Ahead of Boulder’s municipal election on Nov. 3, the IJN sent a questionnaire to Boulder mayoral and City Council candidates.
Six people are running for mayor and 13 are seeking the five open seats on City Council. More information about each of the candidates on Boulder Reporting Lab.
Overall, candidates’ responses to the questionnaire reflect an awareness about how serious the issue of anti-Semitism in Boulder is.
Below are the responses of the city council candidates, in alphabetical order. City Council candidates Lee Gilbert and Jamillah Richmond did not respond. Click here for the responses from the Mayoral candidates.
Colorado Jewish Action Alliance says it will endorse candidates prior to the election, but has not done so as of press deadline.
QUESTION: How would you address bigotry against Jews and Israel if it shows up during a City Council meeting, including during Open Comment?
How would you ensure that Jews in Boulder are able to enter and exit public facilities, without being subject to harassment?
Benita Duran, 65:
I would do all that I can to see that people are safe in their engagement with and by public officials, whatever office they hold and whatever meeting is attended. Open Comment and public input on any issue of the City council needs to occur in a civil setting. If that setting isn’t civil, then it should not occur. There should not be stress and trauma of just showing up to engage in a public arena.
I have decades of experience managing public engagement and would hope to bring that expertise to sound policies and practices for the safety and security of Jews in Boulder.
Sam Fuqua, 62:
Council members have an opportunity to respond after public comment. I will certainly use that opportunity to speak out against bigotry directed at Jews.
I agree with Rabbi Charna Rosenholz’s statement in her letter to the Boulder City Council saying that “no political cause gives anyone the permission to intimidate fellow citizens.” I support the rules the council put in place last year to help maintain decorum and equity during public comment.
Police officers are present before, during and after Council meetings to help maintain safety and I support their presence for that purpose. Intimidation can compromise an individual’s feeling of safety. We also have a constitutional obligation to preserve the right to free speech, including aggressive and harsh speech.
Jill Grano, 44:
I am Jewish and take anti-Semitism seriously. Council must ensure public meetings and facilities are safe and welcoming for everyone, while protecting free speech. Criticism of the Israeli government is not inherently anti-Semitic. We must be careful not to conflate Jewish people with the Israeli government.
Credible threats or disruptions require intervention, with police involved when necessary. No one should be blocked from entering or leaving, followed, threatened or harassed. Council should condemn anti-Semitism and at the same time, ensure enforcement focuses on conduct, not political viewpoints.
Code of conduct rules should be communicated before contentious meetings and enforced consistently. The City needs a better, more transparent reporting process for threats and harassment, and trained security and de-escalation staff when safety concerns exist.
We should be coordinating with Jewish organizations and other affected communities before contentious events.
Everyone should feel welcome in Council chambers. No one should have to endure threats or harassment to enter city facilities. And no one should lose the right to peaceful protest or political criticism because their views make elected officials uncomfortable.
Rachel Rose Isaacson, 29:
Anti-Semitism has no place in Boulder. Jewish residents should be able to participate in civic life without fear of harassment, intimidation or threats.
During Open Comment, I would apply Boulder’s rules of decorum consistently. Any threats, intimidation, anti-Semitic epithets, targeted harassment or conduct that disrupts a meeting should be addressed promptly.
This responsibility extends beyond Council Chambers. Jewish residents should not have to run a gauntlet of harassment simply to enter or leave the Municipal Building or participate in their local government. I would work with the City Manager, City Attorney, staff, and public-safety personnel to ensure that demonstrations remain lawful and that our entrances, exits and accessible routes remain open and people are protected from unlawful harassment, threats, obstruction or intimidation.
This matters to me very deeply as a Jewish woman myself running for office. I want the City to truly listen to Boulder’s Jewish community and adequately respond to these experiences rather than wait for a crisis.
We can protect First Amendment rights to protest while also protecting people’s ability to safely participate in democracy. Those principles are not mutually exclusive. A public institution should be able to do both.
