This commentary is by Matt Benjamin and Tina Marquis, members of the Boulder City Council.
Those of us who serve on Boulder City Council don’t always agree. On land use, transportation and budgets, Tina and I have voted differently more than once. But we agree on this without reservation: The people who work for this city deserve to be treated with dignity. And right now, too many of them aren’t.
We are living through an extraordinarily difficult moment. The direction our federal government has taken has generated fear, grief and fury that is entirely understandable. That anger is real. And we understand that people need somewhere to put it.
For many residents, that somewhere is local government.
We get it. We’ve signed up for it. Email us. Show up at a public hearing. Tell us we’re wrong. That is exactly how democracy is supposed to work.
What we cannot accept is watching that anger land on the people who answer your calls, process your permits and maintain your parks every single day. Our staff carry out decisions made by nine elected officials. If you don’t like what’s happening, we are the ones responsible. Direct your frustration at the people you elected, not the people who implement what we direct them to do.
Downtown: Is there more work to do to improve the quality of our downtown? Absolutely, and we share that aspiration. But our downtown is in remarkably better shape than it was just four years ago. Real progress has been made.
Yet we have people who make it their daily business to berate, belittle and harass staff, as if somehow the issues facing our community are their fault. They are not. Accountability for those policies sits with us, not them.
Our recreation centers: The South Boulder Recreation Center debate has brought out both the best and worst of our community. Organized groups have shown up as true community partners, engaging constructively and holding the city accountable in good faith. We commend that.
But others have made it their business to personally harass and torment our parks department leadership. There is a clear line between questioning a plan and attacking the character of the people working on it. One is accountability. The other is cruelty.
This isn’t just a city hall problem.
Recently, the owners of Vacuums R Us & Sewing Too posted a statement explaining why they were closing their Boulder store. Among their reasons — in their own words — “your neighbors are assholes.”
They described disrespect so persistent that they added a staff therapy program and invented code phrases for situations when customers refused to accept answers from women employees. Their other Colorado locations thrived. It was Boulder that broke them.
A small business closed, in part, because of how people here treat other people here.
We want to be clear: The vast majority of people in this community are genuinely good humans — kind, engaged, well-intentioned neighbors who treat others with basic decency. We see it every day, and we are proud of it.
But a small number of people have made entitlement and cruelty their calling card. A few rotten apples really do spoil the barrel. When that behavior goes unchallenged, it shapes how the world, and those outside Boulder, see all of us.
That is why community accountability isn’t just nice to have. It’s how the good people protect what we’ve built.
This is Boulder, Colorado: extraordinary natural beauty, a deeply engaged citizenry and one of the highest concentrations of Ph.D.s of any city in the country. None of that gives anyone the right to be demeaning or cruel. Intelligence is not a prerequisite for decency.
We are not asking anyone to stop being angry or stop fighting for what they believe in.
We are asking — insisting — that this community hold itself to its own stated values. Those values have to mean something when it’s inconvenient. They have to apply to the city employee on the other end of your email, the parks manager being berated at a meeting and the small-business worker just trying to help.
If you see someone crossing that line, say something.
Direct your frustration at us, the nine people you elected. We are accountable to you. That is the job. But our staff and our neighbors are not fair game.
We can do better. We must do better.
Boulder is worth it.
Thank you and Amen!
Why then have you created so many barriers to reaching out to you? As recently as a couple of years ago, we used to be able to email city council members en masse using either individual emails and stringing them all together or one big city council members @ city of Boulder email address. Also, the protocol for engagement at your public meetings has changed several times over the last several years. Currently, the only way that I know to reach out to Boulder City council is through the form that’s available on the city of Boulder website. I have reached out through that form several times in the last year or so. The only responses I get are from City staff. Or the bounce back from Nicole Speer letting me know when her office hours are. Also, my experience in communicating with council is that most of you don’t respond ever. We elected you. You should respond. We actually pay you. I think the issue here is that you’ve overregulated regulated the process of communicating with elected public officials. So you have two choices now. Either remove those barriers. Or create a robust public education campaign about how to reach you directly. Also, more transparency in who chooses to respond to citizen inquiries would be helpful. I have no idea why some of you respond and most of you don’t.
