AURORA | A majority of Aurora City Council members on Monday declined to endorse limits on open public comment at council meetings, while supporting other rule changes touching on meeting decorum and staff-initiated agenda items.
During regular council meetings, members of the public have opportunities near the beginning and end of the meeting to make three-minute comments on items not included on the agenda.
Options weighed by council members Monday would do away with the comment period toward the end of the meeting and cap the total length of the first period at an hour, while possibly giving council members the ability to remove the one-hour cap if the majority is in favor. The changes would not touch public comment on individual agenda items.
Council members who objected to changing rules around public comment said they were uncomfortable restricting the public’s access to their elected representatives.
“We knew what we were getting into when we were running for office,” Councilmember Juan Marcano said. “I don’t believe that we should be limiting the public’s ability to speak to us. I think that things that are not on the agenda are just as important as the ones that we’re going to be discussing on an agenda.”
Marcano reiterated objections that he first raised at a Feb. 22 committee meeting, namely that the changes were unnecessary since lengthy open comment periods are uncommon.
Supporters of the change said those comment periods should be limited regardless because of the impact they have on presenters and city staffers who are queued up to speak.
“We want to hear from the public. We don’t want to limit their ability to address us,” Bergan said. “When we have the very long public invited (to be heard), we’re delaying the outside speakers, (and) we’re delaying our staff members.”
Marcano suggested the city council not change its rules on public comment. Only five of the council’s 11 members said they opposed the status quo — Mayor Mike Coffman and councilmembers Bergan, Danielle Jurinsky, Steve Sundberg and Dustin Zvonek — and so the changes were not cleared to move out of the study session.
The council was more receptive to other proposed changes — a proposal by Coffman that would address “decorum during debate” and empower the mayor to stop “attacks of a personal nature” on the dais earned the majority’s tacit support.
The proposal came after Marcano accused the supporters of a ban on unauthorized camping of being dishonest in their representation of that ordinance. He previously clashed with Coffman and Bergan over his statements, which they characterized as an ad hominem attack and a breach of decorum.
When Councilmember Alison Coombs asked Coffman to clarify what might constitute a personal attack, the mayor gave the example of one council member calling another “a liar” from the dais and said the council should focus on criticizing policies rather than one another.
“It’s really just incredible what goes on here, and it just needs to stop,” Coffman said. “These are the lowest possible standards that I’ve seen in my three decades of service in the American government.”
Marcano said Coffman was “weaponizing decorum to silence dissent” and that he believed the real purpose of the measure was to keep council members from calling out misleading statements by their colleagues.
“And just so you know, I will continue to do that, whether you consider that a personal attack or not,” Marcano added. “I’m sick of it. I think the most disrespectful thing you can do is mislead the public. That is a complete lack of decorum, and it’s a breach of public trust.”
He said he would be bringing a rule change of his own requiring council members “act as though we were under oath in a court of law” when speaking at the dais.
Jurinsky said she supported Coffman’s proposal and didn’t think Marcano was being honest when he called the Republican Party a “sadistic death cult” last year.
“Rather than talking to each other, seeing where we can find some common ground, I think that this council is growing further and further divided,” she said.
“You spent, I think, the better part of last year on local hate radio calling me a communist,” Marcano replied. “If y’all want to play in the mud, I’m happy to get in the mud with you. … The way I was raised is, you know, you get bullies to stop bullying you by fighting back.”
He said he wanted to see a more rigorous definition from City Attorney Dan Brotzman of “decorum” and “personal attack” before he would consider supporting Coffman’s proposal.
The council’s progressive minority — including Coombs, Marcano, Ruben Medina and Crystal Murillo — all opposed the rule moving forward.
Zvonek’s proposal to give council members greater control over staffers bringing forward policy items was also allowed by the majority to proceed.
The latest version of the proposal would give any council member the ability to require a staff member to get a council sponsor before bringing an item up for a vote, though a majority of council members could also vote to override that request.
Zvonek previously said he was concerned by staffers generating controversial policy items like a proposal to make Juneteenth a paid city holiday and a de-Brucing item that was brought by staff to the Management and Finance Policy Committee.
“If you see something … call it out, and if the majority of us disagree, then it moves forward anyway,” Zvonek said.
Murillo said she thought Zvonek’s suggestion would only create more layers of bureaucracy before items could be brought to council, which she said was “ironic” since the council also recently created a red tape reduction ad hoc committee that Zvonek chairs. She said the system would also facilitate council members taking credit for policy work done by staff.
“It makes me uncomfortable to know that we could just add our name onto something that we didn’t really do any work for,” she said.
Coffman endorsed Zvonek’s proposal.
“You have unelected bureaucrats really making policy for the city,” the mayor said. “We have an outdated form of government that was really meant for a city of a much smaller size, where the most controversial issues would be planning and zoning issues.”
The proposal was opposed by Coombs, Marcano and Murillo, but moved forward.
Coffman knows alot about the lowest possible standards. He is a failed Congressman that backed into a paycheck from being on the city council. He is emboldened after the last election, so now he wants to create the ways and means to silence opposition. That’s a real Republican agenda.
As a citizen, I expect all public input to be heard, no matter how long as it takes. A time limit on each speaker is appropriate, as is limiting comments that have already been made by others. The Council does not have time to hear the same comment repeatedly by different speakers.
I also expect ALL council persons to remain civil and to address each other and the public with civility and decorum. There should never be any personal attacks. Calling someone a “liar” is never appropriate. We’ve all seen how-low our elected representatives can stoop at the federal level, and we do NOT want that to occur with our council.
Council members should always speak truthfully and there should be no deceit. But here’s the thing: Our council and we should not even feel we have the need to discuss these issues. They should be a given, but today, in the era of extreme contention, people seem unable to control themselves. It’s sad, is what it is.
Mr. Mayor, I don’t believe you can legislate being nice nor speaking nicely. Give it a rest. Let the socialists run their mouths, so the Aurora citizens can hear what runs out of their mouths. We’ll remind the electorate closer to election time how they speak and how they act. Then they are gone.
You and I understand why you have never seen such discord before. That is you cannot get along nicely with a roughly 50% group of socialists in a Democratic Republic legislature. Just won’t work. When there are only two left, the problem will solve itself.
The future is bright without passing any type of rules. Ward IV and V will for sure eliminate Marcano and Coombs in the next election. Murillo will be there for four more years but she can’t think for herself nor make any solid argument without the others. Medina will also be there for four years but he never seems to speak but just votes with the other socialists.
Keep up the good work.
Will the city attorney be repeatedly called upon to make a ruling as to whether a comment lacked decorum, and if so what will be the ramification if a comment breached decorum? Will the breaching councilmember be made to go to bed without their dinner?
If our councilmembers are going to act like petulant children I suggest the city appoint a council mother. The mother would have the authority to turn this car around, or to send them to bed without dessert, or even to take away their phones. and to ground them.
Hysterical! The sad part is, it’s spot-on!
If Mayor Coffman, can refer to a couple current council members as dumb and dumber, then I presume that CM Marcano, is on solid ground with the council in his statements referencing all Republicans as nothing more but an organization of death cult provocateurs.
Which by the way, speaking of lawyers now involved in and through all the in-house council politics. One lawyer pops up resulting in a political censure investigation. A probe initiated by CM Marcano against CM Jurinsky, that David Lane, had advised Aurora to end immediately.
Talk about, “playing in the mud” as CM Marcano likes so well. Instead of a four hour council meeting, this will be a week long mud fight in a courtroom.
.