AURORA | The Aurora City Council is seeking feedback through the end of the month from residents on its decorum rules for council members, attendees and public commenters.
The Council Rules Ad Hoc Committee is reviewing the city council’s rules for decorum and virtual participation, with plans to review all of the council’s rules. The committee started with decorum and virtual participation because of the recent history of combativeness among council members and between public commenters and council members.
Heated meetings peaked in 2024 and 2025 after police shot and killed Kilyn Lewis while he was being arrested in Aurora. At one meeting, council members fled the council chambers because of protesters, and Councilmember Stephanie Hancock called the protesters “terrorists.”
Former Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky was also known for confrontational and sometimes profane rhetoric, even cursing out fellow council members over text.
Since the 2025 council election, where voters did not re-elect Jurinsky and chose four new council members, meetings have had less conflict, but have not been entirely free of profanity and insults.
After the April meeting, the committee will draft revised rules on decorum and engage the community again for feedback ahead of its May 21 meeting.
Once the committee has finalized its recommendations for decorum rules, they will be heard at a city council study session and then a city council meeting.
Residents can submit comments online at EngageAurora.org/Decorum through the end of the month or share them in-person at the rules committee meeting on April 27 at the Aurora Municipal Building.
Meanwhile $45 million/year in additional sales tax revenue just sits on the table awaiting a city council serious about improving retail, dining and entertainment in Aurora.
Instead of meaningful solutions to the city’s most difficult problems, Council spends its precious time on this nonsense.
Rules are only as good as the consequences used to back them up. There were rules regarding guests disrupting meetings in the past, yet this was allowed to continue week after week to the point where Council members had to flee from the chamber and cancel public meetings. Disruptive individuals should have been advised of their transgressions and then dragged out by their ears if necessary.