Daphna:
You raise an excellent point about access and communication. Every city council member should read every email that they receive from constituents. And most emails should be responded to.
There are a lot of emails, to be sure. When I served on city council (2015-23), we received about 18,000 emails a year, or about 50 per day, on average. But that’s no excuse not to respond. Sometimes that response can be as simple as, “Thank you for your email. I have read it and I will consider the points you made as I vote on this issue.” (Or connecting the constituent to a city staff member who can help.)
As far as how to reach council members directly, write to Last[first initial]@bouldercolorado.gov. So, for example, for Matt that would be benjaminm@bouldercolorado.gov and for Tina that would be marquist@bouldercolorado.gov, etc. You can find all nine email addresses imbedded in their respective profiles here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/city-council
Woe unto any elected official who does not respond to constituents.
Bob Yates
Thanks, Bob. Apparently we’re not supposed to email them like that as you suggest anymore. There’s a new form on city website that we’re apparently supposed to use since about a year ago, I think. It has a character limit which then has the knock on effect of making email communication even more terse and brief.
Maybe that form is preferred but not absolutely necessary. Not sure. Hence some public education around this issue would be helpful.
Council Members Benjamin and Marquis are right that frontline staff deserve dignity.
And the Vacuums R Us story is a fair indictment of how some residents treat service workers. No argument there.
But this piece contains a claim that needs scrutiny: “Our staff carry out decisions made by nine elected officials. Direct your frustration at the people you elected.”
That is not how Boulder’s government actually works.
Boulder operates under a council-manager form of government. The city manager prepares the budget, recruits and supervises all city staff, and serves as chief advisor to the mayor and council. Rivera-Vandermyde controls implementation, staffing levels, and the budget proposal that council reacts to. Saying “direct frustration at the nine people you elected” overstates what Council controls.
A Harvard Crimson investigation into Cambridge’s identical council-manager structure found that in practice, “the city manager has a lot of the same powers that a strong mayor would have, but none of the accountability of a strong mayor who has to run for reelection.”
Rivera-Vandermyde came to Boulder in 2021 from a deputy city manager role in Austin, which she had held since 2019. She had never previously served as a top city manager before taking the helm of one of the wealthiest and most complex city governments in Colorado. Whether that experience level was sufficient, and whether her budget and staffing decisions have served Boulder well, are fair questions. They are not attacks on parks employees.
The distinction matters. Berating a parks manager at a public meeting is cruelty. Demanding answers from the unelected administrator who controls the budget and directs all city staff is accountability. This piece conflates the two, and in doing so, provides cover for the person in Boulder city government who is least accountable to voters.
Thank you for this–I think it is an important point.
100% correct, Mitch. City Council reacts, they don’t lead. That’s one reason change happens at a snail’s pace in Boulder. The city manager is the primary leadership position in the city and she carries out her job behind the scenes with no accountability to the public. Her job is to keep staff happy and working, and city council’s as well.
This is an excellent response. The unelected city manager oversees much of what causes frustration for Boulder residents, the city council handles none of the day-to-day operations. It’s not unreasonable for residents to express those frustrations towards the city employees who are at their source, as long as they do not violate laws in the process.
Boulder is a beautiful city with a vast majority of the population courteous and friendly.
I want the City to seriously address the increasing fire risk. A new deal with Xcel is warranted where city agrees to issue serial municipal bonds and Xcel converts utilities underground at an accelerated pace.
There is never any call for rudeness to anyone – period. It just creates negativity and accomplishes nothing. With a sincere commitment to listening and understanding (walking in the other’s moccasins) on both sides and constructive criticism (as demonstrated by these comments), we can hold people accountable without attacks.
