[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: RE: significant issues regarding changes to rules of council

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Carr, Thomas

A council member requested that the Council Agenda Committee schedule, at the March 7 council meeting,  a discussion of Mr. Smoke’s concern for speakers with disabilities.  Unfortunately, the meeting already is scheduled to go beyond the 10:30 p.m. cutoff, so CAC was unable to accommodate the request.  I was asked to address how this would be handled under current rules.  The city, as a policy matter, works to accommodate all persons, including those with disabilities.  There is nothing in the rules that requires the presiding officer to terminate a person’s speech.  Generally, our mayors have made a practice of allowing people to finish a thought.  When people with disabilities have spoken before the council in the past, our mayors have accommodated special needs by not stopping the person immediately.  In addition, the rules can be suspended by a vote of two-thirds of council members.

From: Rob Smoke <dubsdingleberries at gmail.com<mailto:dubsdingleberries at gmail.com>>
Date: February 27, 2017 at 7:56:27 PM MST
To: Shirly White <shirly.lee.white at gmail.com<mailto:shirly.lee.white at gmail.com>>, Emilia Pollauf <maya_gem at yahoo.com<mailto:maya_gem at yahoo.com>>,  Jose Beteta <josedbeteta at gmail.com<mailto:josedbeteta at gmail.com>>, Nikhil Mankekar <officialnikhil at gmail.com<mailto:officialnikhil at gmail.com>>, laurengiff at gmail.com<mailto:laurengiff at gmail.com>,  "Burton, Jan" <BurtonJ at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:BurtonJ at bouldercolorado.gov>>, "Morzel, Lisa" <morzell at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:morzell at bouldercolorado.gov>>,  "Young, Mary" <youngm at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:youngm at bouldercolorado.gov>>, Mike Homner <mhomner at gmail.com<mailto:mhomner at gmail.com>>,  "Darren O'Connor" <constanciodarren at gmail.com<mailto:constanciodarren at gmail.com>>
Subject: significant issues regarding changes to rules of council
To:  HRC Members; cc: Mary Young, Jan Burton, Lisa Morzel

http://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink8/0/doc/139900/Page1.aspx?_ga=1.142622197.1934806808.1486319094<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/8Jo2BxT9VMzta?domain=documents.bouldercolorado.gov>


The above link is to Tom Carr's original memo on rule changes sent on January 31 -- I think it was updated on February 2nd, but the material is roughly identical.


Points in response to Karen Rahn's comments at HRC meeting 2/27/2017

1.  Although I'm quite certain that Karen is correct in stating that the City attempts to aid those with disability needs, in practice the aid
that is needed is not available, and becomes less available if current changes are left as is.
      A)  Two minutes is not the appropriate length of time for open comment when granted to someone whose disability includes verbal communications issues.
            If Karen is saying that such issues do not exist, or have no standing, I would respond by saying that she -- to a degree-- delineates the problem accurately.
            Put it this way:  Stephen Hawking, the theoretical physicist whose work is estimated to be among the best in the world in spite of his ALS would never
            attempt a two-minute speech;  His disability includes a slowing of his speech.  If Stephen Hawking were speaking before council, the buzzer
            would likely go off before he had a chance to finish one sentence.  I'm using Stephen as a representation of the issue -- I'm not suggesting we are specifically
            discriminating against people with motor-neuron disorders. However.... the facts are simply that people with ANY motor-neuron disorder or a range of other disorders
            that affect speech or brain function are in fact effectively discriminated against when the 2 minute rule is applied to them.  Disagree if you like, I would submit that not accommodating
            individuals with those type of issues is in complete opposition to the ethical principles behind the protected class status that people with disabilities
            have fought very hard to obtain.  NOW...adding the element of a lottery system to the open comment portion of the meeting means that advance
            preparations and the extra effort that may be required FOR SUCH INDIVIDUALS inappropriately burdens them and discourages their participation.
            I would firmly insist that such actions are discriminatory at a core level.  I use the term "core level" only because it may be open to debate whether
            the city has a specific legal obligation.
         B)  There is no rational basis for NOT making an accommodation that might cost the council twenty minutes of time in the course of a year, if that.
               The rule changes clearly take things in the opposite direction from "reaching out" to those with disabilities -- the City's professed stand.

