The meetings of the Boulder City Council have finally gotten out of hand.

Tensions have been building in the chambers for more than a year, but things came to something of a head at the council’s final meeting of 2024. After one speaker grew increasingly irate during open comment, he returned to his seat and repeatedly yelled “f*** you” at councilmembers. Things devolved from there to the point where Mayor Aaron Brockett called a recess and the council retreated to a secure area.

Attendees described the meeting as “scary,” a “burning fuse” and “out of control.” Councilmembers said they feared for their physical and emotional safety.

This is not the first time that council meetings have faced disruptions or protests — and it won’t be the last. But it is nonetheless important for our current council to find a way to take back control of these vital meetings.

The current source of conflict is the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas. Some community members have repeatedly called for the council to pass a ceasefire resolution, as some other cities have done, while others have urged the council not to involve itself in international affairs.

In February, the council voted against considering a ceasefire resolution, but that has not stopped the protests. (It is worth mentioning that there is a city code against acting on foreign policy.)

Despite how far council meetings have devolved, it is worth taking a moment to acknowledge how hard councilmembers have worked to provide everyone in our community the opportunity to have their voice heard. Clearly, our city’s leaders have tried to provide space for even the most dissenting voices. This is an admirable ambition. But that does not excuse letting things spiral so out of control.

Now councilmembers are on the back foot and seem convinced they need to implement new rules to reestablish order in the chambers.

They have already started by voting at their Jan. 9 meeting to temporarily shift upcoming meetings to a virtual setting, citing a rule in the city code that allows them to do so when “a public health or safety concern exists.”

At this point, a temporary break feels somewhat reasonable and will hopefully serve to lower the temperature at future meetings. But virtual meetings cannot be a long-term solution. There is no replacement for the council hearing from community members in person.

Similarly, before implementing any new rules for council meetings, councilmembers should first start by enforcing the rules already on the books. The Rules of Decorum for the public laid out in the city code provide plenty of tools to keep things civil.

Councilmembers have the power to remove individuals who disrupt the meeting, threaten or intimidate anyone in the chambers, or use their open comment time to discuss something beyond the city’s purview.

These rules already exist. Actually enforcing them should give our councilmembers more than enough latitude to keep meetings civil and productive.

Only after the council has attempted to enforce these existing rules and only after they have failed should councilmembers consider enacting additional rules for the public to adhere to.

This is important because we should not be unnecessarily limiting the ability for citizens to make themselves heard. Open comment is a crucial part of the local legislative process — both because citizens deserve to be heard and because our councilmembers need to hear what the community has to say.

Striking the balance between maintaining decorum and upholding the right to free speech is extremely tricky — especially in such a heated and divisive time. But it is essential.

For the last 16 months, the council has done an admirable job attempting to facilitate every citizen’s right to free speech. Now it is time to rein in some of the more disruptive conduct to ensure our city can conduct its necessary business — and to ensure that other citizens who wish to be heard by the council are not incidentally silenced by the mayhem.

Of course, it is important to remember that this is a two-way street.

Our councilmembers should proceed with nuance. They should start by enforcing rules they already have at their disposal, while doing what they can to reestablish civility.

At the same time, the members of our community who are disrupting meetings must also reflect on the role they are playing in all of this. Council meetings are necessary for the governing of our community. Constant disruptions may serve to gain attention for a cause, but they also undermine the functionality of our city.

For some, this standpoint might not comport with the purpose of protest. Protest is meant to disrupt and discomfort. That is how it grabs attention. That is how it facilitates change. One need only look at the Vietnam War protests to understand that protesting is how those without a voice get a platform and a voice and make change.

And there is no question that protesting is an essential part of democracy, and protesting the actions of a government — any government — should be a fundamental right. It is how the masses can make themselves heard.

But there is a difference — and a stark one — between protest that disrupts and discomforts, and protest that makes our fellow community members feel unsafe.

The Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on innocent Israelis was devastating. And Israel’s retaliatory invasion has also been devastating. The humanitarian aid crisis in Gaza is devastating. The fear instilled by an act of terrorism that comes to color the vision of daily life is devastating. The antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate that have been born of this conflict are devastating.

War — and all the atrocities that come with it — is devastating.

To recognize this devastation is not a justification for anyone’s actions. Nor is it meant to absolve any perpetrators of guilt. The complexities of this conflict are far beyond the scope of our expertise as Boulder journalists. We do not know how to end the violence or how to dispel a terrorist organization (or ideology). But we do know that we are unlikely to solve this conflict at the meetings of the Boulder City Council.

Our city needs a functioning government. That means we need space for civil and productive council meetings. The onus to create such a space falls first and foremost on our councilmembers. But it also falls on those of us who attend council meetings.

Decorum must be returned to the council chambers. But it can’t come at the expense of the free expression of our community members. We’ve found a balance before. We must find it again.

— Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board