Open comments at public meetings

I first spoke in front of the BVSD School board in 2019 over my concern about August classrooms with interior temperatures of up to 90 degrees. I asked why, five years after voters approved a BVSD bond measure for capital construction projects, including adding air conditioning to schools, this was allowed and acceptable. None of the board members reacted or responded to me. This, I would learn, was the status quo. It was also incredibly dismissive. However, I continued to speak at school board meetings over the years. It was important to me to vocalize my opinion about school management, regardless of the reaction I got.

Public participation is a cornerstone of democracy. Public comment periods exist at all levels of government for a reason: without hearing directly from the people, authorities are apt to decide in favor of their own biases. I'm not naive enough to think that simply having public comment periods sways officials away from their biases. But it might.

Elected officials have to balance myriad competing needs. They must be able to take in a lot of information in sometimes a short amount of time before making consequential decisions. Hearing from a broad cross-section of the community should encourage an interrogation of their own stance. Would it be considerate of the elected boards and councils to acknowledge each constituent with a simple thanks? Of course.

But just as the elected boards cannot (and should not try) to mandate how we, the public, speak to them, we can't mandate the same from them. But we can ask. So please, to all of the elected officials in our community: could you please make it easy to speak at public meetings and also make an effort to see the humanity behind the people who come before you with comments and questions?

Rachel Walker, rodellwalker@gmail.com

The really great thing about city council meetings is that anyone can speak.

The really awful thing about city council meetings is that anyone can speak.

I believe that everyone who wants to speak should. I also believe that not everyone should speak just because they want to.

In a rational world we would all agree to follow the basic rules of communication, as spelled out by Friedrich Schlegel: First, have something reality-based worth saying. Second, say it to the right audience. Third, say it effectively. If you don't follow these rules, Schlegel said, "it is more to the point to remain silent."

We don't live in such a rational world, not even in Boulder. Revisiting the minutes/videos of past City Council meetings, there have been some truly crazy comments made, some without clothing. And, it is very clear, the cray-cray doesn't always come only from the public side of the big table.

There are sensible reasons for trying to limit comments from the public AND council, e.g., to conserve time and to avoid the recent phenomenon of turning disagreement immediately into enmity. Council meetings shouldn't resemble the unmoderated crazy of the Twitterverse and even darker corners of the web.

But efforts to control even crazy public discourse censors our democracy. Perhaps the best thing to do is to encourage people to think more deeply before they speak. Continue to require an online application before a meeting, but also engage the applicant personally about what they hope to present and challenge them to meet the basic rules of communication to make their brief time worthwhile for all. If they fail, they join a "no talk list" for some length of time.

Yes, this requires more work from our council (appoint an ombudsperson?). But it would be better than the current opaque process.

Fintan Steele, fsteele1@me.com

The First Amendment guarantees that there are many places to debate whether astronauts actually landed on the moon; however, school board meetings should not be among them. Governmental bodies should no more write history curricula than develop chemistry classes. Indeed, the inappropriate use of political processes to arbitrate substantive scientific and historical issues has been a major contributor to the increasingly uncivil discourse characterizing public forums.

Certain issues are, for all practical purposes, settled: the earth is round; the Constitution contains the three-fifths clause; 8 million Jews and uncounted homosexuals and others were killed in the Holocaust; humans and apes share a genetic history; etc. Yet, continued controversy over settled issues is an inevitable consequence of politicizing questions that cannot be answered by popular consensus. As a psychologist, I don't need any additional proof to know that the Holocaust happened and that it caused severe intergenerational psychological trauma. The relevant evidence meets all accepted standards of proof. If people want to argue otherwise, they have the right to do so. However, decisions about whether these discussions should occur in a history class or an abnormal psych class should be left to educators.

As elected officials, board members should listen and give due consideration to public opinion. However, decisions about what gets presented as "truth" should not be influenced by electoral considerations. In this context, I suggest that school board members defer to educators on issues of content and remove relevant items from meeting agendas; this would also make board meetings less appealing as venues for culture wars.

The recusal of school board members from educational-content decisions would also affirm that the specialized professional expertise of educators is crucial to pedagogical decisions. After all, would you want the government to make decisions about what procedures your doctor is allowed to perform?

Elyse Morgan, emorgan2975@gmail.com

Civil discourse at local forums is coarsening. School board meetings, races for political office and public hearings are increasingly acrimonious. Some of them not only lack decorum but are blatantly threatening.

Well-meaning officials around Boulder and Boulder County are in a quandary. They must maintain order while allowing voice. Their efforts to balance these tasks risk backfiring.

For example, certain restrictions on quasi-judicial matters in Longmont narrow public space precisely when it needs to be expanded. We need more, not less, considerate political dialogue. Yet the democratic function of civil society is losing ground.

Symptoms of this dysfunction include political polarization, democratic backsliding, election denials, barriers to voting rights, technological disruptions in our lives and greater surveillance.

The underlying causes run deep: The social fabric is frayed. Government is offloading many of its responsibilities for the well-being of citizens onto companies, private philanthropies, individuals and their families.

At bottom, the problem is increasing precariousness. There is more uncertainty and insecurity. For instance, the gig economy requires contingent workers. While uberization provides flexibility, it can entail cobbling together part-time jobs without benefits or advance notification of when one must be on site.

To ameliorate these conditions, social justice movements are pushing back. Trade unions at Starbucks, Amazon, Trader Joe's and Apple have protested and demanded improvements in pay and benefits. Similarly, there have been strikes against Marriott and other hotels, at school systems, and by the Writers Guild of America.

Black Lives Matter, feminists, environmentalists and LBGTQ advocates are resisting precarities. These struggles challenge unbecoming civil discourse and misleading narratives.

After identifying this systemic problem, the next step is to summon the political will to engage respectfully in the public square. It will take collective action. A lot of listening, empathy and tolerance for differences would catalyze effective policy outcomes.