Ryan Jamieson, 46:
Everyone in Boulder has the right to say things I find repugnant at a public microphone. Everyone in Boulder also has the right to walk into their own City Hall without being harassed. Those two rights coexist fine as long as Council enforces its rules evenly.
Council can’t screen open comment by viewpoint. What it can do is enforce the rules that already apply to everyone: no threats, no targeting people in the room, and no disruption that keeps others from being heard.
When anti-Semitism shows up at the podium, I won’t sit quietly; Council members get to speak too, and I’ll call it what it is. Outside the chamber, protest on public property is protected, but blocking a door or following someone to their car is not. The city should staff meetings so that line actually holds. A democracy where people stay home because they’re afraid isn’t much of one.
Tina Marquis, 55 (incumbent):
I am committed to making visiting the municipal building a safe experience. While we are not there yet, I will continue the changes we made almost a year ago, including limiting public comment to one hour and not having video of public comment.
Dave Martus, 59:
Boulder must protect vigorous public debate, but free expression does not include threats, targeted harassment, intimidation, slurs or conduct that prevents people from safely participating in civic life.
If anti-Semitic or anti-Israel bigotry occurs during public comment, I would apply viewpoint-neutral meeting rules consistently, clearly distinguish criticism of policy from harassment or dehumanization, and ensure prompt action when conduct crosses that line.
The city should also coordinate appropriate security and safe-entry procedures for public meetings so Jewish residents can enter, exit and participate without fear or intimidation.
Scott Rendleman, 58:
As a lawyer, I am committed to free speech, but unfortunately, Open Comment has often crossed the line of political speech into verbal intimidation, especially for our Jewish community and Israel in the last several years.
I would call out and reject voices and messages of intolerance, hate and prejudice on City Council, including during Open Comment.
Commentary that is aggressive to the point that it intimidates the public from even attending harms our freedoms. Many people have told me that they don’t attend and participate in public dialogue during City Council because of nature of Open Comment.
Protecting all citizens from harassment and psychological violence, including Jewish members of our community, begins with enforcing both Colorado law and Boulder law against threats, discrimination and harmful conduct. That means having a police presence to arrest those committing such offenses followed by prosecution of those individuals for the offenses.
Ryan Schuchard, 49 (incumbent):
Bigotry during council meetings and Open Comment: Anti-Semitism is real, it’s growing and it too often gets less pushback than other forms of hate.
I’ve seen it from the dais, including slurs aimed at a Jewish colleague and speakers comparing Council members to Nazi war criminals. Open comment is protected expression, but free speech goes both ways. Council members should call out egregious behavior in the moment, and I’ve done that on multiple occasions and will keep doing it.
After chronic disruptions caused 19 recesses, I also helped craft the 2025 reforms to Council procedure, including a set time and cap for open comment and stronger decorum rules. I’ll keep applying those rules consistently, whatever the cause.
No one should have to walk through a gauntlet to attend a meeting or pay a bill. The June 1, 2025, terror attack on Pearl Street made clear that threats to Boulder’s Jewish community are not abstract. We need to keep enforcing and strengthening protocols that keep entrances open, set designated demonstration areas, provide police presence when tension is predictable, and make harassment easy to report. Protest is legitimate. Intimidating people because they’re Jewish is not.
Lynn Segal, 73:
The present rules of City Council enforced. “Bigotry“ on either side is an issue of freedom of speech. Engage prevention. It is the Israel apologists that provoke. Talk.
I would call out the bigotry during Council’s response to open comment which occurs in the schedule right after staff’s comments.
If people need police escorts to leave the building without being harassed, the city should provide that. There should also be rules about how close protesters can be to anyone entering or exiting the building, including the parking lot, so people can get to their cars safely.
QUESTION: How would you ensure that a values-aligned investment policy would apply evenly across the board and not be designed or implemented to target just one or two disfavored nations?
Duran:
If it is needed that the policies in place are not adequate to address issues of where city dollars are being invested, I would advocate for a comprehensive policy.
