AURORA | The Aurora City Council voted Monday night to change the process by which council members can censure each other as the city faces an impending lawsuit from The Sentinel over allegations that it violated open meeting laws when discussing the potential censure of Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky.
The new resolution, which passed 6-4 Monday, will do away with the fact-finding attorneys that the city previously had the power to hire to investigate allegations of misconduct during a censure process and will leave the decision in the hands of council members.
As before, a two-thirds vote of the city council would be required to convict a council member of violating the city’s charter or council rules and impose censure.
Any member of city council can place a censure resolution on the agenda, and the city attorney would work with the council member to draft the resolution. Under the new rules the council member must provide at least 10 days notice in advance of the meeting where the censure vote will take place.
The council moved to make changes to the process after Coumcilmember Juan Marcano initiated a censure process against Jurinsky for comments she made on a regional conservative talk radio program in January. During a show hosted by talk-radio host Steffan Tubbs, she called former Aurora Police Chief Vanessa Wilson “trash” and called for her and deputy chief Darin Parker to be removed from their posts.
City code prohibits council members from interfering with daily city operations and personnel not appointed by the council.
At the beginning of its March 14 meeting, the council agreed in executive session to dismiss the censure process against Jurinsky in what legal experts say was an “open and shut” violation of open meetings law.
The new process will give the city council more control, something that council members who reportedly voted to dismiss the censure expressed a desire for, also removing current requirements that involved attorneys.
Councilmember Dustin Zvonek said during a March 28 meeting that the proposed new censure process would provide for a public hearing, which is a feature of the existing rules, and called the existing procedures a “kangaroo court.”
On Monday, Crystal Murillo, Juan Marcano, Ruben Medina and Alison Coombs voted against the measure.
At a study session last week, Coombs, Marcano and Medina voiced concerns about the new rules giving whoever has the majority on council too much power. Coombs reiterated some of those sentiments Monday.
While saying that she appreciated “getting the lawyers out of the process,” she was concerned about giving council members the sole authority to make censure decisions.
“All you have to do is have a majority,” Coombs said. “And if the majority of people want to see you avoid consequences for your actions even if you’ve done wrong, then they can just excuse you.”
On April 13, attorneys for Sentinel Colorado and the Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press insisted in a letter that a recording of a closed-door meeting be made public or else The Sentinel would pursue court action.
In the letter, attorney Rachael Johnson argued that because the closed-session vote violated open meetings law regarding taking formal action while in executive session, it must be released to the public.
“Because the action taken behind closed-doors, and in secret, was in violation of the (Colorado Open Meetings Law), the record of the discussion, the recording, and all other meeting materials must be made available for public inspection,” Johnson said.
Assistant city attorney Dave Lathers responded to The Sentinel Thursday declining to release the recording and asking for mediation instead.
In a letter, Brotzman claimed that the city council was not in violation of the law because it did not take a formal vote while in executive session.
“While it may be that discussion proceeded orderly, in a roll call order among the Council Members so as to allow each to have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions on the legal advice being offered, such a process is not tantamount to a vote,” he said.
Lathers also said that the city attorney is not permitted to release the tape of the session without council’s permission.
Sentinel attorneys are considering further legal action.
The Council now has a voting block majority likely based on their personal political party affiliation. These steps essentially make any effort to investigate council based on party alignment. The right wing has a 6-4 advantage and they showed themselves in this matter. The two new members Jurinski and Zvonek ignited the mess. May be time to initiate thoughts on recall to balance Council our Aurora will become totally divided and deadlocked.
Thank you Jurinski and Zvonek for voting as you have been voting to end the left winged Emerge and Socialist leadership tendencies of the past few years. You will not be recalled and there is a lot of us citizens that appreciate what you are doing. We will bring you more help in the next election. Seems all the left winged minded folks who comment to these articles and editorials forget that you two were the top two vote getters for the at-large seats in the last election. We needed change and you two are it. Thanks, again.
Bill, I think you hit the nail on the head. Zvonek and Jurinsky are lowest common denominator right wingers, representing the cringeworthy but very real tRump/Boebert Republicans that infest Colorado in general but have congregated in Aurora in recent years. It’s a geriatric constituency and not an actual majority in our city, but obnoxiously noisy and therefore over represented.
