8a
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Review of Mayor Selection Policy Set Forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section
2.04.020 and Discussion of Alternate Provisions
1. Motion Directing Staff
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 10, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 26, 2024, the City Council considered two reports regarding the City’s Mayor Selection Policy (“Policy”) set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) section
2.04.020 and directed staff to prepare alternatives to the Policy for the Council’s consideration and further direction. Since then, the Council has held two mayoral selections invoking the “best interest” provision of subsection (H) of Section 2.04.020 (“Best Interest Clause”).
As directed by the Council, staff presents alternatives to modify the Policy’s seniority rule by providing a preference for councilmembers who have not served as mayor, provided they have served a minimum amount of time on Council, e.g. 1 or 2 years.
Staff also provides alternatives to the provision regarding selection during the last year of a councilmember’s term, and changes to the Best Interest Clause. One option is to eliminate the “best interest” language and replace it with specified circumstances under which the Council can select a councilmember other than as otherwise required by the Policy. Another option is to retain the Best Interest Clause, but modify it to shift its apparent focus from the councilmember purportedly being “skipped over” to the best interest being served by selecting another councilmember. Legally, as the courts have held, there is no difference, but such a change could remove the stigma associated with invocation of “best interest.”
Council may also want to consider changing the mayoral selection date to sometime in July or later after municipal elections and seating of new councilmembers. Finally, an option is available to Council to repeal or scale back the Policy and revert back to the process that simply gives preference for councilmembers who have served some time on Council prior to mayor selection.
28a
5 7
8 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation. Staff has provided alternate Code language in this Report for Council’s consideration and direction. Alternatively, the Council may also choose to repeal the Policy and revert to the previous process where the Council was only required to give preference to councilmembers who had the benefit of council experience prior to the time of selection.
ANALYSIS
Current Mayoral Selection Policy
On March 30, 2021, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5963, amending the GMC relating to the Policy for the annual selection of the mayor. For purposes relevant for this Report, GMC Section 2.04.020 provides:
Subsection (B) – Seniority Rule and Tiebreakers
The councilmember with the longest continuous service since last serving as Mayor shall be appointed mayor unless one of the exceptions apply. (Subsection (B)(1)).
Tiebreakers between councilmembers with the longest continuous service are resolved in favor of the councilmember who received the most votes in the most recent election or higher percentage of votes if the councilmembers were elected in different elections. (Subsection (B)(2)).
Subsections (C), (D) and (G) - Limitations on Appointments Subsections (C), (D) and (G) address limitations on appointments. Subsection (C) generally prohibits the appointment of a councilmember whose term would expire in the same year as the mayoral term or whose term will expire within 180 days after the date of selection may not be selected mayor. This provision is intended to prevent a councilmember from having an advantage of seeking reelection to Council while having the title of mayor. Subsection (D) limits the sitting from mayor being reappointed to the subsequent term unless all other councilmembers decline to serve.
Subsection (E) limits the appointment of a councilmember appointed to fill a vacancy on council to the mayorship unless there is no viable alternative.
Subsections (E) & (F) – Appointments When Mayorship Not Accepted or When Mayor Vacates or Is Removed
Subsection (E) provides that the councilmember in line to be appointed in accordance with the Policy is unwilling or unable to serve, the council is to select 38a
5 7
8 7
the next eligible councilmember in line of seniority and the councilmember who deferred is placed next in the seniority line.
Subsection (F) provides that the councilmember serving as mayor vacates or is removed from his or her council seat, the Council can choose any councilmember to be mayor and that councilmember will not be prejudiced in serving a scheduled term.
Subsection (H) – Best Interest Clause
The “Best Interest Clause – Subsection (H) provides that “notwithstanding the provisions of this section,” the Council has the discretion to not choose the councilmember with the longest continuous service on the Council if it finds it is in the City’s “best interest” to do so and can select the next qualified councilmember.