Sam Fuqua:
An investment policy should be based around specific business sectors and the conduct of the individual businesses within those sectors, not on specific nations.
Grano:
I do not support BDS. I do not want to use Boulder’s investment portfolio to litigate foreign policy. I do not believe now is the time to re-litigate Boulder’s investment portfolio.
If the city is looking to support a more values-aligned investment policy, it should be universal, transparent and based on conduct (human rights violations, labor abuses, environmental harm, violations of Indigenous land rights, etc.). The same standards should apply to every company and investment, regardless of where it is based.
The city should also publicly report how the standards were applied and review the policy regularly for consistency and unintended consequences. If we adopt ethical standards, they must be applied across the board while still meeting the city’s legal and fiduciary responsibilities.
Isaacson:
Given the history and contemporary reality of anti-Semitism, I would be concerned about an investment policy that singles out Israel or Israeli companies while ignoring comparable conduct elsewhere. Whatever standards Boulder adopts should be universal, evidence-based, transparent, and applied consistently.
A values-aligned investment policy should be based on clear, objective and consistently applied standards.
If Boulder establishes ethical criteria for its investments, those criteria should be adopted in advance, publicly available, financially responsible and applicable equally to comparable companies and investments regardless of where they are located. I would want any proposed exclusion to answer these questions: What specific conduct triggers the exclusion? What evidence is required? Does the same standard apply elsewhere? What are the financial and legal implications for the city? And is there a transparent process for periodically reviewing both exclusions and investments?
Boulder already uses categorical screens in its investment portfolio, including restrictions involving fossil fuels, tobacco, certain weapons and private prisons and detention centers. I believe that type of issue-based framework makes sense and is preferable to selectively identifying one or two countries for “special treatment.”
Jamieson:
The only value I care about when it comes to an investment fund is the rate of return. Otherwise, I don’t support a values-aligned investment policy for city funds. A policy that screens investments by politics will always end up screening by whatever politics hold the majority that year. Thus the fairest way to apply one evenly is not to have one based on politics but on hard numbers.
Marquis:
I would ensure the criteria we use focus on categories, not countries, and be conducted by an unbiased investment professional.
Martus:
Any values-aligned investment policy must be transparent, lawful, fiscally responsible and applied through neutral standards that apply equally across countries, companies and issues.
It should not become a vehicle for selectively targeting Israel or any other particular nation. Neither Boulder’s investment pool, PERA, nor Fire & Police Pension has an investment policy that targets just one or two nations.
Boulder does manage a short-term bond portfolio consisting primarily of US government bonds and a small portion of US blue-chip companies. These are managed with the following policies: The city’s portfolio does not hold any investments in the following: fossil fuels, including pipeline construction and extraction; firearms or weapons not used in national defense; tobacco companies; and firms related to mass incarceration/private prisons/detention centers.
Employees are covered by a combination of Colorado PERA, the Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, and 457(B) plans, covered by their own broad-based, thoughtful investment policies.
Rendleman:
The effort by some groups to impact Boulder’s values-aligned investment policy has truly only focused on Israel. I do not support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and serving on City Council will require vigilance to stay attuned to all improper efforts to impact investment policy.
Schuchard:
The best protection against a policy that singles out one or two countries are written around criteria that apply to every country and every holding. I don’t support the city’s involvement in the BDS movement, which is specific to Israel.
In 2025, I opposed pulling city investments from two companies associated with the Israel-Gaza conflict because the proposal centered so specifically on that conflict. As a city, we don’t have the expertise, resources or convening capacity to see an effort like that through without risking inflamed tensions, fear and worse in our community.
Sometimes the right course in policy is to stay out of it, and I think that’s the right course here.
Boulder would benefit from rethinking its approach to investing altogether, shifting focus away from global capital markets and toward investments in our own community that build self-reliance and affordability. But this charged issue deserves a careful, even-handed process.
I don’t think the city can responsibly take that on right now. We have a lot of other pressing business, and I’ve seen how draining this subject is for our community even when the city isn’t the one raising it.
