Posted by SoBoPop on August 13, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the argument that visitors such as visiting professors from Africa or India might have something worthwhile to contribute is reasonable. However, I think its absolutely poor policy to allow people who are in this country illegally to make decisions affecting citizens. Is this idea BCC political correctness run amuck?

Posted by yragnam on August 13, 2008 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Permanent residents, people with green cards, can apply for citizenship in 3-5 years depending on how they acquired their residence. Seeking and becoming a U.S citizen demonstrates an attachment to our democratic form of government and our community. Individuals newly admitted to citizenship should be encouraged and welcomed to sit on boards and commissions. To have people with less of a stake in our government and community so participate is a mistake.

Posted by connie on August 14, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Living in Boulder for one year is insufficient even for citizens. You cannot learn enough about a town in a single year to be able to make decisions about the people living there. I'm in favor of making it a three year time limit and that the people be in the country legally (citizen or green card).

Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on August 14, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How come the county's always ahead of the city?

I support undocumented residents greater than 18 yrs. old and with one year residency to sit on ALL boards and commissions, not just the ones that are NOT quasi-judicial. The Planning Board is one such board and is the best one to effect positive change for this quadrant of our population and therefore, the best interests of the population at large.

Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on August 14, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FEAR is a four-letter word.

Posted by yragnam on August 14, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

UNDOCUMENTED is a twelve-letter word.

Posted by ThatWouldBeJack on August 14, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Members of city boards and commissions serve as advisors to the city council; they are not decisionmakers themselves. Why we would not want the best thinkers and most qualified people advising council is beyond me. This goes not only for the scientific-type boards like water quality and the like, but also boards like Parks and Recreation or the Library, where it would be good to have ideas from other countries to consider. Let's not stick our heads in the sand on this one. If people want to serve the community and have ideas about how we can improve it, I don't think we should care what country they were born in. To the naysayers: can you point to a problem in the county that was caused by its policy of allowing non-citizens serve on boards and commissions?

Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on August 14, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seeing naught, let's move ahead.

Posted by blacksho89 on August 15, 2008 at 6:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MORAN is a five letter word

Posted by blacksho89 on August 15, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lynn Segal has no argument, and she knows it. She has to resort to the xenophobe statement, calling names. That's supposed to stop the argument, you see. "Oh, no! She called me a name! I have to go home to Mommy now!"

The government derives its powers from the consent of the People. Who are the people? Well, the People are the voters, obviously. When we vote a person into office, we have given that person governmental power.
Advisory boards do just that, advise government bodies. These government bodies are charged with doing what is best for the People, who we have already shown are the voters. Therefore the advice given should be the advice of the People.

There is no need nor rational reason for a member of an advisory board to be other than a registered elector. And there is no need nor rational reason to listen to a demagogue such as Lynn Segal whose argument rests on ending the debate by calling mean-spirited names.

Posted by respectsnothing on August 15, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by lynn_segal_aka_lds on August 14, 2008 at 1:01 p.m.

I support undocumented residents greater than 18 yrs. old and with one year residency to sit on ALL boards and commissions, not just the ones that are NOT quasi-judicial. The Planning Board is one such board and is the best one to effect positive change for this quadrant of our population and therefore, the best interests of the population at large.

======================

What type of character does an undocumented resident have? The word "undocumented" says alot about the character of the individual and this is who you feel is worthy of sitting on the seat of advising a board or commission? How do you know they're going to serve the best interests of the population at large?

You're ideology is no better than Espinoza's ideology to serve only one ethnic group of people.

Posted by kl53c on August 15, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lynn segal and espinoza.......people like you make me want to puke.

Posted by JT on August 15, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Some Boards serve quasi-judicial functions, including for example the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals. In order to serve on this, and other similar Boards, you must take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the U.S. Constitution, the State of Colorado Constitution, and the laws of the City of Boulder. As a non-citizen of the City of Boulder, i.e., a person who is a citizen of Louisville, how can you swear an oath of fealty to the laws of a country, state, and city for which you are not a citizen?

Additionally, decisions made by these Boards are subject to appeal to trial court. Can you imagine the procedural nightmares that would ensue if a non-citizen issued a quasi-judicial decision on an issue of law for which that person has no background? For example, why should a citizen of Boulder be subject to the jurisdiction and decision-making process of a person who is not a citizen of Boulder? Would a citizen of, say, Louisville, want a citizen from Boulder rendering an important decision on matters related to Louisville?

The concept of persons who are not citizens of the City of Boulder serving on City Boards is noble, but the execution is fraught with peril.

Posted by JT on August 15, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ThatWouldBeJack said: "Members of city boards and commissions serve as advisors to the city council; they are not decisionmakers themselves."

That is an incorrect statement. City Boards DO make decisions, and those decisions can be appealed to the courts of law. Some Boards are merely advisory, i.e., the Landmarks and certain other advisory boards. But, the statement above as generally asserted is inaccurate.

Posted by ThatWouldBeJack on August 15, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JT: Thanks for the correction: I was slightly off, but my main point remains the same. Maybe I should have written, "Most city boards and commissions serve soley as advisors to the city council; they are not decisionmakers themselves. Some do have quasi-judicial powers, but even these do not get the last word on a judgement. Decisions of boards and commissions can be appealed." Then the rest of my statement as it was.

As to your point about oaths, I see no problem in non-citizens affirming that they will follow and uphold the Constitutions of the US and Colorado, and Boulder laws. This is promising to obey the law, not fealty, as you describe it.

Also, your analogy with the "Louisville citizen" is a bit off. "Would a citizen of, say, Louisville, want a citizen from Boulder rendering an important decision on matters related to Louisville?" you ask. Well, no. A resident of Louisville is not a resident of Boulder, thus s/he couldn't serve on Boulder boards or commissions -- either now or under the proposed city charter change.

I guess the difference is that I'm willing to allow all residents of Boulder apply to serve primarily as advisors to city council, and you're not. But using the "oath" as a reason doesn't seem very valid to me. I don't see anything that would make this "fraught with peril," as you suggest. And I would guess this is something that the city attorney would agree is not a legal problem, else this would have been pointed out to city council when it considered this measure.

Posted by tee on August 24, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is UNDEMOCRATIC to cede governance to others, and that's exactly what it is when we allow outsiders (non residents, non-voters) to hold any sort of office or official position of power in our government.

If you don't think that boards and commissions make decisions that affect us directly, you would do well to recall that the entire Open Space Mountain Parks visitor plan was controlled solely by the OSMP board (who even made decisions in opposition to citizen and OSMP staff recommendations, and even City Council.)

(BTW... I am wondering if we could not save a bunch of wasted space on this page by adding a small javascript application that lets you type in any word you want, and then displays how many letters it has?)

Posted by harrisonferrel on September 4, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not? George W has sold our nation to the Saudis and the Chinese. I say we outsource government posts to the Marianna Islands so we don't have to pay commissioners so much money. They can make Tshirts and decide on local issues at the same time. Hey, what about having out of town companies build a mall on 29th street that looks like crap? Oh, already been done.

The Boulder council? Since I've been here (11 years) they have complained about water shortages. On the other hand they have allowed multi unit housing that uses more water. Make sense? No? Have you ever tried writing to these board members? Don't bother, they don't answer you. I emailed all and received zero responses. They should all be replaced with Martians.