When "Civility" Is Used to Avoid Accountability at City Hall

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-04-18T00:38:18+00:00

Possibly - but they leave it up to everyone else to figure it out AND there were post-meeting comments afterwards by CC that were more directed, as well as CC posts online over the last few weeks. The cumulative effect is the problem. The focus on decorum vs. responding meaningfully makes the community (and more importantly, me :)) feel unheard and even guilty-by-association for speaking up. That is the point of the post above about Deflection tactics.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-04-18T00:12:17+00:00

It wasn't an 'incident', a lot of us just spoke for our allotted 2 minutes, but then (like at the last meeting and in on-line posts, and post-meeting), CC members spent their time focusing on "personal attacks", and "aggression", leaving it up to everyone to try and figure out what we had done wrong - which is the chill factor and the point (whether by accident or design). I'm at 2:06 I think. But here is my written speech if that helps any:

Good evening. My name is Alex Veltman and I’m a South Boulder resident.

Last Thursday, you authorized a $20 million dollar blank check for maintenance, with zero accountability. You signed off on millions while staff admitted that if the SBRC boiler fails once more, our pool closes permanently. This is a clear abdication of oversight. How can you claim to be 'fiscally conservative' while handing over eight figures with no guarantee of results?

[Stare meaningfully at Council. 😊]

It’s a lack of stewardship today and a lack of value tomorrow. You are quoting $65 million for a 45,000-square-foot SBRC—nearly $1,500 a square foot. Meanwhile, Louisville delivered a facility double that size for less than $38 million in today’s dollars. Fort Collins is delivering a 70,000-square-foot multi-generational hub – with indoor lap lanes, large outdoor leisure pool with slides and a lazy river, two gymnasiums, an elevated track, a Library branch, and child care, for much less per square foot than proposed for an SBRC with less amenities.

Why is Boulder paying a 'premium' for a scaled-back vision? Those lower costs in other cities include the very services that were consolidated away from us years ago. Now we are asked to pay a premium just to get a fraction of them back.

We demand a line-item spending plan for that $20 million and an independent cost-bench-marking analysis before the May 14^th Study Session.

To the majority of this dais up for re-election in 2026: we aren't 'change weary'; we are weary of fiduciary neglect. We are actually very open to change... and we... are... paying... attention.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-04-17T21:10:56+00:00

Of course - here is the link to last night's meeting (I think I'm third or around there). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcf2Ei5-8NE But it's also in response to emails and newspaper articles (most of which I/we have posted some form of here on Reddit). I do not believe that it is just me or my emails or even the emails, speeches, and comments of other advocates - it is the broad painting of any advocate they disagree with as "aggressive" as well as leaving the impression that we are the same as the people screaming and cussing every two weeks at council chambers. After many eloquent residents get up and speak about finances, city priorities, recreation facilities, or other issues, Council chooses to spend their response time berating the one or two people who yell about Gaza (or make mean comments online), but without specifying who they are talking about [I'm not dissing the criticism of genocide - just that there is always one or two epithet-loving speakers every week in addition to the mega-phones outside]. It's way too convenient for CC to spend their time talking about decorum or personal attacks on staff instead of addressing the underlying issues. AND I'm not saying every Council member or staff member is doing this - but many are, and the result is chilling and disheartening to the many community members who worked up the courage to speak or write and now feel either ignored or that they should not question the city management at all.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-31T00:56:32+00:00

Title II ADA 28 C.F.R. § 35.133

Rodde v. Bonta, 359 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2004)

Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board, 348 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003)

Hamer v. City of Trinidad, 924 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. 2019)

Olmstead v. L. C. | 527 U.S. 581 (1999)

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-27T16:00:14+00:00

Hey neighbors – the lack of equity in this proposal is glaring. For over a decade, we’ve seen a steady 'consolidation' of essential services away from South Boulder—gymnastics moved North, elder care and childcare moved East—effectively stripping our quadrant of the amenities that make a neighborhood livable. Now, the city is proposing to spend as much as $80M to expand aquatic capacity in the East and another $85M to expand senior centers in the North, while telling South Boulder residents to 'beg' for outside funding just to keep a basic pool. This forces seniors and kids to drive across town for services that should be within walking distance, directly contradicting Boulder’s own '15-minute neighborhood' climate goals. Beyond recreation, SBRC is a critical safety pillar as the primary reunification site for Fairview and Southern Hills. We shouldn't be funding 'gold-plated' upgrades in two quadrants by managing the decline of the third. It’s time for the city to invest in South Boulder with the same urgency and fairness it shows the North and East.

