If the Aurora City Council were an elementary school student council, the gang would have been sent to detention or into group therapy long ago.
But this is one of Colorado’s most powerful governing bodies, responsible for the lives, safety and trust of nearly 400,000 residents and thousands of businesses. And yet the council continues to act more like a bickering juvenile student council or a movie maybe called Mean Girls and Boys than the elected stewards of this complex, diverse city.
City lawmakers at Monday night’s meeting set out to finalize a long-delayed decision on returning to in-person public meetings. The confab devolved once again into personal attacks, political posturing and open contempt among lawmakers. Accusations of lying, petty procedural games, and open hostility filled the livestream broadcast while residents waited for their representatives to discuss real issues.
Dysfunction as performance art has become the lamentable hallmark of this council.
The Aurora City Council has every right, and every obligation, to debate fiercely over policy, direction, and principle. A vibrant democracy demands it. But that is not what is happening here.
Instead, Aurora’s elected officials are using the machinery of governance not to advance the city’s interests, but to silence dissent and punish one another.
Councilmember Crystal Murillo’s warning Monday night should not be ignored. She said virtual meetings have been “used as a political tool to silence folks who don’t agree with the majority.” That is an alarming statement, and sadly, not an isolated complaint.
Over the past year, Aurora’s council has seen a pattern of using technical maneuvers to prevent the minority of Democrat lawmakers from speaking to some of the most critical issues the city has ever faced. The stunts, most notably the dreaded “call for the question,” are used to abruptly cut off debate when minority members raise uncomfortable or opposing viewpoints.
These parliamentary tactics are being used not to maintain order, but to suppress discussion. When lawmakers wield procedure as a weapon to muzzle disagreement, they betray both the spirit and the purpose of representative government. They betray their constituents.
Aurora’s Republican council majority may have the votes to win on policy, but they have no right to choke off debate. The point of a city council, and democracy itself, is to hear each other out, to test ideas publicly, and to make decisions in the open, grounded in data and reason, not power plays and partisan muscle.
What unfolded Monday night was a shameful display of just the opposite.
After Mayor Mike Coffman’s motion to return to in-person meetings on Nov. 3, discussion quickly spiraled into name-calling and procedural ambushes. Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky and Councilmember Murillo traded accusations over alleged threats and loyalty.
When Councilmember Alison Coombs attempted to speak, Jurinsky demanded Coffman “call the question,” cutting Coombs off entirely. It’s the parliamentary equivalent of slamming the door in her face.
The irony was lost on no one. Coombs had just been criticizing the very practice of silencing minority voices through procedural trickery when the majority used that same maneuver to shut her down.
This is not leadership. It’s bullying wrapped in Robert’s Rules of Order.
And it’s eroding Aurora’s already fragile public trust.
The council’s behavior would be troubling enough in a vacuum, but it comes amid a painful and pivotal chapter for Aurora. The city remains under a state-imposed consent decree following the 2019 death of Elijah McClain. A spate of more recent incidents where Aurora police shot and killed unarmed Black men has reignited public concern about accountability, and transparency. Residents have the right and the need to see their leaders model the very openness and accountability they demand from others.
Instead, they see dysfunctional slap-fests. They see politicians weaponizing process to avoid discussion of difficult topics like policing, public safety, and equity. They see adults who should know better talking over each other and calling each other liars in public sessions. And they see decisions being made for political expedience, not civic necessity.
This must stop.
Every member of the Aurora City Council, regardless of party, ideology, or temperament, must remember one thing: You are a public body. Your most sacred responsibility is not to win, not to humiliate, and not to silence, but to deliberate openly, honestly, and respectfully in front of the people who put you on the dais.
That means allowing dissenting voices to be heard. That means engaging in discussion even when it’s uncomfortable. That means basing decisions on verifiable facts, data, and sound policy analysis rather than rumor, ego or vengeance.
The “call for the question” should be a last resort, used almost never to end filibuster, not as a reflexive gag order to shut up critics. Silencing elected colleagues does not make debate go away. It only makes oppressors look afraid of it.
Aurora is a big city, facing many obstacles and challenges, and the meeting loads of the city council reflect all that with voluminous meeting agendas. If it’s too much for bi-monthly gatherings, meet more frequently and for shorter periods. If it’s just all too much and an individual council member can’t suck it up and handle the load, step down. Too much is at stake in Aurora to bypass the very form of government that benefits and protects everyone who lives here.
Residents in Aurora deserve a dais that reflects the dignity of the office, not the dysfunction of a donnybrook.
On Nov. 17, the council will finally return to in-person meetings. Let that return mark more than a change of venue. Let it mark a change of tone, of priorities, of respect.
If this complaint had come from anyone other than the biased Aurora Sentinel, it would have been better received. What you failed to mention was the lawyers and supporters of a convicted felon who was shot while resisting arrest for attempted murder have captured council and forced extreme measures. One side of council has worked to continue the city’s business while the extreme left has encouraged this outrageous behavior. We will see at the next meeting whether the actions of the left have made the situation better or worse. As for the Sentinel, perhaps you protest too much.
