Colorado Supreme Court to hear arguments in Aurora City Council breach of open meetings law

AURORA | The Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments May 14 in a lawsuit filed by the Sentinel against the City of Aurora, which prevailed in claiming that the city violated state laws when lawmakers voted in a close meeting to end censure proceedings against Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky.

“We look forward to making our final arguments and being able to tell the community what compelled council members to violate open-meeting laws in this case,” said Sentinel Editor and Publisher Dave Perry.

The Supreme Court case comes after a Colorado Court of Appeals panel found in December 2023 that Aurora’s City Council broke the law in 2022 when it voted to end censure proceedings against Jurinsky.

The Sentinel had asked for was denied a recording of that meeting, which the panel unanimously ordered the city to release. Legal counsel in the case has been provided by
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The city has since asked the Colorado Supreme Court to hear the case, and the panel’s order has been stayed pending a reply from the higher court.

The original case stems 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 last year after news that Aurora would appeal that the appeals court 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.”