Boulder council study session advances process-review items; staff to scope mayor-pro tem, declarations and email rules

Boulder's City Council study session reviewed a package of procedural changes recommended by a council process working group and directed staff to investigate several items further, including formalizing mayor pro tem selection rules, examining code changes for landmark reviews and drafting a comprehensive declarations policy.

The working group, formed after the council's 2024 retreat, prioritized 15 ideas and brought six forward to the full council for direction. Pam Davis, assistant city manager, presented the items as matters that would require council direction before staff could develop formal proposals.

The six areas presented were: - mayor pro tem selection (whether the informal tradition favoring the longest-serving member who has not previously served should be codified); - landmark and historic-preservation review (whether to reduce council review through code amendment or appeals); - mandatory full-council participation in annual evaluations of council employees; - rules limiting use of community email addresses and other contact information to official council business; - formalizing how ceremonial speaking opportunities and Council Agenda Committee (CAC) substitute assignments are shared; and - a full review and redesign of the city's declarations process.

Council member Nicole Spear, who facilitated the working group's discussion at the study session, said the group wanted transparent, predictable procedures. On mayor pro tem selection, council members discussed whether to codify a tenure-based tradition or adopt a different, skills-based or elected approach. Several members raised the importance of facilitation and time-management skills for the role and said any formal rule should preserve an opt-out for members who do not wish to serve.

On historic preservation, staff noted council spends "an average of 3 hours and 10 minutes of meeting time per year" on preservation items (less than 2% of total council meeting time), but that more complex landmark or district designations can take longer. Staff recommended exploring code changes that could shift some council call-up processes to an appeals model, potentially saving staff and property owners time.

The working group also discussed employee-evaluation participation. Staff said mandatory participation would require a change to council procedure and that accountability for nonparticipation would be a council-managed matter. Council did not adopt a mandatory-participation rule at the meeting; instead members asked the council's employee-evaluation committee to return with options (the committee co-chair offered to track participation and report back).

On constituent email addresses, council signaled support for a rule that would prohibit using a community member's email address for non-official or campaign purposes while allowing follow-up contact when a council member has established a direct ongoing exchange with a resident. Staff said the city already redacts email addresses in public records disclosures and that a formal rule would clarify expectations and permissible follow-up.

Regarding ceremonial and CAC fill-in opportunities, council discussed the administrative burden of a highly formalized rotation and the timing challenges when requests arrive on short notice. Members asked staff to test lighter-weight tools (a shared calendar or a single form for members to record topic interests and availability) and to update the mayor's office and clerk's teams about operational expectations for short-notice events.

Finally, council supported a full review and redesign of the declarations process to make it more transparent and reduce meeting time. Staff estimated the city currently spends about six hours per year reading declarations in meetings and suggested a staged approach: proceed with a full policy redesign while honoring previously scheduled read-aloud declarations that have committed recipients or clear community expectations; move other, lower-priority or recurring declarations to "issue only" until the new process is in place; and bring a draft policy back to the council for adoption.

Where council landed: members gave staff direction to scope formal options on the mayor pro tem selection rule, to look at code options for landmark/call-up changes, to have the employee-evaluation committee return with recommendations on increasing participation, to draft a clear rule governing constituent email use, to pilot lower-burden administrative tools for sharing ceremonial/CAC duties, and to conduct a full declarations policy review. Council did not adopt immediate changes at the study session and asked staff to return with draft language or implementation options.

Ending: Staff said it would return to the council with draft options and timelines; several council members asked for any drafts to include clear timelines for implementation and to identify staff workload and resource implications so the council could prioritize which changes to enact first.