Home › Election › Election
Issue 2B backers say closed-door meetings needed
Critics say measure flies in the face of a century of open-government tradition
STORY TOOLS
More Election
- Broomfield’s Barack baby
- New Colo. panel will look at election reform
- St. Vrain Valley planning for big changes
Share and Enjoy [?]
The backers of Boulder’s Ballot Issue 2B say they respect the city’s nearly century-long tradition of open government — but, they say, there are still times when elected leaders would make better decisions if they could debate behind closed doors.
Critics say Boulder’s done just fine without meeting secretly — and that there’s no good reason to start doing so now.
The measure would change Boulder’s charter to remove its rules that bar members of the City Council from meeting in executive session. The measure would let the City Council meet in executive session to discuss “sensitive matters,” such as potential real-estate transactions or to receive legal advice.
Boulder, unlike most cities in the state, does not allow its elected officials to go into executive session under any circumstances. Issue 2B would remove those limitations, but first the City Council would have to put in place an enabling ordinance with restrictions at least as strict as the state’s open-meetings law.
Nine former City Council members recently signed a letter criticizing Issue 2B, and several sitting council members also say they don’t think there’s a pressing need to meet secretly.
“If it’s not broken, why fix it?” City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel said. “And I’m not convinced it’s broken. ... If we have executive sessions, that’s one more way we’re shutting out the public. ... I also think this community, ever since their charter started, we’ve always had very open government.”
But City Councilman Matt Appelbaum says the current system is broken. Critics need to be more candid about the contrast between how things work now and the way they’d work if Issue 2B passes, he said.
Right now, the City Council doesn’t freely debate sensitive real estate or legal questions in open session. Instead, elected leaders get briefings from the city attorney or city manager, two at a time.
Unlike those briefings, which take place without any public notice, the time, date and place of executive session meetings would be posted, Appelbaum said, and minutes kept — although typically those minutes wouldn’t be released.
Elected leaders now speak cryptically about such matters during open meetings, referring back to materials prepared during their individual talks with the staff. Someone watching the City Council meetings on sensitive topics typically doesn’t walk away with a clear understanding of the issue — and often, Appelbaum said, members of the City Council don’t, either.
“You don’t really know what your colleagues are thinking about something, and you don’t benefit from their thoughts and their concerns,” he said. “I think executive sessions have the potential to be better than what we currently do.”
Posted by mtman on October 6, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Matt... I'm disappointed to hear you express this point of view, but it doesn't surprise me. You have never been one of our leaders who spoke freely and openly -- always so guarded and cryptic.
Dear Boulder, why support closed government?
Posted by respectsnothing on October 6, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We elected you Matt. We have a right to know what you're thinking and if you're representing us in the best capacity as possible. Why the need to express your thoughts behind closed doors? If it's not broken why fix it?
Posted by meatpieandtatters on October 6, 2008 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's too much behind door shenanigans amongst the political class.
Posted by boulderhippie on October 6, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
this sounds like something Dick Cheney would approve of.
Posted by EvanFromHeaven on October 6, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Appelbaum is smart, but contemptuous of his constituents. Here's my Camera article about him:
http://evanravitz.com/ravitz/Appelbau... (It's in their archive but you have to pay $1.95 to read it there.)
Posted by aprilsmile on October 6, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
completed my ballot today. voted against closed door meetings, against the two tax increases, against the illegal mexicans trying to tell me in the future that i have to eat tacos or i am discriminating against them and for increased salary for council members since they make so little.
Posted by rpalmer on October 6, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Aprilsmile: There's a taco issue on the ballot? Which one? I love tacos. I'll vote for that.
Posted by aprilsmile on October 6, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
that was a joke about allowing illegals to sit on city boards and make decisions about city policy. can you imagine the stuff illegals will try to push through if allowed to sit on boards. in my opinion, it is totally outragious and should be denied 99 percent to 1 percent. they should have absolutely no say in city government. they are here illegally.
Posted by MountainHaven on October 6, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Estes Park has had HUGE problems with closed door sessions - it was taken too far and made for some bad planning decisions without any public input.
NO to closed door sessions!
Posted by Robert_Paul_Smoke on October 6, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sensitive legal decisions? you mean like the decision to spend valuable city attorney resources pursuing a mindless court case with a burger joint?
or do you mean the upcoming mindless court case over whether club nitro can operate?
sensitive real estate decisions? you mean like the one where we gave millions to a car dealership for land and then found out later the proposed nw rail line would not be able to reach the location for which all the money had been forked over?
that kind of sensitive real estate decision?
please...enough is enough --
figure out what the job is -- then do it and stop whining that you need new rules to be effective
Posted by RoseFromTheDead on October 6, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical of dumb as dirt conservatives to believe illegal immigrants would be able to serve on a city board without being deported.
Posted by S_S_Mama on October 6, 2008 at 5:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What's with all the secrecy? Have something to hide?
Posted by SoBoPop on October 6, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rose: Did you mean dumb as pachuli oil liberals? Boulder is a sanctuary city. Noone gets deported from here except African Americans. This proposal feeds a progressive ideal. Were you trying to be funny?
(Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Camera staff does not actively monitor comments. If you believe a comment breaks the user agreement, please flag the comment and someone will take a look at it.