Segal:
Invest all parties in world peace. The “disfavored nations” ought to be talking to their opposition. They aren’t.
Winer:
I would insist upon it. I refuse to allow the targeting of one or two nations on my watch.
QUESTION: What should be the city’s process to monitor and enforce Sister Cities’ compliance with the city’s rules and regulations? What should the consequences be if a Sister City does not abide by established rules?
(Editor’s note: Among Boulder’s Sister Cities is Nablus [Shechem] in the West Bank.)
Duran:
The city has a responsibility to align our resources and commitment to be in compliance with International Sister Cities. It has deep roots in building partnerships and support.
Our beloved Dushanbe Teahouse would not exist if weren’t for the Sisters Cities program, and a project that I worked to establish when I was a city employee. I know the value and commitment of the program and believe there’s a way to work through these difficult times.
Fuqua:
I am not well-versed in specific compliance mechanisms and consequences for non-compliance for Sister City projects. I would look for model policies in other communities. Compliance should be standardized and based on conduct, not specific to any individual city or country.
Grano:
Boulder’s existing policy treats Sister Cities as people-to-people relationships and explicitly says an affiliation does not endorse the political actions of the foreign city’s government. I believe the city should stick to that and judge the conduct of the (Boulder-based) Sister City organization, not punish it for political actions by a foreign government that it does not control.
The City should have one clear, written set of standards that applies equally to every Sister City organization. Compliance should not depend on which country is involved or politics.
Each organization should submit an annual public report describing its leadership, activities, finances and compliance with the Sister City agreement. A designated City staff member and/or the Sister City subcommittee should review those reports using the same published checklist for every organization and bring unresolved concerns to Council.
There should also be a clear complaint process. If a concern is raised, the organization should receive written notice and should have an opportunity to respond and correct the problem. Findings and decisions should be made publicly.
Isaacson:
Boulder needs a clearer and more accountable process for ensuring that every Sister City organization complies with the standards attached to the City’s recognition. That process should apply equally to every Sister City.
I would support establishing better accountability measures such as a formal complaint procedure, specify who investigates a complaint, as well as develop evidentiary standards, timelines, corrective-action plans, suspension criteria, and a defined procedure for terminating recognition. This should all be done in a way that is evidence-based and allows for the organization in question to respond.
Consequences should be proportional. Minor or administrative violations could result in notice and corrective action. Repeated or more serious violations could result in suspension of City resources or official recognition. Persistent or substantial violations should ultimately allow Council to terminate a Sister City designation through a transparent public process.
Sister City relationships should build bridges between people. Clearer expectations, meaningful oversight, due process, and consistent consequences will help ensure that the program continues to serve that purpose and maintains the trust of Boulder residents.
Jamieson:
I don’t know much about the program, so it’s hard for me to weigh in. My priorities are more on getting the city working well for everyone who lives here by addressing root issues related to the municipal code and the processes that sit atop it. Thus, Sister Cities hasn’t really been something I’ve delved deeply into.
Marquis:
I supported a priority to revisit the Sister City program due to issues and confusion around the role of Sister Cities in Boulder, and what it means to be a Sister City. I am hoping that instead of appointing individual council members to each Sister City, we instead have a committee of two council members to manage the process that sister cities report back to the city and address complaints. There are other issues we need to address, such as Sister Cities that are inactive, and we can develop consequences for all of them at the same time.
Martus:
The City should maintain clear, written rules for Sister City relationships, including governance, finances, reporting, public communications and compliance with Boulder’s nondiscrimination and public-conduct standards. The city should establish a regular review process, with a designated staff liaison and an opportunity for public reporting of concerns.
If a Sister City organization violates established rules, the city should first document the issue, provide notice, and offer a reasonable opportunity to correct it. Persistent or serious noncompliance should result in consequences ranging from suspending city support to terminating official recognition.
