Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boulder council narrows study‑session practice: 'nonbinding nod of 5' and clearer agenda signals
Summary
After a lengthy legal briefing and council discussion, members agreed to stop using the term 'straw poll' publicly and to have facilitators seek 'nonbinding direction' (a "nonbinding nod of 5") when study sessions are intended to direct staff; council also agreed to continue allowing information‑only study sessions with clearer CAC look‑ahead summaries.
City Attorney Teresa Taylor Tate framed a long council discussion on May 20 by explaining the legal differences among regular or special meetings and study sessions: official council action — ordinances, resolutions or motions — can only be taken in regular or special meetings, while study sessions are a venue for nonbinding direction to staff.
"Study sessions are to provide direction for future action items at a regular council meeting or a special council meeting," Taylor said, adding that straw polls "are an acceptable way to indicate whether council has arrived at consensus for the purpose of providing direction to staff," but that positions expressed in a study session are not binding votes.
Councilors raised concerns that the phrasing, timing and context of prior study‑session questions had left the public confused about whether council had made a decision before a public hearing. Questions focused on whether minutes or summaries should reflect individual council direction, what level of council support should trigger staff action, whether a change of council composition resets reconsideration rules, and how to record instances where some members say they lack sufficient information.
After extended discussion, the council indicated support for eliminating the public use of the term "straw poll" and instead having facilitators ask whether staff is seeking "nonbinding direction from council in the form of a nod of 5" when the study session is intended to guide staff toward an action item. Council also agreed to retain the practice of allowing informational study‑session items (updates that do not require direction) but asked staff to provide clearer "look ahead" summaries on CAC agendas when feasible.
City attorney guidance on reconsideration was part of the briefing: council may only revisit a prior formal decision after a material change in law or fact unless a later council votes to waive the relitigation constraint. Staff and council members discussed options for how to handle minority concerns during study sessions and asked staff to clarify how summaries and video/transcript records will be used to preserve transparency.
Next steps: staff will change language used in study sessions (avoid 'straw poll' in public materials, use 'nonbinding nod of 5'), refine CAC agenda look‑ahead summaries and consider process changes for documenting study session direction while preserving the nonbinding nature of those sessions.
