Aurora City Council Motion to Stay Virtual Fails on Tie Vote, Meeting Format Remains Virtual (October 4, 2025)
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Aurora City Council Meeting - October 4, 2025
The Aurora City Council convened on October 4, 2025, to discuss whether to return to in-person meetings or continue virtual meetings. The discussion focused on recurring disruptions during public comment and alleged abuse of meeting procedures. A motion to continue virtual meetings failed on a tie vote, meaning the council will keep its current virtual format for the next regular meeting.
Discussion Items
- Councilmember Bergen expressed concern about repeated disruptions and the negative impact on other residents and staff, noting that some individuals sign up for every agenda item and repeat the same points, causing meetings to run excessively long.
- Councilmember Hancock echoed this, stating that coordinated efforts to hijack agenda items are "just theater" and prolong meetings unnecessarily.
- Councilmember Coombs strongly objected to calling constituents "victimhood professionals" and reminded the council that last week some members of the public called in without disruption.
- Councilmember Jurinsky made a motion to stay virtual, which was seconded by Councilmember Cass, and argued that disruptions have made it difficult to trust that in-person meetings will proceed respectfully.
- Councilmember Murrill urged a no vote on the motion, asserting that the council has an obligation to meet in person whenever possible, despite occasional friction, and that virtual meetings should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
- The mayor noted that the council previously went virtual due to disruptive behavior and that the related legal case is still ongoing, but the council could choose to change its approach.
Key Outcomes
- The motion to continue virtual meetings failed on a tie vote.
- Based on the tie, the council will remain virtual for the next regular meeting.
- The council then adjourned the regular meeting and planned to reconvene at 10:05 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Councilmember Bergen. Councilmember Earth the Council Member Bergen, earthly council member Bergen. Councilmember Coombs. Council Member Gardner. Councilmember Hancock. Councilmember Drinsky. Councilmember Cass. Councilmember Lawson. Councilmember Medina. Council Member Murrill. So I have to call the role again for second to come out of exact. Okay. Yeah, you need a vote to come out of it. Okay, okay. Uh Coom's made the motion. We need a second to come out of exactly uh second by Council Handgard. Well, I guess we need to do this in exact, so we just need a vote to come out. Okay, is there any objection? Uh to uh joining uh the executive session uh saying none, we now adjourned. Did we have a second? We didn't do we have to call the role again because we're still in the meeting. We this is a whole separate meeting, which we went into exact, now we're coming out. That was a little bit different. Okay, then we called the recording started and everything else. So that's what we need a second. That's what we're cut up to next year. Yeah, I don't want to go back in person if it's just for certain people. To harass us. Uh in the executive session. The um number seven seven A discussing discussion and um possible action regarding future in person or virtual uh meetings and changes to council rules. Um my suggestion is we go uh back to virtual meetings in the next for the next regular meeting. Back in person. Back in person. You said virtual. Oh, I didn't cautious arguing for virtual meetings. Okay, uh discussion here. Uh Council Member Burger. If we go back in person, this has been the problem for over an entire year. Is that if there are major dis I mean who cares? I have no problem with whatever anybody wants to say to us, right? First amendment rights. They can somebody wants to yell at us, no problem. But when there are disruptions, and we've had disruptions to the point that other residents don't want to come to our meetings anymore for fear of retaliation or whatever. So if we're gonna go back in person, are you going to be able to control it so that if there's a disruption, we we have to adjourn the meeting and go virtual because I'm not gonna I'll walk out. I mean, I it it's not it's not fair to have our meetings disrupted over and over and over. Again, if someone wants to address us for their their time, no problem, and say whatever they want to say. But I I just think it's it's a disservice to the public when we have such disruptions that it it precludes other people from wanting to even be there. No, it's a it's a challenge, so uh, but we do always have the option. Um how many votes is necessary to go into virtual? Just the majority.
openpublica.com