Matt and Tina,
Please let our mayor, currently running for re-election uncontested, know the importance of writing constitutients back, especially when 40 plus units of Boulder Affordable Housing and LIHTC are without consistent heat for nearly three weeks; a clear violation of state habitability law with real negative impact on the health and wellness of dozens of disabled low-income people. For whatever reason, he couldn’t be bothered or was too busy to protect us poor folk.
It’s a sad shame, too, because Aaron used to not be this way.
I agree with this *and* leadership might want to consider how and why a once peaceful hippy town has morphed into an angsty disgruntled one. I will toss some hats in the ring. It has largely felt that leadership has ignored the pulse of Boulder, moving forward with irreversible projects and infills for dense buildings, raising height limits, restrictions on our own homes, bottle-necked permitting for both business and homes, tree removals replaced with concrete multi-use paths with no shade. Eventually the crowded mice get feisty. When folks speak up, leadership often talk out of both sides of their mouths. Recent leadership has seemingly drifted from serving the community to political plays and agendas, and as seen in the recent airport “straw poll” some don’t even mind doing it illegally or ethically questionably. Maybe as we review the public, let’s review leadership too.
Matt – Your vignette about Vacuums R Us is just dumb. You used a rude comment by someone at that business because it conveniently fits your narrative about how problematic Boulder residents are, and then chastised all those imaginary people supposedly insulting employees at local businesses to watch their behavior. I lived in that neighborhood for years and drove or walked by that business often. The parking lot was almost always deserted, as in no customers. Maybe that was their beef. Perhaps the real ‘assholes’ are the landlords charging more rent than a struggling small business can afford.
I stopped into that business once to have my vacuum serviced, and left feeling that the staff could definitely be better trained in customer service. So, maybe it’s actually them, huh? But instead of questioning their motives or reasons for calling residents ‘assholes’ you leapt to the conclusion that Boulder has a problem with how they treat people in small businesses. Because you also really don’t like the way some people treat staff. Or council members. Perhaps if city council wasn’t so resistant to actually solving important problems or communicating effectively, people wouldn’t direct their ire at staff. Has there ever been a more protected category of people in history than City of Boulder staff? Not if city council has a say.
I thought that email from Vacuums R us was AWESOME. People in this town have changed, mostly because many of the TRUE Boulderites have had to move, and rich, snotty out-of-towners have moved in place of them. Many are expectant and entitled, and guess what? They are being called out on it, like they should be. I know that many in this town who do any type of customer service can relate to what they said. AND, there ARE a lot of entitled assholes–not just here, but everywhere. After the election, I had to get off local social media because people were not only rude, but incredibly toxic. I would rather enjoy my daily life AWAY From all the craziness that this awesome town has turned into, and just enjoy it. And just because you don’t see alot of cars there, doesn’t mean they didn’t stay busy enough.
Completely agree! I very much appreciated that Vacuums R Us was straightforward and had no qualms about calling Boulder out for the increasingly angry entitlement of residents here. Bravo. One of the worst things about living here is that apparently nobody is supposed to confront anyone about rudeness or disrespect. There is everyday behaviour here that would not be tolerated in most places. People who treat others with the cruelty I see every day would be shut down by a larger population of more reasonable people. Yet if I speak up about disrespect or really ANYTHING in Boulder, somehow I’m the one in the wrong. We’re just not supposed to call anyone out. It has gotten to the point where most people who know what life is like elsewhere are planning to leave. Including me. It’s sad, because this could be a great place to live.
Hmm, I’m guessing your idea of TRUE Boulderites would not apply to anyone on city council or the vast majority of senior staff. They all came from out of town and are relatively “rich” since everyone (except Taishya) on city council is a homeowner. The real problem resulting in too many rich people in the city is that decent housing is no longer affordable for anyone making under 100k. So if you want to see fewer rich people, start advocating for a lot more affordable housing and no more mcmansions built for the type of people Boulder seems intent on attracting.
