FW Rachel Friend and Sam Weaver talk to Hal Hallstein of OSBT in 2020.From:Huntley, Sarah
To:CouncilMembers
Cc:Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria; Tate, Teresa; Burke, Dan; OSBT
Subject:FW: Rachel Friend and Sam Weaver talk to Hal Hallstein of OSBT in 2020.
Date:Monday, July 24, 2023 9:00:09 AM
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 2:57 PM
To: Yates, Bob <yatesb@bouldercolorado.gov>; Wallach, Mark <WallachM@bouldercolorado.gov>;
Benjamin, Matthew <BenjaminM@bouldercolorado.gov>; Folkerts, Lauren
<folkertsl@bouldercolorado.gov>; Speer, Nicole <speern@bouldercolorado.gov>; Brockett, Aaron
<BrockettA@bouldercolorado.gov>; Joseph, Junie <JosephJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Winer, Tara
<winert@bouldercolorado.gov>; Friend, Rachel <FriendR@bouldercolorado.gov>; Rivera-
Vandermyde, Nuria <rivera-vandermyden@bouldercolorado.gov>; Tate, Teresa
<tatet@bouldercolorado.gov>; Burke, Dan <burked@bouldercolorado.gov>; OSBT
<OSBT@bouldercolorado.gov>; Aulabaugh, Shannon <aulabaughs@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: plan boulder <advocate@planboulder.org>; Peter Mayer <peter.mayer@waterdm.com>;
Caroline Miller <carolinemiller84@gmail.com>; Hollweg, Karen <HollwegK@bouldercolorado.gov>;
tim schoechle <timothyschoechle@yahoo.com>; braddsegal <braddsegal@gmail.com>
Subject: Rachel Friend and Sam Weaver talk to Hal Hallstein of OSBT in 2020.
External Sender
Send this immediately Shannon.
From Colorado Statutes Lexis CRS 34-6-402:
(2) (a) All meetings of two or more members of any state public body at which any
public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared
to be public meetings open to the public at all times.
Rachel wrote to me:
" I had a conversation with Hal Halstein and Sam Weaver at some point during my tenure oncouncil, wherein Hal shared his concern that a 1:1 acre trade of land disposed by OSBT for landgiven back to OSMP would not be sufficient to make up for the high quality land OSBT wasbeing asked to give up. Rather, OSMP would likely deserve/need additional acreage (a multiplierof the disposed of acres, essentially) of the lower quality habitat to make up for the loss of higherquality habitat. Council members are allowed to chat with // listen to advisory board members’ concerns. Ithought (and still think) Hal’s perspective was quite reasonable; can you explain why you areconcerned?"
I forgot to post her last paragraph in my communication to you. It says everything. The
distraction of what I think about Hal's position, or for that matter know about his position on
the fairness of the quantity of the multiplier is irrelevant. It is the process at question.
It's become more clear that this IS about the action, not substance, but it is the council the is
in violation, not Caroline for calling it out. It's obvious, fundamental and basic to understand
this, Rachel does not, and this makes it appear acceptable for the rest of the council, boards
and city government. It erodes the entire system.
My response to Rachel: "Why do you think Caroline was concerned?
Me? I suppose it is not the council that should be negotiating fiduciary land use matters
toward the advisory board that serves them. That would be a conflict of interest. OSBT
advises council, that direction, not the reverse. It is perfectly fine to have such a discussion
publicly.
My response: "It is peculiarly nefarious when those councilors are the members of a
subcommittee dedicated to the biggest land use issue to ever come down between the city
and the state since CU itself was positioned in Boulder instead of Canon City. Thats why we
have government arranged the way it is. The less powerful advises the more powerful,
because the more powerful have the last word. There is the right to vote, but when no
means yes, the voter him/herself becomes disenfranchised and the whole system breaks
down. I feel the wording of this ballot measure was intentionally and strategically confusing.
And unethical. It's a delicate balance subject to a cascade of ill effects when many parts of
the system are intimately integrated and any one element goes out of balance.
The same conversation went on this very day at the county on the proposed Kanemoto
conservation easement vacation for a development, before annexation by the City of
Longmont. Was $2.3 M worth it? Was 1:1 acre worth it at CU? To me, there's no price you
can put to it. Priceless.
Land disposal for CU South should have been put to a vote of the people. As should
Kanemoto. The cart doesn't come before the horse."
Never heard back from Rachel.
Caroline needs to be reinstated and her votes posted retroactively for any meetings she
missed.
Lynn