AURORA | Colorado’s Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Aurora City Council violated state law when it voted last March to end censure proceedings against Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky in a meeting closed to the public.
The decision means the City of Aurora must turn over an electronic recording of the meeting to Sentinel Colorado, which the city refused to do when asked by the newspaper last year.
Aurora still has the option of appealing the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. City spokesman Ryan Luby said the city will mull whether it wants to do so “over the next several weeks.”
The appeals case stemmed from when then-Councilmember Juan Marcano initiated censure proceedings against Jurinsky in early 2022 after Jurinsky told a regional talk radio show host how she had encouraged then-police chief Vanessa Wilson to replace deputy chief, Darin Parker. Jurinsky also criticized Wilson’s leadership of the Aurora Police Department, referring to the chief as “trash.”
Marcano accused Jurinsky of violating a section of the City Charter that prohibits council members from meddling in the appointment of employees who fall under the authority of the city manager.
He also said Jurinsky’s statements about Wilson went against part of the council’s rules of order and procedure, which require members to “conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times” when interacting with city staffers.
A supermajority vote of the council to censure Jurinsky would have been the first step before Jurinsky could be punished for her statements. However — during a closed-door meeting on March 14, 2022 — a majority of the council voted to halt the censure process and pay fees for an attorney hired by Jurinsky.
Council rules stipulated at the time that, while an executive session could be called to receive legal advice regarding the process of disciplining an elected official, “no action or decision may occur in the executive session.”
Colorado’s Open Meetings Law also limits what city councils are allowed to do outside of the public eye and generally prohibits groups from adopting “any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation or formal action” in secret. If a court finds that a group took such action anyway, recordings of that meeting must be made available for public inspection.
Because the council’s actions appeared to violate the state Open Meetings Law, and because the city also failed to announce the specific topic of the closed-door meeting ahead of time, which is required under state law, Sentinel Colorado requested the electronic recording of this private meeting from the city.
The city refused, with City Clerk Kadee Rodriguez writing that the recording was “privileged attorney / client communication and is exempt from disclosure.”
Arapahoe County District Court Judge Elizabeth Beebe Volz ruled last September that the city did not have to the release the recording, finding that Aurora failed to provide proper notice of the private meeting but that the council “cured” the Open Meetings Law violation by including information about what was discussed March 14 in its March 28 meeting agenda packet.
Volz also acknowledged that there was a “roll call” taken during the closed-door meeting to decide how to proceed but said this did not constitute “formal action” in the context of the Open Meetings Law.
On Thursday, a trio of appellate judges overturned Volz’s ruling, saying among other things that the district court made a “clear error” when it found that the council’s vote did not violate state law.
The opinion was written by Judge David Furman and joined by judges Terry Fox and Gilbert Román. In his opinion, Furman said Volz erred when she relied on a 2012 ruling by the Court of Appeals that said that a public body can validate a decision made inappropriately in secret through a subsequent public meeting.
Sentinel Colorado did not challenge the decision to end the censure process itself but rather the decision to deny the newspaper a recording of the illegal closed-door meeting.
The Colorado Court of Appeals also found that the council waived its claims to attorney-client privilege when the city published information about the March 14 private meeting.
“We conclude that the City Council violated … the OML by improperly convening and taking a ‘position … or formal action’ in deciding to end Jurinsky’s censure proceedings during the March 14 executive session,” Furman’s decision reads.
“Because we have concluded that the City Council waived the attorney-client privilege regarding its communications at the March 14 executive session, the recording of this session must be released.”
Between April 2022 and November 2023, the city racked up more than $27,000 in expenses for the Law Offices Of Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C. to represent it in the case and fight the release of the meeting recording, according to information obtained by Sentinel Colorado through a records request.
Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said Thursday that the ruling supports important provisions of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law and that it will have “precedent-setting value.”
“We had a reason to believe something was not right. And it was puzzling when the district court didn’t fully see it that way. And now, that’s been vindicated by the Court of Appeals,” Roberts said.
“I see it as a positive upholding of important aspects of the Open Meetings Law and the public’s right to know at least something about what their elected officials are discussing when they close the door on the public.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include the amount of money spent by the city on litigating the case brought by Sentinel Colorado.
