Boulder’s City Charter isn’t THIS old, but it’s got some years on it, and people propose amendments like this year’s 2E time to time.
At its simplest, passing City of Boulder Ballot Question 2E would make a number of amendments to Boulder’s City Charter section 130. The amendments generally pertain to rules surrounding city boards and commissions, which will be discussed in greater detail below. The Boulder City Council referred 2E to the ballot, and it would pass with a simple majority.
What Would Passing 2E Do?
The current Charter section 130 is titled “General provisions concerning advisory commissions.” If 2E passes, section 130 would still pertain to city advisory boards and commissions, but last-minute voters should know that the title you’ll see on the ballot won’t tell you anything specific about what 2E would really do.
I’ll always recommend reading the whole thing in full if possible, and readers can find a city agenda packet plus the language to 2E at this link. Readers who check this packet out will probably notice that a lot of the language in the existing section 130 will be stricken out if 2E passes, but in most cases it will be replaced with re-written language. Meanwhile, the bullet points below should generally cover the changes.
- The first part of 2E includes new Charter language as to how Council can establish boards and commissions. It basically says Council must establish the board or commission’s powers and duties; term lengths for members; eligibility criteria; and whether the board can have alternate members. Language describing these responsibilities can currently be found in other Charter sections, and some language that’s in section 130 now would be stricken out to be replaced with the new language.
- A number of city boards and commissions have been in existence for a long time, and some of these boards already have language defining their basic composition and length of terms in other sections of the Charter (see sections 74, 75, 135, 136, 157, 158, 172, and/or 173 if interested). Passing 2E would not change these Charter sections.
- Passing 2E would strike the following language from section 130 saying Council should appoint members “who are well known for their ability, probity, public spirit, and particular fitness to serve on such respective commissions…”
- A new section would allow Council to remove board members for the following reasons: “nonattendance to duties, conduct unbecoming a member, and any other reason not prohibited by law.”
- If 2E passes, Council would be authorized to change “any or all of the powers, duties, and procedures” of a board or commission, unless there is language already set in other Charter sections. In this case, a new ballot measure(s) would be required to amend the Charter.
- 2E includes new language specifically saying Council can fill vacancies, and that boards or commissions can establish officers like chairs and vice chairs. This general type of language currently exists in the Charter, but the new language would replace the old.
- Existing language saying board and commission members must be “at least eighteen years old, and who have resided in the city of Boulder for at least one year immediately prior to their appointment to serve on the commission” would stay in the Charter if 2E passes, as would a sentence saying “All commissions shall hold regular monthly meetings.”
Richard’s Take
I’ll probably vote for 2E. I was mildly concerned at first when I read that the Council third reading packet said the measure would allow Council to address “barriers to participation,” and couldn’t help wondering if this was some kind of end run around something. City boards and commissions have been volunteer positions for as long as I’ve been aware of them, and they’re typically important parts of our system of citizen self-governance that require some reasonable time and study commitment. As a city resident, I want board members to be generally qualified and able to meet these minimal commitments, and I don’t think that’s even remotely unreasonable.
However, I was somewhat reassured because Council would need to to propose an ordinance (per the agenda packet) and possibly face public scrutiny if it wants to make a change to a board or commission structure that doesn’t have language already established in the Charter, plus the existing age and residency requirements would remain in section 130. Skeptics might want to dig deeper, but I’m not too worried.
I have one actual complaint about 2E, but it probably won’t make me vote “no.” It’s taking the word “probity” out of the Charter, and I think probity is a pretty good characteristic for a public servant. The easy definition is “uprightness of character or action.”
I was a working journalist covering City Council when the word “probity” was proposed. It was during a period of time in which there were a few controversies involving members of our citizen government, which raised a general question in some circles of if the city really wanted to hold its officials to strong standards or not. I’ll easily admit that probity is probably in the eye of the beholder, and it seems like it would be extremely difficult to prove in a court of law – and it’s possible for decisions regarding volunteer servants to wind up in a legal challenge.
I guess I’ll just move on from “probity,” even though it’s a standard I really want in my government. 2E does sort of vaguely define when Council can remove a board member, including for “conduct unbecoming a member,” which I guess will have to do for now, but why not try a little harder to consider uprightness in character up front instead of after the fact?
