Boulder’s Nov. 3 municipal elections: Mayor

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 mayoral candidates, in alphabetical order. Mayoral candidate Taishya Adams did not respond. Fred Smith and Lisa Ann Jacobs could not be reached. Click here for the responses from the City Council 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?

Aaron Brockett, 53 (incumbent):

We’ve taken many steps to improve our rules of conduct to reduce disruptions and improve people’s safety at City Council, and they’ve made a huge difference. Disruptions have been eliminated and bigoted speech has decreased drastically. But when anti-Semitic speech does occur, we can speak out against it, which I have done at numerous Council meetings and will continue to do when merited.

Recently people have been harassed walking into or out of Council meetings which is unacceptable.

I worked with our city manager to have additional police presence at our last council meeting. Fortunately, it wasn’t needed.

I am working with her now on what other controls we can implement to keep people safe from harassment at future Council meetings and we should have new protocols in place soon. In the meantime, we will maintain the increased police staffing.

Jameson “Jamo” Goldstein, 21:

As someone who is Jewish, I take anti-Semitism personally and seriously. Jewish residents should be able to participate fully in Boulder’s civic life without fear of harassment, threats, intimidation or being made to feel unsafe because of who they are.

At the same time, the City has to respect First Amendment protections, including criticism of Israel or any other government. The distinction should be clear and consistently enforced: people have broad rights to express political views, including views others may find deeply offensive. But threats, targeted harassment, obstruction, violence and conduct that prevents people from safely accessing public facilities should not be tolerated.

I support viewpoint-neutral rules for Council meetings, appropriate security when credible concerns exist, unobstructed access to public buildings and strong coordination between City staff, law enforcement and affected communities when incidents occur.

Aquiles La Grave, 47:

Anti-Semitism should never happen in Boulder. Period. If there’s any anti-Jewish prejudice expressed during a City Council meeting, as mayor I’ll call it out for what it is.

Political disagreements, including those concerning Israel, are protected under Open Comment. That doesn’t mean city officials can’t speak up when someone says something anti-Semitic. And just because we have rules against threats, harassment, intimidation, or disrupting meetings doesn’t mean we need to pick and choose which ones to apply based on who’s saying what. The same thing is true outside City Hall. Jewish residents in Boulder must feel safe entering and leaving public places. Peaceful protests are allowed.

However, blocking entrances, surrounding people, threatening people, following people around or intentionally creating fear are things I’m not going to accept as normal behavior in our community.

In light of the recent anti-Semitic incident on Pearl Street, there should be no question regarding this issue.

Boulder’s Jewish population deserves to know that their city sees them, that their right to engage in public life will be protected, and that we’ll address anti-Semitism with the same clarity that we expect from all hate-motivated attacks against any group.

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?

Brockett:

I’m comfortable with our current investment policy and have no desire to revisit it. If a majority of council did want to take the question up, I would advocate strongly for objective criteria independent of a focus on any one region or country.

Goldstein:

Any values-aligned investment policy should begin with objective, publicly stated criteria and apply those criteria consistently to every investment.

The city should not create one standard for a politically unpopular country or company and another standard for everyone else. If Boulder adopts screens involving human rights, environmental practices, weapons, labor practices or other concerns, those standards should be written in advance, applied universally and reviewed through a transparent process.

I would also want financial and legal review to ensure that investment decisions remain consistent with the city’s fiduciary responsibilities and applicable law. A values-based policy is most credible when residents can see exactly what the rules are, how they are being applied and why a particular investment does or does not qualify.

La Grave:

An investment policy based on values can only be considered legitimate if the values are put ahead of all else and are consistently applied to all investments, otherwise it’s discriminatory by definition.

I cannot endorse the use of investment selection criteria to single out Israel, Israelis or any other country or group of people for political purposes. If Boulder develops ethical guidelines for selecting investments, then those guidelines must be objective, transparent and neutral toward countries so that the same criteria will apply to each investment and be evaluated using the same process.

It should be possible to explain why a given investment meets or does not meet the standards without referencing whether a specific country is currently in favor or disfavor politically.

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.)

Brockett:

We are in the process of revising our sister city structure. I think we should do away with individual liaisons for specific sister cities and have an even application of sister city rules across all sister city organizations.

Goldstein:

The City should establish clear written standards that apply equally to every Sister City organization and require reasonable periodic reporting demonstrating compliance.

If concerns arise, there should be a transparent process: identify the alleged violation, allow the organization to respond, determine whether a violation occurred, and provide a reasonable opportunity to correct it when appropriate.

For serious or repeated violations, the City should have the ability to suspend recognition, funding or access to City resources, or ultimately Sister City status. The same rules should apply regardless of the country, religion, ethnicity or politics.

La Grave:

The privileges associated with being a Sister City come with obligations. Every Sister City needs to have the same clear public standards and be held accountable through a defined procedure to deal with complaints and possible breaches of the standards.

Enforcement of the standards should also be applied consistently and may include loss of Sister City status approved by the City Council.

It is important that all Sister City adhere to the same standards, values and expectations.

QUESTION: Should Boulder send taxpayer dollars to support programs and projects that promote anti-Israel content, such as KGNU Radio?

Brockett:

I’m unaware of city funds being used to specifically support anti-Israel content and would not support taxpayer dollars being used for a specific anti-Israel program. However, I wouldn’t take away general funding for KGNU if they had occasional programs where there was anti-Israel content.

Goldstein:

I understand why members of Boulder’s Jewish community are concerned when they believe public dollars are being used to support programming they view as hostile toward Israel or Jewish people.

At the same time, City funding decisions should not turn on whether government officials agree with the political viewpoint expressed by an independent organization.

Public funding should be governed by transparent and viewpoint-neutral criteria. If the City awards money for a specific public purpose, the recipient should be required to use those funds for that purpose and comply with the terms of the grant or contract. If those requirements are violated, the city should enforce them.

That principle should apply consistently whether speech is supportive of Israel, critical of Israel, supportive of Palestinians, critical of another country, or addresses an entirely different political issue.

La Grave:

Boulder taxpayers should never have their money go towards funding programs that promote hate speech, incitement to violence, or threats against Jews, Israelis, or any other group. Free speech can and should make us uncomfortable. But where speech breaches that boundary and becomes unlawful incitement or threats, Boulder dollars should not be anywhere near it.

However, once the line is crossed and there is an unlawful threat of violence or incitement, then Boulder’s tax dollars should not be involved in supporting that type of behavior. I speak and act boldly to ensure that there are clear guidelines for organizations receiving city funds, that the public is aware of how these funds are being spent, and that reviews are conducted whenever a legitimate concern about an organization’s activities is brought to light.

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?

Brockett:

I have strongly and consistently maintained that the Boulder City Council should have no role in international affairs and I will keep that position.

Goldstein:

Boulder City Council’s primary responsibility is governing Boulder. International conflicts can be enormously important to residents, but Council has limited time and limited authority, and symbolic resolutions can consume significant civic attention without changing conditions overseas.

I would generally reserve Council action on international affairs for situations with a clear connection to Boulder or to the responsibilities of city government.

If Council considers an international resolution, I would want a consistent process: advance public notice, clearly defined criteria explaining why the matter belongs before Council, adequate opportunity for public input, legal review where appropriate and standards that apply equally regardless of the country or political cause involved.

My goal would be to protect residents’ ability to speak about international issues while keeping the City focused on the responsibilities Boulder voters elected us to handle.

La Grave:

City Council’s job is Boulder.

© IJN 2026