I wasn’t going to respond but concerned wants to vilify a man who was denied his due process a blind man supposedly identified him but was not conclusive that the supposed felon shot him, warrant was out of Denver and cops tailed the guy for two days they knew he wasn’t dangerous. The extreme left is not holding the meeting hostages the protest happened because our city government was not listening to it constituents..Jan 6th anyone ? Dave Perry is right we need our council to govern regardless if someone stole their lunch money on the playground. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again ..think about that before you vote.
This editorial from the Sentinel Blog has twisted all the real facts around while also lying by excluding most relevant historical situations. Like it has for many years.
The three socialists, Coombs, the Child and Medina continue to create verbal chaos to undermine the working of Council’s real business while attempting to get Aurora radicals a sounding board. The “call for the question” needs to be used more often to halt the never ending platitudes of the socialists that bring up the same information time and time again.
The socialist Sentinel Blog only gives them more hope for the future by these type of editorials that constantly work against the betterment of Aurora. I only hope that the citizens of Aurora see this publication is not working to help our community.
Want less bickering on city council, in the General Assembly and in Congress? Reserve half of your votes for unaffiliated Independent candidates like Watson Gomes, Stephen Elkins or Reid Hettich.
The duopoly of blue and red is the root cause of the dysfunction at all levels of American government. A candidate’s qualifications and past performance does not matter– just demonizing the other side with hateful rhetoric.
The duopoly exists to maximize the vote-buying power for wealthy donors and union bosses. It also provides two large, cleanly defined markets for the news media and the political industrial complex. Five equal parties would complicate the messaging and deflate the vote-buying power held by the donors. We can’t have that! Yes, sarcasm.
There is absolutely no natural, scientific basis to having two and only two major parties other than the economic benefits of limiting choices to two. The fact that 49% remain unaffiliated does not matter provided that the duopoly fully controls the competition and political news cycle. BTW how often do you hear anyone talk about the 49%? The pundits would have you believe that the color Purple doesn’t even exist.
As mere voters, we don’t matter– and even less so when we affiliate with red or blue. If you are a member of blue or red, your vote is assumed safe. And you willingly accept your party bending the truth with your party’s partisan slant because of why exactly? Because this makes you smarter? How exactly?
What’s the reward for being a putz? So you feel better about yourself– your identity and sense of self worth? Is this healthy?
How’s identifying with either party impacting your relationships with your extended family? Are you really ready to go to War with them? Many party leaders are.
The duopoly is ready for the dumpster. Aurora’s best future includes a strong dose of purple and the civility it would bring.
The City Council parliamentary procedure is not governed by Robert’s Rules of Order but by O. Garfield Jones Parliamentary Procedure at a glance. The fix to the abuse of the Call for the Question Motion, and it has been abused, is to amend the City Council Rules of Order and Procedure. Since Council, as currently constituted, is unlikely to do so may I suggest a citizen initiative. If the issue is important to the Sentinel, and if important to our citizens this should be doable.
The new rule on calling for the question should be that the motion cannot be made until each Council Member has had at least one opportunity to address the matter then before Council. After that the motion can be used to prevent multiple turns addressing a matter which would also stop the back-and-forth rancor which often occurs with one Council Member refuting and insulting the position of another who has just spoken and then a tit for tat right back. That behavior does need to be checked.
Eloquent and so true. Aurora is no longer a rural suburb, it has 400,000 people! It qualifies as a big city. Council members need to step up or, as you say, step down. There’s too much at stake for immature “mean girls/boys” behavior.
If civility is the issue, one councilperson is at the heart of the disrespect. Danielle Jurinski has stripped the city of a means to raise money without offering an alternative – the very definition of feckless! She has defamed employees of the city publicly, and she used vile language to silence other conservatives, who disagreed with her over the tax that was eventually dropped, digging a $6MM hole in the budget without any suggestion of replacement. She lied about a gang taking over a whole apartment complex to draw attention to herself and ingratiate herself with our would-be King Donald. That is not leadership – that is acting like a spoiled brat.
“She lied about a gang taking over a whole apartment complex”
LOL, you doofs are still pretending like that wasn’t the case.
“The point of a city council, and democracy itself, is to hear each other out, to test ideas publicly, and to make decisions in the open, grounded in data and reason, not power plays and partisan muscle.”
Except you don’t actually believe that, Dave, your side only adopts this “democracy means debate!” pose when you think you can’t ram your own partisan agenda down everyone’s throat.
Note that this wasn’t even an issue until the Emerge/DSA claque took the majority back in 2017, and proceeded to turn what had been, to that point, the staid, relatively nonpartisan business of running Aurora into an exercise in hyper-partisan activism.