[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Rules of Procedure

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues,

This is a follow-up to our retreat discussion.  In addition to the issues I brought up then, I have a few others I thought I'd raise in advance of our formal action on the revised Rules of Procedure, which apparently might come as soon as next week.

-- Time limits during public hearings.  As I noted, this was accidentally deleted from the Rules.  Although I'd prefer that we retain the long-standing 3-minute rule, it seems that the rest of council would prefer that we handle public hearings as we do open comment, reducing the normal 3 minutes to 2 when more than 15 people have signed up.  However, we are not limited to 45 minutes for public hearings, and I think we all expect that those hearings will run longer for complex/controversial issues.  Therefore I'd suggest that, at minimum, we don't go to a 2-minute limit unless 30 people have signed up.

-- Time limits for all public speaking.  As I suggested, I think that the Rules should clearly state that the time limits are just that, limits.  Not because I want to further limit public speaking time (actually, as noted above, I don't) but because of the obvious issues of fairness and equity (perceived or real), I would like people to, in fact, stop when their time is up instead of getting an "automatic" extension.  That would be assisted if a short buzzer could sound when there is, say, 15 seconds remaining.  (And equity would also be assisted if councilmembers were careful when asking questions.)

-- IV.2.d regarding board members.  First, this doesn't belong here, since this is the section specifically regarding open comment.  Board members typically are invited to speak during public hearings (although in special cases might need to speak during open comment).  More importantly, this section implies that any board member is invited to speak and given special preference.  In fact, this should be limited to the board member(s) who are explicitly representing their board (both pro and con, as appropriate).  Other board members can of course appear and give their own opinions, but should be treated like other members of the public.

-- IV.5 regarding proponents of an agenda item.  I don't quite understand this section.  In the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, it is of course clear (although we also allow for rebuttal in some unclear manner).  But for all other issues, what does this mean?  Obviously many issues don't have an identifiable "proponent" and even if they do, what about the "opponent"?  Perhaps some good examples can be provided, but I really don't want the mayor to have the sole authority to give someone 15 minutes.

--  XVI.C.6 regarding removal of a person from the meeting.  I have some serious concern about this concept of excluding someone from future attendance, but at the least we need to clarify how this is decided.  The first sentence says that a person removed from a meeting "may" be excluded for 30 days -- but who decides if this will happen?  This cannot be the mayor alone, nor the staff, in my opinion.  Longer periods of exclusion require a council vote; I think any period of exclusion should require such a vote.  Yes, that might be a bit painful, but since this has never happened or been needed (at least not in the 30 years I've been watching) I don't expect this will occur very often.

--Matt