A district judge ruled against opponents of an Aurora ballot measure that seeks to make the mayor accountable for the city’s operation, instead of the faceless bureaucrat it has now answerable only to the ten council members.
Opponents and their friends in the media have taken to calling it a “Strong Mayor” system of government.
Probably because it sounds more ominous than what it does — switch the city’s system of government from a council-manager system to a mayor-council system.
It sounds wonkish but it’s simple. Under the current council-manager system, if voters don’t like how the city operates, they have to get rid of city council and vote in a new council that promises to fire the city manager, and then hope they keep their campaign promise.
Under the proposed mayor-council system, which most large cities favor, the mayor is charged with the city’s daily operation, and if voters don’t like how he’s doing the job, they vote him out.
Easy, peasy.
The current Mayor Mike Coffman, who indeed has been a strong, hands-on mayor determined to fix problems rather than just talk and study it for years, supports the “strong mayor” system that would not take effect until after a new mayor is elected.
The socialist Democrat challenging Coffman in the upcoming election, Juan Marcano, opposes accountability. He apparently just wants the title without having to be responsible for the work.
Arapahoe County District Court Judge Elizabeth Volz ruled against the opponent’s claims on Monday, confirming the title and summary of the measure already approved by the city covered the major components of the proposal.
Representing the city, Thomas Snyder told the court that alternative language insisted on by opponents was nearly three times as long and designed to turn off voters.
“We believe that the ballot title that was set was fair. It was brief. It gave a fair and accurate summary of the meaning and intent of the proposed measure,” he said.
“The proposed ballot language, which is very long, appears to be designed to elicit a ‘no’ vote, … has an unnecessary level of detail, does not meet the city’s standard of being brief and it should not be adopted.”
Despite their court loss on the basis of the title, opponents now plan to protest the measure and try to overturn the city clerk’s findings that the necessary work was completed with the petitions.
And if they lose that battle, opponents say they will object again in court after the election.
Completely missing in any of the opponents’ tactics, is challenging the measure on its merits and making their case with the voters of Aurora.
Because they know they will lose that battle, too.