Boulder City Council members say they may want to look into decorum during their January retreat and consider what they legally can do to protect staff members from rude comments and threats.
The council adopted rules of decorum in 2010 after a number of revisions sparked by concerns about the right to free speech and religious expression from the Boulder County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Muslim Students’ Association at the University of Colorado Boulder. However, after one community member on Oct. 6 directed profanity to City Manager Jane Brautigam, council members said it might be time to take another look.
Several council members seemed to have a different approach to the matter in an initial discussion on Oct. 13.
Mayor Sam Weaver said he will cut people off in a small group discussion but doesn’t believe it’s appropriate to do so in a public council meeting. Instead, he favors telling people, “let’s all realize that we’re humans here, and we’re trying to do the best that we can” before reminding the next speakers that the council expects decorum.
Councilmember Mark Wallach disagreed, adding that the public is welcome to say whatever they’d like about members of the council since they’re elected officials, but he feels differently when the comments involve staff.
“Our staff should not be treated as piñatas. That doesn’t mean you can’t express yourself with passion. It doesn’t mean you can’t be critical,” Wallach said. “But when it gets to a very, very deeply personal level, I don’t think this is simply a situation where you just let it ride and hope the next person does better.”
To some council members, the problem goes deeper than that. They acknowledged that many in the community are angry because they feel powerless or unheard by city officials and council.
While Mayor Pro Tem Bob Yates said he regretted not speaking up in defense of staff during the Oct. 6 meeting, he said it’s important to consider why people are angry and reflect on potential ways to mitigate the behavior through improved community engagement.
Similarly, Councilmember Rachel Friend remembers how it felt to feel unheard when she used to speak before the council as a Boulder resident. She urged her fellow council members to consider whether they respond to emails and calls with equity.
“As part of saying we can’t have a level of abuse toward our staff, we also can’t or shouldn’t treat our community members on a first-class and second-class basis,” she said.
There are many ways for government bodies to protect public meetings from disruption, including limiting speakers’ time and restricting comments to agenda-related topics. Either way, Helen Norton, a constitutional law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, said it’s hard to make a specific call about what’s appropriate until the council proposes an update to its rules of decorum.
“Until they put out a proposal, it’s hard to be more specific,” she said.
But in considering what the council can do legally, Norton referenced a few Supreme Court cases that may guide discussions. One is Cohen vs. California, a 1971 decision that prevented Paul Robert Cohen from being convicted for disturbing the peace by wearing a “F*** the draft” jacket in a California courthouse.
“Language, especially language that’s expressing political dissent, is often chosen to express emotions rather than ideas,” Norton said of the case.
That’s similar to how Sean Collins felt when he heard the remarks made in open comment on Oct. 6.
“Normalize impolite antagonism towards powerful people,” Collins wrote on Twitter. “Civility is the language of the oppressor.”
Collins was a member of the city’s public participation working group, which presented a report in 2017 outlining some of Boulder’s challenges with community engagement and public participation. The group summarized five problems, one being that constructive public conversations don’t occur enough, which can lead to frustration, anger and disruptive behavior.
