AURORA | Aurora lawmakers on Monday once again imposed new restrictions for public comment after months of heated council meetings with outbursts and a lack of decorum from members of the public, primarily one group of protesters.
Councilmembers Françoise Bergan and Danielle Jurinsky sponsored a new resolution to restrict public comment during city council meetings by proposing to shorten “public invited to be heard” to 40 minutes with 2-minute speaking times at a special session that will allow for city council to attend it virtually.
For months, most of the meetings have been dominated by, and even taken over by, regular protesters and commenters focusing on the police-shooting death of Kilyn Lewis last May. Lewis was fatally shot by an Aurora SWAT officer while being arrested.
The new restrictions passed with council members Alison Coombs, Crystal Murillo and Ruben Medina opposed.
The city council met remotely Monday for the second consecutive time because of an undisclosed threat reported by Aurora police.
“This council wants to continue to limit, limit until it goes away,” Coombs said. “That’s the message we’re sending, is (that) we want to change public comments until you just go away, and I think that’s unfortunate and harmful.”
The measure could allow city council members to turn the volume down or off on their computers while “listening” to “the public invited to be heard” portion of the meeting.
“(The measure) is taking the public invited to be heard off the council agenda to make it its own special session. It’s actually the same thing Denver does,” City Attorney Pete Schulte told the Sentinel before the meeting. “There may be council members who won’t have their video on, and they’ll be muted because they won’t be speaking, but if the public thinks that there are certain council members who aren’t interested in hearing public comment, then those members of the public might try to make that an election issue.”
Although the public comment segment will now be separate from the city council agenda, it is still considered a meeting, requiring proper public notice, and there’s still going to have to be a quorum present, Schulte said.
“So it’s not like they can all just decide not to listen,” Schulte said. “They’re going to have to be present, and they’re already going to be there because it’s going to happen right after study session concludes.”
The change will give city staff, including the city manager and city attorney, the ability to not be present for the public invited to be heard, and it will require the city clerk or the clerk’s designee to run the session instead of the mayor.
“It’s a way to streamline the process,” Schulte said.
The other rules in the resolution will give Aurora residents priority in speaking as long as they show proof of residency through an ID, utility bill, or something similar. An approved friendly amendment from Councilmember Curtis Gardner also changed the times, having “Public Invited to be Heard” from 6 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. and the city council meeting to begin at 6:45 p.m.
Since it is no longer part of the city council meeting, it is no longer required to be recorded for public viewing. City lawmakers have still not determined whether they will record the comment sessions for public viewing after.
Some council members agreed with critics that the growing restrictions counter a responsibility for lawmakers to hear all types of comment from constituents and the public.
“So we’re saying you can’t use your First Amendment right to protest,” Coombs said. “You can only use it to say the things that fit within the confines of what we want to hear and how we want to hear it.”
She said that, in the past several years, the city council was willing to sit for however long necessary to listen to residents about mobile homes parks being shut down, pit bull bans and Elijah McClain’s death, which she also said to council members did not receive justice until after protests happened in council chambers.
The resolution also makes it “abundantly clear” that city council is allowed to end an individual’s public comment during agenda items if the speaker is not sticking to the topic on the agenda. This was in response to disruptions after “justice for Kilyn Lewis” activists protested city council two weeks ago by hijacking all public comment after the city council voted to remove unrelated public comments at the previous meeting.
“I’m just disappointed that we’ve spent more time on moving the goalpost and changing the rules than actually discussing what justice looks like for this family that continues to come to every single council meeting,” Auon’tai M. Anderson said.
Anderson, a former Denver Public Schools Board member and activist, has been at the forefront of the regular protests since they began in June.
When the city council meetings go back to being public, the new proposed resolution also clarifies that if people refuse to leave the lectern during public comment on agenda items, the city council can suspend the meeting and move to a private room at city hall. If disruptions continue, they will be able to go virtual.
The measure also allows for police to intercede in continued disruptions, at the behest of city officials.
Tyranny at its best the political theatrics of last nights meeting are deplorable, hours after Coffman essentially went on Social Media and said Lewis deserved fo die as he was a gang member who was high when he was apprehended(the constant read the report from John Keller which was filled with coded language to protect the officer, read the consent decree report and how it counters the narrative that is being spread, wouldn’t let me through last night to speak time to expose the truth funny how Hancock and Jurinsky can lean on community when they need them the most but if they don’t agree with you community means nothing to them hypocrites and horrible vile representatives of Aurora. We need to do better in this next election.
They didn’t let you say anything because you have nothing worth listening to, outside of the usual nonsense that not letting you screech like a banshee is oppressin’ you.
I would like to correct Alison Coombs, who clearly does not understand the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment guarantees one’s right to speak and to petition and to seek redress from the government. It protects ideas so that they can be presented in and can compete for attention and traction in the marketplace of ideas. What it does not do is guarantee a forum or captive listeners to speech that on its own merit does not draw or captivate attention. It does not provide the right to impinge upon the business or speech of government or others. It does not provide a right to bludgeon or exhaust captive listeners with repeated messages already heard and rejected as valueless. The Kilyn Lewis protesters are welcome to write editorials, to hold rallys, to publish articles, to distribute materials both physically and electronically. Their speech has not been restricted or limited by government. What Aurora is doing is insuring that the work of government can take place. That other citizens can have thier issues and their business heard as well. That government employees who are not elected officials can complete their assignments in a timely manner without being purposefully inconvenienced by the agenda of a very few, a few who fail to understand that when a wanted felon who has shot at innocents and who knows he will be sought to be taken into custody and so is not surprised when law enforcement arrives and then does not immediately and unequivocally comply with that law enforcement who has knowledge that the wanted person has used force and firearms in the immediate past does not absolutely comply with law enforcement orders designed for thier safety and the safety of the wanted person bad outcomes will happen. Those bad outcomes are on the dangerous wanted felon, not those trying to protect the innocents upon whom such felons prey.
Let me see if I understand… your job is to represent your constituents but you don’t want to hear what we have to say? What exactly are you afraid of? Perhaps you should get a different job
Nothing you say has any value, Susan. You’re just another left-wing spastic.
I’m concerned that there are not any suggestions for any planned interaction to hear the protester’s arguments. It seems to me that the continuing protests are a sign that a dialogue on the incident is important for closure on the subject. Openness to other opinions is not a feature of this council and it shows!
It sure seems like these activist grifters could find a better “martyr” than this repeat felon and known member of the 781 Montbello Bloods, who was being served a warrant for attempted first-degree murder. If Jurinsky is correct, and the family has lawyered up, this looks like an obvious attempt to extort a payout from the city.
City council is full of mean-spirited cowards. They love to run for cover and govern in the dark. From the safety of their closed-door meetings, they dole out money and tax breaks to developers and businesses and then fight like hell to keep the details out of public eyes. The protestors gave Jurinsky and her ilk a convenient excuse to keep citizens’ voices at bay so that the councilmembers can continue their self-enriching shenanigans.
I completely understand council’s issue here. I have been at one of these meetings and the uncivilized behavior of the protesters is an insult to the process and those of us that follow it. I signed up to speak and then watched as they brought chaos to the room, attempting to browbeat council into their views. But the problem is that Roberts rules of order has a Master-At-Arms to enforce order, and the APD just stands there. I hear about people being arrested at school board meetings but you can do apparently anything at Aurora council meetings and all they do is scurry away into virtual session. I say keep the rules the same with the addition of an Aurora citizen only rule for attendance. Then THROW THEM OUT!