In 1991 the Colorado legislature passed the Sunshine (Open Meetings) Law, Section 24-6-401 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. While three or more members of a governing body must generally conduct meetings in public, the Sunshine Law permits executive or closed sessions for discussions of certain items such as real estate transactions, developing negotiation strategies and personnel and legal matters. The Boulder City Charter, however, is stricter and doesn’t allow executive sessions.
The City Council asked in 2008 for permission to hold executive sessions, but the electorate rejected the request. The idea has been talked up in recent years but not put on the ballot again until this year. In the hopes of successful passage, City Council is asking for temporary permission (through 2017) to meet in executive sessions to discuss only one topic: legal matters, including negotiation strategies, around a municipal electric utility.
Unlike in 2008 when a similar, but broader, measure was on the ballot, this ballot issue was supported unanimously by City Council. Similar to 2008 and the Sunshine Law, a 2/3 vote would be required to go into executive session and no final action could be taken in executive session. The sessions would be recorded but would only be released under a judge’s order or a unanimous vote of City Council.
Recommendation: for
In general, I’m in favor of limited executive sessions (though you can read about my opposition to the 2008 ballot issue). I appreciated the ACLU’s “no position” editorial in the Oct 3 Daily Camera – in particular, their distaste for the current open meetings workaround whereby city council members meet privately two at a time with the city attorney and/or the city manager to gather information out of the public eye but in accordance with the restrictions in the City Charter.
Some people opposed to Boulder’s municipal electric utility suspect either nefarious intentions or desperation on the part of City Council. It could be hard to sway their minds, but I’m in favor of council members – our representatives – having a greater say in the discussion than a couple of staff members. Yes, it may be behind closed doors, but the announcement of the executive session is very public.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a campaign website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2B
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Shall Section 9 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7982 to authorize, until December 31, 2017, the city council to meet in executive session exclusively for the purpose of obtaining and discussing legal advice, including negotiation strategy, with respect to Boulder’s electric utility, with no final action being taken in any executive session and all such executive sessions recorded in their entirety?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 7982 to refer 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126012/Page1.aspx
The City Council asked in 2008 for permission to hold executive sessions, but the electorate rejected the request. The idea has been talked up in recent years but not put on the ballot again until this year. In the hopes of successful passage, City Council is asking for temporary permission (through 2017) to meet in executive sessions to discuss only one topic: legal matters, including negotiation strategies, around a municipal electric utility.
Unlike in 2008 when a similar, but broader, measure was on the ballot, this ballot issue was supported unanimously by City Council. Similar to 2008 and the Sunshine Law, a 2/3 vote would be required to go into executive session and no final action could be taken in executive session. The sessions would be recorded but would only be released under a judge’s order or a unanimous vote of City Council.
Recommendation: for
In general, I’m in favor of limited executive sessions (though you can read about my opposition to the 2008 ballot issue). I appreciated the ACLU’s “no position” editorial in the Oct 3 Daily Camera – in particular, their distaste for the current open meetings workaround whereby city council members meet privately two at a time with the city attorney and/or the city manager to gather information out of the public eye but in accordance with the restrictions in the City Charter.
Some people opposed to Boulder’s municipal electric utility suspect either nefarious intentions or desperation on the part of City Council. It could be hard to sway their minds, but I’m in favor of council members – our representatives – having a greater say in the discussion than a couple of staff members. Yes, it may be behind closed doors, but the announcement of the executive session is very public.
Website for the Yes side
No known website – Info on a campaign website appreciated.
Website for the No side
No known website – Info on an opposition website appreciated.
Approved Ballot Language
CITY OF BOULDER BALLOT QUESTION NO. 2B
City Council Executive Sessions Related to Boulder’s Electric Utility
Shall Section 9 of the Charter be amended pursuant to Ordinance No. 7982 to authorize, until December 31, 2017, the city council to meet in executive session exclusively for the purpose of obtaining and discussing legal advice, including negotiation strategy, with respect to Boulder’s electric utility, with no final action being taken in any executive session and all such executive sessions recorded in their entirety?
For the Measure ____
Against the Measure ____
Ordinance 7982 to refer 2B to the voters
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/weblink8/0/doc/126012/Page1.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments. Please only make comments that add to a fruitful discussion.