GUESS Councilmember Juan Marcano Got it right to begin with, huh?
Now Conservative city council what you gonna do about it? let her get away with it or censure her????
Let her get away with it ? Her ?
Juan is a male Hispanic sir name.
Are you stupid or something?
could you be a bit more clear? “her” Isn’t Danielle a ‘her’???
Whether Marcano got it right or wrong is now a moot point. What the citizens of Aurora got right is the elimination of Marcano’s socialist viewpoint and total disruptions to our City Council.
The new Council will do what is proper. That is, forget about this old news situation and get to leading our city.
Two of your three sentences begin with Capital Letters. You are getting better with the written word, Mr. King. Now if only you would capitalize your first name.
Mr moore, respect please? The last four years has seen NO leadership among the convervative right and we’ll see none in the next four years.
There’s still homeless on the streets, still shootings, no police chief and a mayor who has to have someone tell him how to run a city council meeting. Please….keep your silly comments to yourself?
Like always, I leave it up to others to judge whether my or your comments are “silly”. It is true and apparent that I have no respect for your comments in the past, now and I’m sure in the future. There has been no one over the past years that has shown less intelligence in their comments except you while at the same time attempting to show how smart you are. I’ve always wondered if you are related by blood to the Editor.
Keep working on those capital letters and proper English. Sooner or later you will get it. I’m sure.
Is it absolutely necessary for Dick Moore to denigrate people who make comments? It would be lovely if he would show some respect to others posting. No one likes a bully – I suggest he be sure to taste his words before he spits them out. Do better Dick.
Doug, I’m going to go out on a limb here. You seem to be unaware Juan Marcano is no- longer around as council rep. His motion for censure is something not retrospective. If Council member Combs feels compelled to give it another try here is her opportunity.
This court appeal by the Sentinel when the city clerk ignored their CORA request had nothing to do with member Jurinsky. Despite the questionable legal manipulation, the city used to terminate any further investigation and the dismissing these conversations from public view, the courts at this point say the Sentinel is entitled to the information in that particular meeting that was all recorded because it falls under the open meetings law.
The city clerk did not ignore the request, she denied the request, likely after advice from the city attonrey’s office. The Court of Appeals finds that denial to have been wrong. A small point, but accuracy is important.
This should serve as notice to Mayor Coffman and his newly enlarged majority that the residents (and voters) of the City have a right to know what they are doing. As a reminder, Local public bodies must open meetings of a quorum or three or more members, whichever is fewer, at which public business is discussed or formal action may be taken. C.R.S. § 24-6-402(2)(b).
Larry, all you have to do is read Moore’s comment above and you’ll see they really don’t care one bit. They now have the authorative power and watch them use it to drive this city into the ground!
Amazing that there is no transparency in this article about then Chief Wilson’s lover going after Jurinsky with false accusations about her parenting and child/sexual abuse. Perhaps that might provide some context.
Jill, Jill, Jill, that’s been adjudicated and settled. This has nothing to do with that. It has to do with actions by a sitting council person who was called to task about it and the conservative council hid the whole thing, covered it up and paid her attorney fees ( the city paid $68,634 to the Law Offices Of Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C. ) It’s irrelevant that Marcano is out of office. The actions by Danielle did happen. She needs to reimburse the city and the city needs to censure her for her statements to make things right.
“paid her attorney fees the city paid $68,634 to the Law Offices Of Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C.”
Now where did you get that at? Do her attorney fees of $16, 162.50 sound familiar? And it was not to Hoffmann Law.
In the end we, the residents, will learn nothing new from this effort by the Sentinel on the subject matter. Both councilmembers completely aired their grievances publicly and there was already violation of the seal of the executive session when information from that executive session was shared by a councilmember or less likely a staffer with the Sentinel. The only thing to be learned here is the extent the city attorney’s office will go and has gone to cover up their advice and involvement in the original decision and in litigating the matter. That in itself may be an interesting story yet.
OMG! So now Aurora is following the US Legislature in using $68,000 for something as uninteresting as this? Yes, Ms. Jurinsky has a mouth on her, but what does a censure accomplish anyway? About as much as a Trump impeachment. PLEASE, can my money and yours get spent on something meaningful? You guys, find something more significant to argue and be nasty about, if you can. Sheesh.