AURORA | Aurora’s conservative lawmakers showed interest Tuesday in limiting public comment at meetings, relaxing rules on gifts and making it tougher for staff to bring controversial agenda items without a council sponsor.
At a Feb. 22 ad hoc committee meeting, a subset of council members walked through changes they’d like to see made to the group’s rules and procedures.
On the subject of public invited to be heard — designated times at the start and end of council meetings when the public can make comments about topics not on the group’s agenda — council members spoke of eliminating the second comment period and limiting the first period to an hour.
“It really takes away from being able to get to the business that we’re voting on,” Councilmember Francoise Bergan said of the lack of a time limit currently, mentioning the hours of public comment that the council heard in the wake of Elijah McClain’s death.
“That went on week after week after week,” she said. “During that time, we weren’t even allowed to talk about certain things, because it had not gone through the investigation, so I think it was very awkward and very trying for all of us.”
Other conservative council members agreed with Bergan, saying lengthy public comment on unscheduled topics blocks the council from doing public business and has the potential to push long meetings further into the night.
“I don’t want to get rid of public invited to be heard, I think it’s still an important vehicle for the community to raise awareness (of) issues that aren’t on the agenda, but I think there’s ways to do it without having unending testimony or comments,” Councilmember Dustin Zvonek said.
Councilmembers Juan Marcano and Alison Coombs, of the council’s progressive wing, pointed out that hours-long public comment periods are rare, which supporters of the change acknowledged, and that the benefits of the council being as accessible as possible to the public outweighed the drawbacks of lengthy testimony.
“I think folks should be free to expect that if they show up at city hall they’re going to be heard,” Marcano said. “I feel like this is a solution for a problem that we’re currently creating, since this doesn’t really happen very often.”
On the topic of Elijah McClain’s death, Coombs also said there have been “times when the council isn’t talking about what’s most important to people in the community.”
While Councilmember Angela Lawson said she would “have to really think about” limiting open public comment to an hour — noting that the time is an opportunity for people to connect with and be seen by others in the community who might share their beliefs — Lawson, Bergan, Zvonek and Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky said they supported the item coming before the full council.
Jurinsky also raised concerns about a section of council rules that prohibits council members from accepting “discounted or free services for which citizens must pay an established fee,” as well as similar rules for police officers.
Jurinsky said she wanted to be able to pay for other council members dining at the restaurant that she owns and elsewhere during social outings.
In 2019, the city adopted a revised ethics code that capped gifts at a $75 value. It was largely based on Amendment 41, which disallows most public officials at the state level from accepting gifts valued more than $53.
“If a couple of us are out to lunch or whatever, and I want to pick up the tab … I think absolutely that should be allowed,” Jurinsky said. “I pick up a lot of tabs.”
She also objected to rules that bar police officers from accepting gifts and special discounts from businesses. Jurinsky previously told the council that she and councilmember Steve Sundberg, who manages an Aurora restaurant, have given gift cards to police officers.
“There are lots of businesses that want to recognize officers,” City Attorney Dan Brotzman told the group. He said even accepting a free cup of coffee from a citizen would put an officer at odds with existing rules.
“The reason lots of these (rules) are in place is we also don’t want that to be expected,” he said. “We don’t want an officer going to dinner and not paying because they’re an officer.”
“I would like to do away with any rule that takes away an officer receiving a discount,” Jurinsky said, calling the ban on officers receiving gifts “disgusting.”
“Probably every one of our police officers is in violation of this” rule, she said.
Marcano and Bergan said they thought the rule was likely put in place to discourage exchanges of favors that could be seen as inappropriate.
Bergan asked whether there could be some exceptions, and Lawson also said she would support directing staff to look into the background of the rule. City Manager Jim Twombly said he could speak with Aurora Police chief Vanessa Wilson and “see what’s reasonable there.”
On the topic of the council accepting gifts, Marcano said he didn’t think the group should touch its rules and that members should “hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
“I think this is kind of in here for council members to avoid even the appearance of impropriety,” Marcano said.
Zvonek said he didn’t think anyone would try to buy influence among council members with a cup of coffee and that restrictions on gifts should be grounded in common sense. Brotzman said he would draft language for a “social” exception to the council’s rules on accepting gifts.
Zvonek also proposed that staff members be required to get a council sponsor for “policy” items by first sending staff-initiated ordinances and resolutions through policy committees.
He said he was alarmed by a staff-sponsored proposal to make Juneteenth a paid city holiday — council voted in favor earlier this month — and by a de-Brucing item brought by staff to the Management and Finance Policy Committee.
“There’s got to be some checks — some checks — on staff bringing forward policy that we all have to vote on and go out and defend to our constituents,” he said.
Under Zvonek’s proposal, more if not all staff-initiated agenda items would be sent through policy committees, where the committee chair would have the prerogative to say whether it needed a council sponsor before a possible vote.
Aurora operates under a council-manager form of government, in which the city manager, as the city’s chief executive, is empowered to produce policy items that the council then votes on.
