Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Investments Divestment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder council declines to reopen investment decision after public calls to divest from Microsoft, Caterpillar
Summary
After extensive public comment urging the city to divest from Microsoft and Caterpillar over their roles cited in a U.N. report, Boulder City Council held a straw poll and determined there was not a "material change of law or fact" warranting reconsideration of the city's investment decision.
Councilmember Taisha Adams asked the Boulder City Council on Aug. 21 to reconsider the city's investments in Microsoft and Caterpillar, citing a recent U.N. report and arguing the holdings conflict with Boulder's Sustainability, Equity and Resilience Framework.
Adams told the council: "We must not lose sight of the power of our local cities and states when it comes to saying no to genocide in Gaza, in Sudan, in Congo, and anywhere that poisonous root rattles." She asked the council to remove the two companies from the city's portfolio.
The request followed more than an hour of public comment in which multiple residents, faith and advocacy groups and service providers urged divestment and linked the companies' products to human-rights harms overseas. Speakers cited figures and findings from international reports and asked the council to align its investments with city values.
City staff advised the council that the threshold question was whether there had been a "material change of law or fact" since the council's prior decision on investments; the city attorney described that test as the standard for allowing reconsideration.
Councilmember Ryan Schuhart said he was "saddened and grieving" about the violence in the Middle East but opposed immediate action to remove specific stocks from the portfolio without a broader, comprehensive process. Schuhart said the community is divided on the issue, the city lacks capacity to mediate international conflict, and a piecemeal approach risks unintended harms.
Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Folkerts said she had voted earlier in favor of the city's policy but did not believe the new information would have changed the prior council's vote, and therefore would not support reconsideration at this time.
The mayor then directed a straw poll: councilmembers were asked whether they felt there had been a material change of fact or law such that the prior decision should be reconsidered. The mayor reported one councilmember indicated yes and seven indicated no, meaning the council will not schedule a formal reconsideration or further action on divestment at this time.
Council and staff members said they heard residents' grief and urged further work on sustainable- and responsible-investing policies in a comprehensive review, with several councilmembers saying such a review should be considered during the next council work-plan cycle.
The meeting record shows the council did not take a formal vote to remove the named companies; instead, members declined to reopen the earlier investment decision.
Ending
Councilmembers and staff said they would continue to hear community concerns and that public commenters' materials and reports would remain part of the public record. Several councilmembers urged pursuing a wider review of the city's investment screening policy rather than targeting individual holdings in an ad hoc manner.
