AURORA | A district court judge on Monday declined to change the proposed ballot language of a charter amendment that would empower Aurora’s mayor after opponents sued the City of Aurora and sponsors.
In her Aug. 21 ruling, Arapahoe County District Court Judge Elizabeth Volz affirmed that former city official and opposition spokesman Charlie Richardson was allowed to bring the case to district court under state law but said the title and summary approved by city clerk Kadee Rodriguez included the “major components” of the proposal.
Opponents had argued that the summary language left out important details and that the item failed to adhere to a rule in the city’s charter limiting ordinances to a single subject.
Volz ruled that the single-subject question would have to wait until after the November election, citing a ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court that, coincidentally, was also delivered Monday.
“If, as the Defendants argue(,) such amendment is not limited to a single subject(,) then there is no violation,” she wrote. “If, however, the matter is limited to a single subject, the recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court makes clear that the matter cannot be addressed unless or until it is adopted by the voters.”
Richardson provided the Sentinel with a copy of Volz’ ruling after it was delivered and said opponents of the proposal plan to renew their single-subject challenge if voters pass it into law.
“If, in spite of our efforts, this does pass, I guarantee you that we will be raising the single-subject challenge after the election,” he said. “But right now, all of our efforts and concentration is on the protest hearing on Aug. 30.”
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.
Richardson’s attorneys made the case before Volz on Aug. 17 for why the ballot language should have been changed, as representatives of the city and the strong-mayor campaign defended the proposed language.
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 left out key parts and failed 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 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.
Incumbent mayor Mike 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.
Where, and precisely when is this August 30th protest hearing? Will it be open to the general public?
The position and bias of the Sentinel, albeit in apparent lockstep with City council, is known and seeps from this article which belongs on the op-ed page. The strong mayor model, which works arguably for many municipalities across the nation, and for our neighboring city Denver, continues to be presented as some kind of evil conspiracy plot. The curious thing here is that it will benefit Mr Marcano just as much as it will Mr Coffman. Which is to say, voters approving the measure does not equate to choosing one or the other candidate. It is dismaying, this assumption that voters are too stupid to weigh this matter, that is too complicated and deceptive for our comprehension such that, if passed, the plan is to override our vote by judicial oversight. Hopefully between now and November Coffman and others will champion its merits for our consideration and deliberation. It is also good to note that not that long ago Aurora considered, and rejected, combining itself as city and county (sans the conspiracy rhetoric) — that is, changing the model of our city government.