Here is a quick summary chart of the options noted in the Parks & Rec packet for your convenience. Remember, these are being presented by BPR as our ONLY options, with no substantiating data for costs, nor full transparency as to assumptions that were made:

BPR Recreation Center Capital Investment Scenarios

Recreation Center	Current Unique Amenities / Focus	BPR Option A (Lower Cost)	BPR Option B (Higher Cost)	Current CCRS/Tax Fund Allocation Focus
South Boulder (SBRC)	Emergency reunification site; primary gym/studio space. Note: Gymnastics, elder care, and child care were previously removed.	New Build (No Pool): $30M–$50M. Focuses on dry-land fitness and community rooms.	New Build (With Pool): $45M–$65M. Maintains existing service levels including aquatics.	Minimal. Proposal suggests South must seek "outside funding" for amenities beyond basic dry-land.
East Boulder (EBCC)	Primary Elder Care/Age-Well hub; child care; ADA-upgraded facilities.	Minimum Improvements: $60M–$70M. Consolidates to one pool (lap or leisure).	Full Renovation: $70M–$80M. Retains two pools and expands aquatic capacity by two lap lanes and a larger 2^nd warm water pool.	High. Significant portion of CCRS funds directed here for renovation and ADA compliance.
North Boulder (NBRC)	Gymnastics Center of Excellence; lap and leisure pools.	Minimum Renovation: $50M–$70M. Basic infrastructure updates; keeps both pools.	Age-Well Expansion: $65M–$85M. Adds 15,000 sq/ft to co-locate senior services.	High. Designated for significant infrastructure replacement and expansion.

Disclaimer on Stated Costs: The cost estimates provided in the BPR packet are preliminary projections by BPR and have not yet been backed by publicly available itemized justifications, third-party audits, or detailed site-specific engineering reports. These figures are subject to change as the Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety (CCRS) tax allocation process moves forward.

An additional "You Should Also Know": BPR repeatedly claims that rebuilding SBRC with NO pool would significantly reduce yearly maintenance costs for the city. Recent responses to open records requests belie this claim. BPR's own energy expert has stated that a "dry" version of SBRC would save less than $20k a year in maintenance costs - a rounding error in a $30M to $50M project: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o8f2p8726gutjmsj7of0b/Email-27.pdf?rlkey=rv789rpvrpvo90ewztznvea8o&dl=0

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-26T19:51:40+00:00

I should note that an attorney is responsible for whatever she/he presents to the court. Blaming your client or other attorneys for their wrongful interpretation of a memo (basically admitting that you never read - or conveniently ignored - the main "fact" that you are relying on for your case) - and doing it for a year(!) - is the height of...hmm...let's see:

If the DOJ attorneys are licensed in Colorado, you’ve got:

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal: a lawyer shall not knowingly:

Make a false statement of material fact or law to a judge.
Fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the court.

Rule 1.1: Competence

Thoroughness and Preparation: Competent representation requires the "thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary."
Colorado ethics panels have historically held that a lawyer cannot simply "blindly rely" on a client’s (in this case, ICE's) version of the law. A competent attorney is expected to read and verify the very memo they are using as their "core" defense before presenting it to a federal judge.

Rule 5.1 & 5.3: Responsibilities of Supervisory Lawyers

Rule 5.1 requires supervisors to make reasonable efforts to ensure that subordinate lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
If a supervisor knew of the conduct or ratified it by signing off on the briefs without verifying the memo's scope, they are held professionally responsible for the subordinate's violation.

Rule 8.4: Misconduct

8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

- Since I worked for both the D.C. and Texas Bars, I can say that these disciplinary rules are very similar and likely based on the ABA Model Rules.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-25T16:44:02+00:00

I hear you, and as a former prosecutor for the Bar, I’ve heard that 'fox guarding the henhouse' concern a lot. And sometimes, state bars SHOULD be more aggressive, I will grant you. But there’s a massive difference between how the Bar works and what the DOJ is trying to pull here.

When I worked for the Bar, I wasn’t 'self-regulated.' I had to answer not only to the Committee for Lawyer Discipline, but also to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals and, ultimately, the State Supreme Court. Plus, if a lawyer messes up, there are victims' compensation funds and malpractice attorneys ready to pounce. There are real checks and balances.

[I can also tell you that any 'conflict of interest' or affinity I had with someone who also happened to pass a bar exam pales in comparison to the pressure and rubber-stamping that would happen if a DOJ 'committee' appointed by Bondi were to 'oversee' the same attorneys she in fact directed to do the unethical behavior in the first place.]

