The Aurora City Council adopted a resolution Monday that declares its support for Aurora’s current council-manager form of government as a controversial campaign to usher in a “strong mayor” system gears up.

The decision came hours after a bipartisan group of current and former elected officials denounced the ballot initiative that is seeking to create a “strong mayor” form of city government, while proponents stood by the campaign.

The council voted to adopt the resolution as part of its consent agenda. A majority of councilmembers had voiced opposition to a “strong mayor” system earlier in the day at a news conference and during the council meeting.

Aurora has operated under the council-manager form of government for several decades.

A ballot initiative emerged this month that, if it makes the November ballot and were to pass, would eliminate the city manager position and give the mayor executive powers. The proposal would also reduce term limits from three consecutive four-year terms down to two. The initiative would also add an at-large council seat.

Proponents behind the “Term Limits for a Better Aurora” campaign must gather more than 12,000 signatures by June 6 to get a question on the November ballot.

Mayor Pro Tem Curtis Gardner brought the resolution forward hours after he helped lead a news conference where nearly two dozen current and former elected officials decried the ballot initiative.

At the council meeting, Gardner thanked members for supporting the resolution and again lambasted the campaign for “purporting to call themselves ‘Term Limits for a Better Aurora.'”

The resolution expresses the council’s “continued support for the city council-manager form of city governance, as currently provided for in the city charter.”

The council-manager form of government combines the “strong political leadership of elected officials with the strong managerial experience of an appointed manager or administrator,” the resolution says.

A professional city manager can serve “across election cycles fostering consistency” in city functions. The council-manager system insulates the city manager from “political interference” and is in the best interests of the city, the resolution says.

Councilmember Alison Coombs said at the council meeting that a constituent told her people gathering signatures for the ballot initiative claimed the proposal would curb corruption at city hall. She urged residents to be leery of the campaign and called it dishonest. 

The ballot initiative was met with swift opposition from critics who say “strong mayor” systems foster corruption, cronyism, nepotism and vest too much power in one person.

Councilmembers also said the campaign is misrepresenting the ballot initiative to residents as a way to reform term limits while minimizing how it would change the city’s form of government.

“This is extremely deceptive for the people of Aurora, and whoever is behind this, shame on you,” Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky said at the Monday news conference.

Proponents defended the initiative in response.

They argue that the proposal is an antidote to city bureaucracy that is disconnected to Aurora’s constituents, and that a “strong mayor” system is more accountable to the people, who, through their vote, can remove the chief executive.

“Aurora voters pick mayors and city council members, but too much power resides with a mostly unknown, unelected city manager who can appoint police and other department heads with no accountability to the voters,” the group said in a statement on Monday. “It is time to give the power back to the voters and deliver real accountability to the people of Aurora – through term limits and letting voters hold city leaders accountable at the ballot box.”