Subsequent Implementation and Interpretation of Section 2.04.020 Subsequent to the March 2024 discussion of the Policy, the Council has held two mayoral selections. In each case, the Council selected a councilmember who was not “next in line” under Subsection B and chose another councilmember by invoking the Best Interest Clause.
The Policy and the contours of the Best Interest Clause were also the subject of litigation. Najarian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 24STCP02101. In the litigation, the Court confirmed that selection of the mayor is a legislative and political act and that invocation of the Best Interest Clause will not be overturned by a court unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious. As a legislative act, the Court found that the city “need not make explicit findings to support its action. A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government’s policy decisions.” (citing Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assn’s. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.th 1180.) “Furthermore, the mental process principle “precludes any judicially authorized inquiry into the subjective motives or mental processes of legislators.” (citing County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 721, 726.) Applying this “extremely deferential” standard of review, the Court upheld the 2024 mayoral selection and the Council’s invocation of the Best Interest Clause finding that the councilmembers sufficiently stated reasons for making the best interest determination without a need to make any specific findings relative to the councilmember who was passed over.
March 26, 2024 Discussion & Alternate Code Language
Subsection B - Seniority Rule
During its March 2024 discussion, the Council expressed concern that the Policy’s seniority rule can prevent a councilmember who has never served as mayor from being 48a
5 7
8 7
selected during that councilmember’s first term, because he or she has less seniority than other councilmembers who have already served as mayor. In order to address this problem, the Council directed staff to present alternate language to the Policy giving a councilmember who has never served as mayor priority over councilmembers who have served as mayor, provided that the councilmember has served a certain amount of time on council. For example, the Council could decide to require that a councilmember serve at least one or two years on Council before selection to the mayorship.
Staff offers the following two alternatives for Subsection (B)(1) to address this issue:
“B. The council shall select and appoint a mayor to serve for the upcoming year in the following order of precedence:
[Alternative 1 – B(1)]
1 The councilmember with the longest, continuous
uninterrupted service on the council since last serving as mayor, and who is not serving as the mayor at the time of mayoral selection, shall be selected as mayor. The mayor shall be the most senior councilmember who has not served as mayor, or if all councilmembers have served as mayor, the councilmember who has not served as mayor for the longest period of time, provided the councilmember to be selected has served on council for at least _____ year[s].]
[Alternative 2 – (B)(1)]
1. The councilmember with the longest, continuous
uninterrupted service on the council since last serving as mayor, and who is not serving as the mayor at the time of mayoral selection, shall be selected as mayor. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the event a councilmember who has served at least ______ year(s) on the city council has never served as mayor, then that councilmember shall be selected as mayor over all councilmembers who have previously served as mayor.
2. ln the event of a tie between councilmembers with the longest continuous service since last serving as mayor, or a tie between two councilmembers who have served at least _____ year(s) on the city council but have never served as mayor, as set forth in subsection (B)(1), the councilmember who received the most votes in the councilmembers' most recent election shall be selected mayor. In the event the tie is between councilmembers who were elected during different elections, then the councilmember with the highest percentage of votes received in each councilmembers' most recent elections to the City Council shall be selected mayor.” Notwithstanding the election votes tiebreakers set forth 58a
5 7
8 7
in this subsection (B)(2), if either tiebreaker would result in a councilmember who has previously served as mayor since being elected to the council being appointed over a councilmember of equal continuous uninterrupted service who has never served as mayor since being elected to the council, then the councilmember who has not previously served as mayor shall be appointed mayor.
Subsection C – Limitation on Serving as Mayor When Council Term Will End Last Year of Mayoral Term or When Council Term Will Expire 180 Days After Mayoral Selection During the March 2024 discussion, the Council discussed whether to delete or modify Subsection (C). Deletion of Subsection (C) will present more opportunities for councilmembers to serve as mayor in their order of seniority, especially since Subsection (C) can prevent a councilmember from serving two consecutive years.
Two options are presented:
Option 1 – Delete in its Entirety
“C. A councilmember whose council term will expire in the same year that the mayor's term would also expire if said councilmember was selected mayor shall not be selected to serve as mayor. A councilmember whose council term will expire within 180 days after the date of the selection of the mayor shall not be selected mayor.”