I have to say that I do not think council members deserve to be abused the way they have been for the past two plus years, especially by the same contingent of people spewing hate against Israel and refusing to accept decisions made by council not to engage on international issues. And yet week after week, for two plus years — even after a firebombing on a peaceful humanitarian group walking in solidarity with innocent hostages kidnapped by Hamas; even after the death of a woman from burns suffered in that attack; even after the physical and mental trauma endured by the people attacked that day (nearly all Jewish) — the same group of people continue to attend CC meetings, vomiting hate and meanness and racism (because yes, antizionism is a racist ideology, the newest rendition of coded antisemitism in the 21st c). Whatever measures council has passed have not stopped it. No council person deserves such abuse. That is not what they signed up for.
The antisemitic rhetoric tolerated because of “free speech” sets a very dangerous precedent. The most recent incident of antisemitism at BVSD and the vile SJP post calling for the release of the attacker are testimony to exactly how serious an issue antisemitism is in Boulder.
People should be able to attend city council meetings without being subjected to such ugliness. I don’t believe it’s a council member’s “job” to absorb citizens’ abusive behavior, and I think it detrimental to the overall public sphere. This has become a city where hate is being normalised and tolerated, and the politics have become increasingly ugly and mean-spirited. No one deserves that — not the council members nor the city employees nor the everyday citizen asking for support.
Council members: please start walking out when this starts in open comment and in meetings. Model that you won’t tolerate hate, corrupted values, and a lack of decency in your chambers — the people’s chambers. Citizenry can learn from you. Challenge the behavior you’re seeing there — which you don’t deserve — and maybe it will extend outwards.
Well said and I whole heartedly agree. Thanks.
“Our Boulder community deserves better.” I agree. Our community deserves a city government that is responsive to citizen concerns. In my book, this is not at all evident. Most council members never respond to emails. When I do see a response, it is typically to argue with me and the point I’m making. There seems to be a lot of willful ignorance and irresponsible spending, and no one seems to be accountable. Small wonder that citizens are upset!
In trying to figure out when the parks mgr was berated, I turned to AI:
There has not been any public record of a city council meeting where Boulder Parks and Open Space Director Jason Seuc was berated. However, Seuc previously served as the education and outreach manager for the city before becoming the Director of Boulder County Parks and Open Space. While Seuc has not been explicitly berated at a council or commissioner hearing, his department has faced significant pushback during public forums and meetings regarding controversial initiatives. Most notably:Red Hill Herbicide Spraying (May 2026): During a Boulder County Commissioners meeting, Seuc defended a disputed cheatgrass treatment project that faced heavy community pushback and hundreds of emails questioning the use of herbicides.Alternating Trail Use Pilot (May & June 2026): Seuc presented data and gathered community feedback for a proposed pilot program at Hall Ranch and Heil Valley Ranch that would restrict certain days exclusively to hikers and horseback riders, drawing strong criticism and pushback from mountain bike advocates.”
If hundreds of emails are questioning a tactic by Parks, is that not important? Does heavy community pushback = berating? What are the authors actually talking about here? Even one or two explicit examples would help us understand why the authors are so upset. (No comparison to a local business is helpful in this discussion.)
The info AI gave you is not correct – it’s referring to the county director of Parks and Open Space and provides instances that did not occur at a city level. Also, open space is separate from parks and recreation in the city. If you follow city council activity and review recent recreation center funding discussions with public comments, it would help provide insight into the authors’ perspective. You could also search BRL for recaps of council discussions around recreation centers and public reactions aimed towards staff. There are also community groups advocating for recreation center funding that provide public information about their platform and concerns. Basically, instead of using AI and hoping it understands your prompt, try to research this information on your own by investigating credible sources such as council meeting minutes and diving into the details of public comment, or searching for the groups that are advocating for change and their stance of council and staff.