Rendleman:
I have become more concerned with the Sister City program’s drift from its original mission and wonder how this returns to a nonpolitical, cultural and humanitarian exchange. At this time, the rules surrounding monitoring, investigation and potential consequences for violations of Sister City requirements have become a source of dispute. Those rules need to be addressed first. Revisit the rules to add clarity. Then rely on members of the Sister City program to support cultural and humanitarian exchange. City Council should not become the arbiter of Sister City program disputes. If elected, I would want to hear from all stakeholders as to what would be a reasonable deadline for clarifying the rules.
Schuchard:
Monitoring and enforcement process: Having a Sister City program costs Boulder, and running it on a shoestring budget has costs of its own, most of all missing clear standards to avoid uncertainty and conflicts. The first step is to set quality and performance standards for existing and new Sister Cities. I raised this when council considered a sister city in Ukraine this year, concerned about adding relationships without standards or drawing Boulder into international conflicts.
Once standards are set, I don’t want to promise oversight the city can’t deliver. I’d like to explore making each Sister City’s active programming provisional, renewed on a regular schedule. At renewal, each organization would show how it met the standards, and residents could weigh in. That puts the burden on the organizations and holds every Sister City to the same standard.
Consequences for not following the rules: Pause active programming or end the relationship, depending on how serious the problem is, applied equally to every sister city.
Segal:
Look out for the residents in our individual Sister Cities to the standards for the International Sister Cities organization. And follow their guidelines for consequences if a Sister City doesn’t abide. They should have a lot of latitude to operate (Tom Mayer’s input). “Political“ is a big word. I think personally that every breath one takes is political, especially when Palestinians and Israelis involved cannot even literally take a breath after they are killed. Don’t create problems where they don’t exist. Stop war. Free Palestine.
Winer:
Right now we have no way to monitor. Nuria should give staff that job. And we should have someone on staff looking into all complaints by constituents. Also, we should not put the onus on constituents. Staff needs to constantly monitor and enforce the rules. Consequence should be: removal of Sister City status.
QUESTION: Should Boulder send taxpayer dollars to support programs and projects that promote anti-Israel content, such as KGNU Radio?
Duran:
I interpret this as a free speech issue and not something the city or council can influence based on grant funding to a nonprofit radio station.
Fuqua:
I was on the staff of KGNU 1991-2013 as news director and station manager. I’ve continued to be involved as a volunteer and occasional contractor (though I am not currently participating). While KGNU does present views that are very critical of the Israeli government, that’s different to me than “anti-Israel.” The station places a high value on free speech. And the station has been and continues to be a voice for peace. The station is not perfect and if any listener hears programming on KGNU they object to, I encourage them to reach out to the station for opportunities to present their viewpoint.
KGNU’s track record of support for local musicians, authors and artists, their coverage of community issues and nonprofits, their youth and adult training programs and their new community space downtown all make them a nonprofit worthy of support.
Grano:
No. Boulder should not award grants for the purpose of advancing a particular political position for or against a foreign government. That is different from supporting independent community media that reports on or criticizes US foreign policy, including US involvement in Israel, and elsewhere.
I would also distinguish between funding specific content and providing general support to a community media organization that airs many viewpoints. Before concluding that taxpayer dollars funded anti-Israel programming at KGNU, I would review the grant agreement, the funded project and how the money was actually spent.
If an organization uses restricted funds outside the approved scope, the City should require corrective action. That standard should apply equally regardless of the political viewpoint involved.
Isaacson:
City funding should not be used to promote anti-Semitism or discrimination against Israelis or Jewish people.
In the case of KGNU, I think it is important to distinguish between funding particular programming and funding a public-serving capital project. Boulder has provided significant funding for KGNU’s Community Media Center through the CCRS tax grants. Those investments should come with clear expectations about how public funds are used.
If taxpayer dollars are awarded for a specific program or project, the City should ensure those dollars are actually used for the approved public purpose and comply with the City’s nondiscrimination requirements and grant conditions. If credible concerns are raised about misuse of those funds, there should be a transparent review process.
