Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Dialogues topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder human relations commission advances planning for ‘difficult dialogues’ series with CU and community partners
Summary
At its June 17 meeting, the Boulder Human Relations Commission discussed partnering with University of Colorado Boulder and community organizers to pilot a ‘difficult dialogues’ series—centered initially on Israel–Gaza tensions—and directed staff to continue planning and return with a proposal.
At its June 17 meeting, the Boulder Human Relations Commission discussed partnering with University of Colorado Boulder and community members to pilot a “difficult dialogues” series using an ‘Interview Game’ and theater-based formats to address rising local tensions around Israel–Gaza and other topics.
The discussion followed a public comment from resident Mark, who urged the commission to act quickly. “It is so urgently needed,” Mark said, and recommended the commission consider partnering with CU as a trusted partner and to run a trial sooner rather than later.
Commissioners and staff described recent meetings with Dr. Jennifer Ho at CU and Ami, the creator of the Interview Game, and outlined several possible formats: a public kickoff event that could include theater or performances, a series of facilitated dialogues using the Interview Game, training sessions for commissioners and city officials, and targeted events on separate topics such as immigration. Christian (Commissioner) said the partners “seemed very open” to co‑planning and that the hope was to invite them to a future meeting after preliminary planning steps.
Speakers emphasized limits and risks of city involvement. Several commissioners said the commission should be clear about scope and the Human Relations Commission’s local role. One commissioner expressed concern that recorded or highly public participation by city council members could later be used to fuel division and suggested offering unrecorded, experiential sessions for officials instead. Staff noted there is some budget available to support events but that timing will depend on partner availability and costs.
Commissioners agreed to continue planning. A motion to proceed with partnership planning was raised during the meeting, but no final vote was recorded in the transcript. According to remarks on the record, staff were directed to keep in dialogue with Dr. Ho and Ami, aim to have training and planning sessions before the next meeting where the commission could potentially act, and return with a more concrete proposal. Staff also reported an invitation to co‑sponsor an immigration dialogue planned for the fall (September) and said the commission is scheduled to discuss these topics with city council at the commission’s October meeting.
Public commenters and several commissioners framed urgency around recent community incidents and broader national events, and urged the commission to proceed with clear goals and boundaries. Commissioners and staff repeatedly urged the group to define desired outcomes (for example, increased civic safety, stronger neighborly relations, or better community understanding) before finalizing formats, and discussed participant selection, audience, and training needs.
Next steps recorded on the transcript: staff will continue planning discussions with Dr. Jennifer Ho and Ami; the commission will consider training on the Interview Game between meetings; staff will prepare cost and scheduling options and aim to return with a proposal at the next commission meeting. The transcript does not record a completed, binding vote to commit city funds or adopt a final scope for the series.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to provide updates and to circulate planning materials before the next meeting so the commission can vote or provide formal direction after seeing a clearer proposal and budget.
