Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses changing open-comment procedures to improve predictability and equity
Summary
Council debated and gave preliminary direction on several options to change open-comment procedures — fixed time limits, alternation of in-person and virtual speakers, an earlier start with a time-certain business start, audio-only testimony, and brief council replies — and asked staff to prepare formal rule language.
Boulder City Council held a policy conversation June 6 about changes to open-comment procedures designed to make public participation more predictable and equitable and to reduce meeting delays.
Items under consideration and council direction
Council discussed multiple procedural options raised by members and community input: (1) keep public comment to a fixed time window (currently 45 minutes is the city’s practice) and prioritize people who did not get to speak at a previous meeting; (2) alternate between in-person and virtual speakers to provide parity for remote participants; (3) consider audio-only testimony during the open-comment period to reduce visual imbalance between in-person and remote participants; (4) begin the meeting earlier (proposal: 5:30 p.m.), hold the public-comment block, then recess and start the business meeting at a time certain (suggested 6:30 p.m.); and (5) allow brief council responses after open comment (suggested 30 seconds per councilmember) and instruct the presiding officer to speak immediately when public comments include hateful or dehumanizing language.
Several councilmembers emphasized predictability: Tracy (Nicole) and others cited Denver’s practice of telling people in advance whether they are likely to get called and prioritizing people who were not heard the previous meeting. Council also discussed restricting the scope of open comment to issues that qualify as city business (items on a current, prior or imminent agenda), though the city attorney cautioned that restricting topics can raise free-speech and forum-design issues because “related to city business” is a broad definition.
Legal and operational notes from staff
City Attorney’s office staff advised that most suggested changes are within council authority; however, suspensions of participation for disruptive behavior are an operational and city-manager-level discretion relating to meeting safety and enforcement and are not solely a council rule to set. City clerks said operational details (randomization, sign-up cutoffs, alternation logistics and notification to speakers) are implementable and asked for council direction on the preferred options so staff could draft rule language and procedures.
Council feedback and near-term outcome
By informal straw poll: most councilmembers supported a fixed-length open-comment period with priority for missed speakers, alternating in-person/virtual speakers, time-certain start of business after a public-comment block, allowing brief council replies after comment, and giving the chair authority to respond immediately to hateful or dehumanizing speech. A narrower majority supported audio-only testimony; the council did not adopt changes then and asked staff and the city attorney to draft formal procedural language for council consideration that preserves access, equity, and legal limits on content restrictions.
Ending
Staff will return with drafted rule language and operational procedures for council review. Council members asked staff to flag any proposed changes that would require substantial additional staff time or conflict with other code provisions.
