, later clarifying that she had intended to oppose the decision.
“I just want to express my deep disappointment at the prospect of having a handful of people run us out of our own building,” Benjamin said during the meeting. “We’re going to be bullied out of our building. And I think that sends a really poor message.”
Councilmember Adams said community members should be able to speak to councilmembers face-to-face. She said she hopes guidelines are soon in place to facilitate in-person meetings.
“Our community has a right to protest,” Adams said during the meeting. “But no one has the right to break the law.”
The City Manager’s Office is also considering additional ways for how to respond, citing concerns about the safety of those attending meetings.
“Staff too has been thinking of additional precautions and protocols it could take operationally to try to minimize disruptions as much as possible without infringing on the right of our residents to communicate with their elected officials,” City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde said in a Hotline post last month.
Reporter Brooke Stephenson contributed reporting for this story.
This is pathetic, council members need to face their public. If they don’t like hearing from people, then resign.
Have you been to one of these meetings and can you help us understand what the disruptions are like? Additionally, what steps, exactly, do you expect the council to take to solve the situation in Gaza that would return some sense of order to managing our small municipality on this earth?
It’s this inflammatory rhetoric and culture war nonsense that’s pathetic. As fully agree with the City Council it is both dangerous and deconstructive to continue allowing Gish Galloping fools on both sides of this issue to disrupt local governance and public engagement in dispute over an utterly impotent resolution that won’t change a single thing in Gaza. This instituted lottery system is also compromising, distracting from, and drowning out meaningful discourse of IMPORTANT LOCAL ISSUES with our elected officials. Free speech is also not an absolute right; so if you expressly want to agitate, make a spectacle, and/or disrespectfully deny others a voice within their own community…then continue that pointless stand-off across Broadway with those big signs or be banned from these meetings outright. Because you can either respect such a basic idea as the Social Contract and be allowed to participate, or stay outside and shout like an unreasonable savage.