You know, the Richard-Less type with lots of free time for message boards where they use the word Socialism without irony while living on a government subsidized fixed income.
A recall would do well, especially now that Z/J have shown who they are.
The good news is, this Z/J consituency is shrinking faster than it is growing, because time. The bad news is, there is big money behind anyone willing to publicy embrace fascism (i.e. the “thin blue line”/all lives matter) crowd. You’ll see them on here too, rambling about how “black people are inherently more criminal, look at the numbers” (and yes this was a real comment on a recent Sentinel article about chief wilson). It’s vomit inducing stuff, but any local joker who’s willing to make a fool of themselves always seems to be well funded from private sources because these people are real and live here in Aurora.
People are willing to pay and vote for other people to publicly justify their own bias, and that is the basis of all right wing politics. The louder and more obnoxious the voice, the greater the “bias pool” of money and votes to draw from.
In a weak mayor scenario (and Coffman would be that in any city) the city manager has an outsized responsibilty as an un-elected official. Having a council that is balanced (or at least representative of the constituency) is critical or else these devious (illegal) factional closed door meetings decide policy; which is then sent down the chain without oversight or public review/input.
The right wing in this country has openly admitted since the tRump administration what the adults have know for years : they are about power over principle. No act is too low, too crooked, too overtly a big lie. Orwell-style Doublethink prevails, and tribal identity justifies any action.
Our council here is small potatoes in a lot of ways, but the hypocrisy is the same as the national headlines versions (like the human sea turtle *itch BcConnel with the supreme court seat, or tRump encouraging insurrection and all these cowards backpedaling their condemnations). They will lickspittle, debase themselves and the truth, and pander to any bias to cling to any version of power no matter how insignificant.
This is the type of stuff Jurinsky was babbling about on right wing talk radio (new slogan: “thoughts in a vacuum”) when she called the chief and assistant chief trash. I get it, the police union is against accountability. No surprise there. But their talking points getting parroted by a council member publicly…I mean honestly good thing she tipped her hand or we wouldn’t have had the same real-time insight into these shenanigans since it was so obviously supposed to be hush-hush.
And that’s what it comes down to, these people would be even more dangerous if not so laughably incompetent. Not who should be running any city, but especially not mine.
I read in a scientific journal that spelling Trump as tRump instantly validated your argument. You’re one smart fella!
Oh, Don as if you’ve ever read anything even science-adjacent. ????
This issue looks rather uncomplicated to end this conflict. The council all, or a majority vote to release the tapes. Nixion, refused, to the last days, the law prevailed. The problem here, no one on council is old enough to know much about that little history story.
I would not disagree with the previous council being to far left. What I suggested was about balance and focus on Auroras needs not the damn parties. All effort goes into both parties erasing the last parties right or left gains. It is a circular firing squad.The citizens don’t know about what is really being done to actually address crime,work on critical infrastructure,align the community for a common good, and many other areas. No it’s just always payback and posturing. The country as a whole suffers the same illness.No wonder things are a mess. It’s party agenda and loyalty first and foremost, not public improvements. I doubt if the average citizen cares about the politics over the known needs being met. Hot heads in the last Council replaced by new hot heads is more ruination.
Clearly the obvious solution is to STOP giving either party a majority by electing three or four Moderate Independents in 2023.
Who’s in?
Oh, nice. The alt-right majority led by tiny little scared mouse Mikey Coffman have shown their colors once again. They are terrified of anyone with any objectivity having a say (or even a good look) at what they do.
It’s called public service, Mikey and crew. Look it up. You were elected to serve the public, not the other way around.
Tawny, what we don’t know if this obfuscation behavior is directed by council, as you seem to think or by city lawyers overseeing these meetings. It has been clear when City Attorney Dan Brotzman, has been pressed for openness in these meeting he shows his nervousness how to answer. Now city attorney, Dave Lathers, is refusing for whatever reason again to release public information. Lawyers operate under a presumption of good faith, and these appearances and actions seem in conflict. So Tawny, is this the councils doings?