2)   Consider the material in Carr's memo.  He states plainly that the average length of Open Comment, including council response is 65 minutes.
       At the two most recent council meetings, all were accommodated without the need for a hard time limit by council -- both meetings had
       citizen participation (plus council and staff response) that ran under the 65 minute average.

3)  Under the above conditions, it's a disproportionate response to restrict participation.  If, on either of the last two evenings, there were three or four or five
    extra speakers, they would have been very disappointed to be turned away.  Those extra three, four or five speakers would add 6, 8 or 10 minutes to the
     length of the meeting.  Council has used the circumstance of extreme cases to excuse a change that was never an absolute rule for council.  There have
     been several mayors and councils that have allowed the "overage" to finish up prior to council's other agenda items.  Two minutes -- just for the record --
     is approximately 0.39 percent of the council's average meeting length.  In other words, five extra speakers still adds up to roughly a 2 percent addition
      to the length of a meeting.  Of course, this particular stat still ignores the fact that people often:
      A) Hire babysitters.
       B) Take time off from work or leave their jobs early.
         C) Have something temporally significant to share with council and the community -- as would be the case with issues of discrimination happening in the present moment.

4)  I recognize the value of ending meetings earlier.  I realize the value of the work that council does.  The appropriate measure or set of measures would deal with circumstances
     where council anticipates large public hearings that will cause the meeting to run late.  One solution would be -- under those circumstances -- to start Open Comment with
     one council member and staff present to hear those who are signed up AT 5 p.m. -- in this circumstance, all council members would have the opportunity to view those
     comments at a later time.

5)  With regard to Ms. Rahn's comment that "email is the method to get in touch with council", I firmly object.  Who reads those emails?  The janitor?  I fully believe
that someone has read every email I have ever sent.  Equating that experience of being told that one's email has been read -- with the experience of testifying before council and the community-- is ridiculous and
somewhat insulting to anyone who actually would like to address council on ANY issue.

6)  Myself, other "staunch critics" and people with a bone to pick -- may not be especially affected by council's new restrictions.  The people more likely to be affected include:
a)  Young people who have testified in groups -- often as part of their school work.  The civic engagement opportunity will likely be ruined -- or perhaps not even initiated when
only a percentage of a group are provided a two-minute opportunity.  Many people have found the presentations on the "plastic bag" issue or saving bee populations by
stopping "neo-nico" use to be helpful and enlightening.  Certainly, people benefit from that type of interaction.
b) People with immediate concerns -- some of them relating directly to issues of discrimination that are showing themselves to be more prevalent -- at least in terms of
media recognition -- since the new administration took office.  I object to any exclusion -- intentional or incidental -- of people with immediate concerns in that area.
I ask that members of the HRC consider this issue carefully and respond at least to this matter, even if members of the commission believe that council's actions
are otherwise sincere.

7)  I would submit that the Boulder city council is transparently averse to criticism.  I do not expect agreement on this point, but I would be happy to provide a few pieces of
evidence to anyone specifically concerned.  One final issue that I'm quite certain has not been discussed: the possibility of "bias as to content" at future meetings.
For instance....in 2015, council heard from "official" proponents of county-wide ballot measures.  Those individuals were accommodated as a group at the beginning
of open comment.  If council accommodates those individuals by excluding them from the lottery, but allowing them to speak, the bias towards content is a violation
of MY rights and anyone who may have...an opposing view?  If I'm "bumped out" by official proponents, I will absolutely file a legally valid complaint against the city.
I object to the exclusion of anyone under the circumstances where individuals are given "special permission" to add their names to open comment.

I welcome all comments regarding these points.  I may have something else to offer, but I'll leave it there for now.

Thanks.

Rob Smoke
720-930-2945