EDITORIAL: Secret to success at Aurora city hall is a public meeting about city manager flap

Government secrets are the worst kind, and the current mayhem surrounding Aurora City Manager Skip Noe is perfect proof of that.

Noe finds himself at the center of a city council controversy that has spilled far outside of city hall. In January, five city council members, all women, abruptly called for a vote of no confidence in Noe’s performance. For five years, Noe, appointed by the city council and responsible for operating the city government and crafting its direction, received high marks and consistent raises from the same city council.

The five critical city councilors are all women, and they have been vague about just what it is that they dislike so much about Noe. Some have said, especially northwest Aurora Councilwoman Sally Mounier, that Noe has mistreated her because she’s a woman. Two of the other five have somewhat echoed that, and two others have hedged on the charge, which is serious. At the same time, the other six city lawmakers have said they’ve never seen Noe act unprofessional, and some of his staff have echoed that.

The crux of this problem is the city’s proclivity for keeping issues affecting top-level city officials matters of secrecy. It’s not a law. City council imposed rules on itself that prohibits the public discussion of personnel issues of council appointees, such as city manager, city attorney and chief judge. That’s unneeded, bad public policy that leads to problems just like this one.

We have no doubt that all city council members and Noe discussing the allegations in public would end this matter, which has now become a distraction for much of city hall. Despite what city lawmakers don’t want to say publicly, or are convinced that they can’t, we do know this from sources who don’t want to be identified: In December, Noe got an 8-3 thumbs up vote in a closed meeting for his annual evaluation, and he got a raise. We know that four people say that Noe’s performance and behavior was not discussed in executive session after his annual review and before the Jan. 26 vote of no confidence. We know that the five critical council members have at least bent and actually broken the deleterious executive session rules regarding appointees. We know that the most recent meeting, intended to allow a mediator to help the city council and Noe sort this out and move ahead, resulted in Noe and the paid mediator never being invited in for any discussion.

The city council is stymied and dysfunctional on this matter since the other six city councilors won’t talk in public because of the ineffectual city council rules.

This is easy. City lawmakers should at least suspend those rules, and preferably should change them to encourage open, public and frank discussion of the most important official in city government. The five critical councilors must levy detailed and specific complaints, which Noe must answer. If the city and residents have been harmed by Noe’s performance, we and the public want to know about it, and Noe must be afforded the chance to defend himself. And even without a change in council rules, Noe is free to speak publicly about any and all of these allegations, and we encourage him to do so. We appreciate the sticky politics of this mess, but the potential for damage all the way around are far greater by continuing down a path of secrecy masquerading as privacy.

Time for the entire city council to come clean on all of this, and either agree to replace Noe, or settle this and allow him to get back to work.