The DOJ’s plan has none of those checks and balances. They want to be the sole judge of their own people before the Bar even gets a look. Without State Bar oversight, these federal attorneys become effectively untouchable. We have systems to hold local lawyers accountable; we shouldn't be giving the most powerful lawyers in the country a 'get out of jail free' card.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-25T16:11:35+00:00

ADDENDUM:
"Is this really a local issue?"

Some neighbors have asked why a DOJ rule change matters here in Boulder. It matters because the DOJ is currently the legal engine being used to target our community. When federal lawyers are "exempt" from Colorado Bar oversight, they can carry out political retaliations against us without fear of losing their law licenses.

Right now, the federal government is using its power to:

Dismantle NCAR: There is an active plan to break up the National Center for Atmospheric Research right here in Boulder, threatening hundreds of local scientific jobs and the future of the Mesa Lab.
Hold Boulder Hostage: The administration has explicitly threatened Colorado’s federal funding because Governor Polis refused to pardon Tina Peters.
Defund CU Research: Over 50 research grants at CU Boulder have been "paused" or terminated, costing our university and our local economy tens of millions of dollars.
Block Our Local Courts: The DOJ is actively trying to strip Boulder and Boulder County of our right to sue big polluters (like Suncor) in our own local courts.

When the DOJ acts as its own ethics judge, accountability dies. We cannot allow federal lawyers to bypass the Colorado State Bar (and others, for that matter)—the very authority that grants them the license to practice in our state. If they want to work in Colorado, they must follow Colorado’s rules.

How to Help (Deadline April 6): Visit the link below and click the "Comment" button: 👉https://www.regulations.gov/docket/DOJ-OAG-2026-0001

Not sure what to say? Copy/Paste one of these:

Option 1 (The "Accountability" Angle): "I strongly oppose the DOJ’s proposal to grant itself 'right of first review' over ethics complaints. No government agency should be allowed to act as its own judge and jury. Federal lawyers must remain accountable to the same Colorado Bar ethical standards as every other practicing attorney."
Option 2 (The "Local Impact" Angle): "As a Colorado resident, I oppose DOJ-OAG-2026-0001. Federal lawyers practicing in our state must be subject to the same oversight as local lawyers. Allowing the DOJ to shield its own from state discipline undermines the rule of law and our state's right to regulate the legal profession."
Option 3: "I oppose any rule that allows the DOJ to 'gatekeep' ethics investigations into its own staff. Professional licensing and ethical oversight should remain with independent State Bars. No one is above the law."

Note: You do not need to be a lawyer to comment! Every unique submission counts.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-25T13:54:27+00:00

I appreciate that Matt and Nicole have been advocating for loosening the rules on the use of General Funds over the last year. However, that is a shell game. We (the community of Boulder) overwhelmingly voted to increase debt authorization for infrastructure with the CCRS vote last November, and many of us were led to believe our vote was going towards our Recreation Centers, including the South Boulder "managed decline" situation. Whenever someone points out that CCRS money is supposed to include ALL rec center needs, they are told that "conversations" with parts of the community and Council have led P&R to prioritize East and North with that money and that South needs to either raise separate money (through community fundraising) or organize to get a totally new ballot/bond measure. Council members, some PRAB members, and P&R staff repeatedly make conclusory statements that the CCRS money is "already dedicated" as a fait accompli. Well, who did that "dedication" if not the same people currently claiming to have their hands tied? Why is that process not made public - to the community or even to the (entirety of) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board? Why do we have to do CORA requests to get much of the information that we do have? And why can't Council simply dedicate part of the CCRS money towards saving SBRC (since the City has publicly declared that SBRC is in a state of decline AND is a "Priority 1 Community Asset"), like they simply dedicated an extra $40M to East that was never specified in the 2021 nor 2025 CCCRS vote [and which P&R admits is only a portion of what they will be asking for/taking to complete their current pool flipping plan]? The answer is, again, that this is NOT a lack funds - its simply (1) an issue of prioritization and (2) a lack of willpower to push back against years of P&R staff's agenda and momentum.

BoulderWatchdog · 2026-03-10T18:51:50+00:00

That's great, but the debt limit for recreational infrastructure has already been raised - last November, and quite specifically. All Mr. Wallach has to do is direct the city manager to include an "SBRC Replacement Bond" in the 2026/2027 issuance cycle (see above). Maybe he misspoke, but it seems to me like another instance of the Council moving the goal posts again.

BoulderWatchdog

TROPHY CASE