Independent journalism may cover uncomfortable perspectives of outside individuals or organizations, but if KGNU themselves are directly displaying discrimination – that would be a concern worth examining.
Jamieson:
I have strong opinions about conflict as a combat veteran and strong opinions about the importance of our public media. So I will say this: I value the institution of public media and its reportage, however imperfect it may be from time to time, and I don’t think the city should allocate funding one way or another based on the content of KGNU’s news reporting, given it’s only a small slice of what the station broadcasts on a regular basis. There are no winners in war, only losers — victims of violence and terror that are forever marked by the horrors that men can inflict upon one another. What little KGNU can report on for listeners here in our bubble is valuable to everyone here who has blessedly never experienced those horrors, even if it may be uncomfortable to listen to at the time.
Marquis:
I am not as familiar with this issue and would need to understand how it connects with free speech, especially as KGNU is a news agency.
Martus:
Public funds should support programs that serve the community and comply with clear standards of public purpose, nondiscrimination, viewpoint neutrality, fiscal accountability and lawful use of taxpayer resources. The city should not fund programming that promotes antisemitism, harassment, collective blame, or the exclusion of Jewish or Israeli residents.
I would review any allegation involving City-supported programming carefully and fairly, based on the actual content, contractual terms and applicable law — not political pressure alone. Accountability should be consistent and transparent for every funded organization.
Rendleman,
The Constitution prohibits government from censoring viewpoints with which it disagrees. I would need to examine more closely what any potential content may be to say whether sending financial support, or withdrawing financial support, amounts to improper editorial control. To the extent that any content may promote credible threats, incitement to violence, unlawful discriminatory exclusion, then that content falls outside protected speech.
Schuchard, , incumbent
No. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs or projects that explicitly promote anti-Israel content, or content that targets any other country or community. City funding for community organizations should go to the public purpose it was granted for, whether that’s local arts, news, or services, through clear criteria applied to every applicant the same way. If city funds paid for programming that promotes one side of an international conflict, that’s outside what the city should be funding, and the city should tighten its grant terms and oversight so it doesn’t happen again. And the city should never fund content that crosses into harassment or antisemitic hate.
Segal,
Yes. Israel’s behavior is offensive in nature. Attitude is due for a change.
Winer:
No.
QUESTION: What is your stance on Boulder City Council and the issuance of resolutions on international affairs? If you are in favor, what processes and guidelines should be in place?
Duran:
If there is a connection between the topic and the city of Boulder’s people, I believe resolutions are an important tool to amplify alignment and understanding. My opinion is that it should be aligned with community values and principles at the local level, otherwise it is maybe best that it’s a state legislature’s topic, and not something appropriate at the local level.
Fuqua:
Not in favor.
Grano:
Do not support. Council has limited time, authority and attention, and our responsibility is to govern Boulder. We should remain focused on the work residents elected us to do: public safety, housing, economic vitality, transportation, climate resilience, public spaces and reliable core services.
International resolutions are largely symbolic, do not change foreign policy, and can deepen divisions within our community. They also inevitably raise questions about consistency: Why this conflict and not another? Who decides which international events warrant Council action?
That does not mean ignoring local consequences of international events. When Boulder residents face anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, threats, harassment or violence, the city has a clear responsibility to respond. Council should protect public safety, defend residents’ civil rights and help ensure that everyone can participate in civic life.
Isaacson:
Would not support. Council should consider whether a resolution will actually accomplish something within our municipal role and whether there are more constructive ways to support residents affected by an international crisis. I would also be particularly cautious when a proposed resolution could leave Boulder residents feeling that their local government is taking sides against their national, ethnic or religious community.
However, I would not establish an absolute prohibition. There may be extraordinary circumstances in which an international issue has a clear and substantial connection to Boulder, for example, when Boulder residents or City operations are directly affected, when the issue concerns one of our Sister City relationships, or when Council is responding to an exceptional human rights crisis with significant local impacts.
