Frustrations among the minority members on Aurora’s City Council have mounted in recent weeks as they claim the council majority has been stifling their voices. The minority says the majority is inappropriately using a procedural rule that can end debate on agenda items.
Now, Mayor Mike Coffman is planning to bring forward a proposal that would repeal councilmembers’ ability to use the “call for the question” motion, the specific rule in question. He plans to introduce a resolution at council’s Jan. 23 study session and bring the rule change up for a vote at the Jan. 30 council meeting.
Progressive minority councilmembers, including Councilmember Juan Marcano, have been sharply critical of the conservative majority for increasingly relying on “call for the question” to end discussion, particularly on topics where there is dissent among councilmembers.
The motion is laid out within the procedural rules used by council to run meetings, but until the past year it was rarely used, lawmakers said.
Reaching the tipping point
Here’s how the rule works: Once a councilmember announces a “call for the question,” debate about the current agenda item halts. Councilmembers next vote on whether to end debate by passing or failing the “call for the question” motion. If the motion passes, they no longer discuss the topic and immediately hold a vote on the agenda item itself, which could mean passing a bill.
The “tipping point” for Coffman, he said, was during the final passage of a proposal to repeal the city’s occupational privilege tax. The tax repeal has been discussed at multiple meetings and quickly became controversial among lawmakers.
During its final passage this month, both Coffman and Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky made remarks about the bill as its co-sponsors.
“Then she moved to call for the question before anybody on the other side had the opportunity to speak,” Coffman said.
Jurinsky declined an interview and said she plans to address Coffman’s proposal during council meetings.
The decision to pursue a full repeal of the rule was not an easy one, Coffman said. The motion can be used to stop councilmembers from repeating “the same things again and again and again” during discussions but has also been used when members want to end debate or avoid opposition, he said.
“It’s just gone too far,” Coffman said, calling recent use of the council rule disrespectful.
Coffman also worries the rule can hinder public participation. Although agenda items may have been heavily discussed during past study sessions, he said, residents might not have seen those meetings and could be hearing the discussion for the first time until a “call for the question” motion ends debate.
Coffman said he believes a full repeal is the right thing to do, but is open to considering alternative ideas. A councilmember might suggest requiring a super majority to approve a “call for the question” motion rather than a full repeal, he said.
Whatever the final outcome, he predicted council won’t continue allowing a simple majority to end debates with “call for the question” motions.
“I think those days are over,” he said.
'Silencing dissent'
Councilmember Alison Coombs said Jurinsky is a frequent user of the rule. Her impression has been that the majority passes a “call for the question” motion when they already know how a vote on the issue being discussed will turn out and don’t feel dissenting views matter, calling it disrespectful.
“It’s just silencing dissent. It’s preventing perspectives from being heard that are perspectives that our residents have,” Coombs said, adding councilmembers don’t raise points “just because” and are often sharing constituents’ views.
There does not seem to be a particular topic that prompts “call for the question” motions, Coombs said. The more common reasons appear to be impatience with debates that have already taken place.
Coombs “almost never witnessed the prior council” use the rule, she said.
She said she was surprised to see Coffman propose repealing call for the question, “because it really started with him.” Coffman began using “call for the question” in instances when he believed an issue had been fully discussed and councilmembers were repeating one another, she said.
She’s not sure a total repeal is the right solution, either.
“I think that there may be very narrow sets of circumstances where it may be merited,” she said.
On occasions where debate is “extremely lengthy,” meetings can become inaccessible for the public because of their length, she said. A “call for the question” motion can also be used to end filibusters. That’s been a problem in past meetings, Coombs said, particularly when study sessions immediately preceded regular council meetings. The council no longer holds study sessions and council meetings on the same night.
Coombs planned to research when council rules allow for the chair to opt against recognizing a motion, and if that includes a “call for the question” motion. The chair does have the power when a councilmember requests a “point of order,” she said. That could be one alternative to a full repeal, she said.
Coffman does not have the ability to reject a “call for the question” motion, he said.
Coombs was not sure if Coffman had the votes to pass his proposal. The mayor was not either — and was skeptical that the council majority would repeal the rule.
“It will be interesting to see,” she said.