Zvonek acknowledged that the distinction between policy items and administrative items can be “very blurry.” Bergan and Marcano questioned whether requiring city staffers to send more or all agenda items through a policy committee wasn’t creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
Marcano also said that forcing council members to attach their name to agenda items could lead to those items getting shot down because of animosity among council members.
“I really don’t think we should be further gumming up the works,” Marcano said. “There are times where … people didn’t want to support something just because my name was attached to it, but if my name disappeared, we actually ended up with unanimous support.”
Regardless, Bergan, Jurinsky, Lawson and Zvonek all said they supported the proposal moving forward, though Bergan said she thought it would be “insane” if all of the items that the council regularly considers on its consent calendar had to pass through a policy committee first.
So, they want to limit public comment because it interferes with them doing business? I thought listening to constituents and representing their community WAS their job. Guess not??? It’s fine to support officers and recognize their positive dedication to the community. but once again, this proposal seems to be in the best interest of certain council members. It seems as if they wanted to run for office to serve themselves, not we the people.
am so glad the citizens of Aurora elected conservative members to city council. what is happening to this city that once was truly non-partisan. how scary it is becoming.
HOLY SOCKS!!! “Lawmakers and police can accept gifts”??? Ummmmm you misspelled the word “bribes.”
conservative lawmakers showed interest Tuesday in limiting public comment at meetings, relaxing rules on gifts and making it tougher for staff to bring controversial agenda items without a council sponsor. Beginning already to sound a lot like ANIMAL FARM to me now that the conservatives have been voted in.
I can remember years back when cops were criticized for their free meals and coffee and other goodies. Then it became a rallying cry with the conservatives. Now? They want it to be ok and oh, yeah, they want it to be ok for them TOO! Yeah, So BTW where is the leadership and the codes and ordinances to address the crime and violence they said they would get after? And all the other things they would do once elected? I guess buying each other dinner and coffee comes first?
Corruption! Brought to you by the conservative majority. Gifts to council members. Unlimited dark money for elections. These would-be thieves are not even hiding their plans. Ridiculous.
If, as Ms. Jurinsky speculates every single officer in the police department is in violation of a rule perhaps the problem is not the rule, but the officers. Disdain for rules by those charged with enforcement of the rules seems a problem to me.
I find irony in Mr. Marcano who sponsored the campaign finance provisions of the city code, provisions intended to provide transparency as to who supports what legislation balking at having his support of legislation being noted. Do we support this transparency or not?
Why should there be special exceptions to the gift rules which apply to all city employees just for city council and the police? Why are they special?
Another case of the uninformed making decisions. They really don’t have a grasp on the outcomes of their decisions. As always, the decisions are hypocritical. Like the police reform bill, the people making the decisions live in a world divorced from reality and practical experience. They claim high ideals and then create systems devoid of high principles. When I was a young military officer, I was taught that a leader had to not only avoid misconduct but must also avoid the appearance of misconduct. As a police officer, I knew that there was a reason that gratuities were either outright outlawed or frowned upon. At the same time, weak leaders took no stance or simply failed to enforce a stance. In many cases, police officials benefitted from “gifts” that were connected to giving special favors. I remember one case where the charges against a local businessman suddenly disappeared and the division chief suddenly had new tires from the same business. I remember one of our officers causing a scene at a business that would not give him his 50% discount on a load of fertilizer. I remember one of officers who would dress in his uniform and take his family to a restaurant while off duty to get free meals. He was also involved in some questionable insurance scams. One time, when he ordered his food at a drive through, he turned on his emergency lights and drove away to avoid paying when he was told the food wasn’t free. He later became a chief. He was irate when I suggested at briefing that the chiefs office send a letter to the businesses telling them that half price or free food should not be offered to officers. The reality is that special favors should not be given. There is a risk that those offering the free food will someday expect favors that are inappropriate. If an officer is at a community meeting and everyone is having coffee or food, that is different. I always knew that the people above me had little in the way of ethical principles. They always turned a blind eye. Businesses used to want officers to patronize their businesses. Not like today, where officers are pariahs who can be refused service or have their food spat into. As officers, we had ways to compensate for the free or half price that some businesses offered. Principled officers left a tip that covered the entire bill. I had more than one business owner chase me out trying to give my money back. My bosses said that it was embarrassing to have an officer make a scene. I told them that I did not think that the public would think badly of an officer insisting on paying like the public. I told them that enough of the public had a negative image of officers as lazy, entitled free loaders. They didn’t like that. I also knew that since our principled leaders set no ethical example, officers were widely accepting gratuities. When I was at a restaurant, owners would say “Oh, you are the one who pays full price”. I remember a number of times, people giving me gift cards that I returned. I explained that helping a woman change a tire in a snowstorm or recovering their stolen property was my job. I expressed gratitude for the thought behind it. This discussion, although well intentioned, is not well thought out. You are saying that you want high standards for police officers. Well, live that, instead of blindly floundering around. This is the same reason that all of the well intentioned citizen groups and legislators will not improve things. They are woefully uninformed and will not listen to real police officers.
What?! Republicans want to get rid of an anti-corruption rule? Golly gee, nobody ever would have seen that coming…
So much for ethics.
This is precisely the type of regressive legislation that we would expect from this faction.