AURORA | Concerns about the presentation of a proposal to empower Aurora’s mayor that could appear before voters this fall were aired in district court Thursday, as representatives of the city and the strong-mayor campaign defended the proposed language.
The title and summary of the item that would appear on the fall ballot were singled out for scrutiny by opponents of the proposal backed by Mayor Mike Coffman.
Attorneys Thomas Rogers and Mark Grueskin argued on behalf of Charlie Richardson, a former city official and instigator of the lawsuit, that the attempts to summarize the measure leave out key parts of the proposal and fail to adhere to a rule in the city’s charter limiting ordinances to a single subject.
“We ask you to protect the voters of Aurora, to give them more detail, to give them enough detail to make an informed choice here,” Rogers told Arapahoe County District Court Judge Elizabeth Volz. “It’s a power that statute gives you, and we hope that you will exercise it.”
Lawyer Suzanne Taheri appeared on behalf of representatives of the petition that was signed by voters, and Thomas Snyder represented the city, which signed off on the language that was included in the petition forms.
Taheri said the strong-mayor measure did adhere to a single subject because its various parts — which include changes to mayor and council pay, eliminating emergency ordinances as a category of legislation and the creation of a chief of staff position — all proceed from empowering the mayor and changing the city’s system of government from a council-manager system to a mayor-council system.
Snyder argued the alternative language proposed by Richardson’s attorneys would be too long, containing about two and a half times more words, and that it was designed to be unappealing to voters.
“We believe that the ballot title that was set was fair. It was brief. It gave a fair and accurate summary of the meaning and intent of the proposed measure,” he said.
“The proposed ballot language, which is very long, appears to be designed to elicit a ‘no’ vote, … has an unnecessary level of detail, does not meet the city’s standard of being brief and it should not be adopted.”
Snyder also stressed that the city was not taking a position for or against the proposal.
The campaign to empower Aurora’s mayor has been dogged by controversy, with opponents criticizing alleged deception on the part of petition circulators, who they say downplayed or failed to mention the significance of the part of the proposal that would empower the mayor, giving that person the ability to veto legislation and unilaterally hire and fire city employees.
Instead, petition circulators allegedly focused on part of the proposal that would reduce the number of consecutive terms council members may serve from three to two. While Taheri said the strong-mayor component was at the heart of the legislation, the organization behind the measure styled itself “Term Limits for a Better Aurora” until July.
Coffman’s support for the measure and his refusal to discuss his involvement until July has been another source of contention, with other City Council members describing the measure as a power grab.
The mayor has since said he believes making the bureaucracy of the city report to a single elected official would provide more accountability than having it report to a city manager appointed by the 11-member council as a whole.
Richardson’s lawsuit was filed separately from a protest submitted Aug. 14 to the office of Aurora’s city clerk, which seeks to overturn the clerk’s initial finding that supporters had done the necessary work and collected enough signatures for the item to make the ballot. A hearing on the protest is scheduled to take place Aug. 30.
Volz said she would deliver her ruling in the form of a written order no later than Aug. 21.
The merits of a strong mayor form of government aside this proposal should never have been forwarded in an election cycle where the mayor’s office is being filled. Without knowing whether this reconstruction of the government will pass how can voters be informed as to the best candidate for the office? As the office is currently consitituted a voter may want a legislator, a consensus builder, a political philosopher for the office, but if the proposal passes they may want an administator, a bureaucrat. Quite literally we voters are left making an uninformed choice. So too some of the candidates. What office are they running for, or do we expect them to make their case for either office?