In those circumstances, I would want adequate public notice, meaningful opportunities for affected communities to be heard, consultation with the City Attorney regarding the City’s authority and legal implications, reliable sourcing for factual assertions and sufficient Council support to place the matter on the agenda. The same standards should apply regardless of the country or political cause involved.
Jamieson:
Against. Foreign affairs don’t belong in city business, period. Boulder has plenty of unfinished work that is actually ours, and every hour council spends on a resolution nobody abroad will read is an hour it isn’t spending on wildfire risk, housing or the budget.
Martus:
Oppose.
Boulder City Council should remain focused on municipal responsibilities: public safety, infrastructure, housing, transportation, climate resilience and sound financial management. International affairs are principally the responsibility of federal officials and diplomatic institutions, not local government.
Resolutions on foreign conflicts tend to divide residents while doing little to advance Boulder’s core responsibilities. Council should instead ensure that all residents — including Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Muslim, Arab and other communities — can participate safely and openly in local civic life.
Marquis:
Not in favor. We do not have our own staff to analyze international affairs, and I can’t imagine how we would track each country to see if there needs to be a resolution. If we do decide to pursue international resolutions, I would advocate that we use criteria objectively, and across all nations.
Rendleman:
Opposed. Undoubtedly, international issues deeply impact the residents of Boulder’s beliefs and feelings in how they matter in this world. The issues we have to address in Boulder, however, require our attention to remain on Boulder. I also see the issuance of resolutions on matters on which Boulder can have little to no impact, including on international affairs, as less productive use of council time. As a councilmember, I believe your energy needs to be focused on the policies affecting Boulder. When I’m on City Council, I hope to be busy with understanding the viewpoints of many on the issues that pertain to Boulder’s future. To take an informed stand on an international matter would take away focus on Boulder issues. With a city as diverse as Boulder, the issuance of such resolutions inherently draws out conflict. Meanwhile, residents in Boulder try to determine how they will pay bills, educate their children, open and sustain a business, adapt to climate change and make time to enjoy Boulder’s natural beauty.
Schuchard:
Boulder is a globally conscious community that cares about justice beyond our borders. Climate is a strong example, and I support Boulder’s leadership there, including holding Suncor and ExxonMobil accountable in the lawsuit Boulder brought with Boulder County. In principle, I’m open to council weighing in, case by case.
In practice, nearly every time “international issues“ comes up at council, it’s about Israel, and usually when “money in politics“ comes up, it invokes AIPAC. That pattern has focused hurtful, unwelcome attention on our Jewish community, seemingly held to a different standard than other groups. So I will oppose council taking up “international issues“ unless it’s fully and clearly about something else, as with climate. That’s consistent with my February, 2024 vote not to take up a ceasefire resolution, which I believed would worsen tensions here.
Processes and guidelines: City code already bars council from acting on foreign policy issues without the time and resources for a full presentation. With that in mind, I want to know whether the action risks creating new harm, escalating time and costs, or leaving us without a clear path to completion. If any of those are factors, I’m very reluctant to move forward.
Segal:
Simple resolution for Palestinian justice to balance the declaration for anti-Semitism. It’s not rocket science. It’s not enforceable, but it is important to declare principles and have aspirations. Also the declaration should be changed to include the real meaning of anti-Semitism which is those who speak Semitic languages, and actually includes Israelis and Palestinians. Wilhelm Marr created the expression in 1879 and renounced it himself later in life when he acknowledged that the social upheaval in German had been the result of the Industrial Revolution and conflict between political movements, not hatred for Jews. Nevertheless the concept continued in the Pan-German League that actually declared it as racism eight years after Wilhelm died. It then evolved to genocide in the Nazi era. The term should not be used at all, or even colloquially. But if it must, both sides must be acknowledged, including Palestinians, even though it’s quite the paradox.
Over one hundred municipalities in the US have signed a resolution for Palestinian justice. But that’s not why Boulder should do one; there should be one because it’s the right thing to do.
Tara Winer:
Not in favor.
© IJN 2026