Option 2 – Modify to Be Inapplicable to Any Councilmember Who Has Never Served As Mayor
“C. A councilmember whose council term will expire in the same year that the mayor's term or within 180 days after mayoral selection would also expire if said councilmember was selected mayor shall not be selected to serve as mayor. A councilmember whose council term will expire within 180 days after the date of the selection of the mayor shall not be selected mayor. This subsection shall not apply to a councilmember who has served at least _____year(s) on the council and has never served as mayor.”
Councilmembers also expressed concern during the prior discussion that if councilmembers are able to serve as mayor during the last year of their council term, they may choose to defer to a year that is a reelection year. Under the current GMC, a councilmember who declines to serve is placed back next in line in seniority. If the Council decides to delete Subsection (C) regarding selection in the last year of a councilmember term or reelection year, the Council could address this problem by providing that a councilmember who declines to serve will be placed back into the line of seniority unless it will place him or her to be selected in a reelection year. That language would be a revision to Subsection (E) of Section 2.04.020 as follows:
68a
5 7
8 7
“E. If athe councilmember is in line to be selected mayor in accordance with the procedures of this section but is unable or unwilling to serve as mayor at the time of selection, then the council shall select the next councilmember next in lineorder of precedence. and tThe councilmember who is unwilling or unable to be theserve as mayor shallwill be placed next in order of precedence; provided that a councilmember unwilling to serve will be not placed back in the line of seniority if such placement allows that councilmember to be selected as mayor when his or her council term will expire in the last year of the mayoral term or 180 days after mayoral selection.
Instead, that councilmember will be placed in the next place in order of precedence where his or her council term would not expire the same year as the mayoral term or within 180 days of mayoral selection.line for mayoral appointment under the procedure in subsection (B)(2).
Staff seeks direction from Council regarding whether Subsection (C) should be deleted from the Policy or modified and, if so, whether Subsection (E) should be modified. Staff notes that although Option 2 limits its application, Subsection (C) will still likely have the effect of precluding councilmembers who are otherwise eligible and next in line in the process.
Subsection H – Best Interest Clause
The Council also directed staff to present alternative language to the Best Interest Clause which could limit the circumstances when the Council may choose a qualified councilmember who is not next in line. Based upon a review of other cities’ ordinances, staff presents the following alternate language, which removes the phrase “best interest” and uses specific circumstances:
“H. Notwithstanding theany other provisions of this section to the contrary, in the event the council determines in its discretion that it is in the best interest of the may choose not to appoint the councilmember in line to be appointed in accordance with subsection (B) in accordance with the procedure of this section, including, but not limited to, because of reason of mental or physical incapacity significantly limiting the ability to perform mayoral duties or a criminal conviction, then the council may appoint the next qualified councilmember pursuant to subsection (B)(2) to serve as mayor. if it reasonably determines that the councilmember:
(1) Has unexcused absences for more than four (4) regular council meetings within the twelve (12) month period prior to the date of mayoral selection;
78a
5 7
8 7
(2) Is unable to serve as mayor because of physical incapacity due to a medical condition that will severely limit or impair the ability of the councilmember to perform the duties of mayor;
(3) Is unable to serve as mayor, because of mental incapacity (such as by reason of stroke, serious mental illness, or serious nervous breakdown) that will severely limit or impair the ability of the councilmember to perform the duties of mayor;
(4) Is convicted of a felony or any crime of violence or moral turpitude; or
(5) Is arrested or charged with a felony or any crime of violence or moral turpitude; provided that if and when the prosecution of such felony or crime of violence or moral turpitude is dismissed or otherwise terminated without a plea agreement or conviction, then the councilmember shall thereafter be placed in the highest priority for the next mayoral selection pursuant to subsection (B).
In the event the council chooses not to select a councilmember as mayor for one of the reasons stated in this subsection, it shall appoint the next qualified member.”
The Council can choose a combination or all of these options, or propose additional criteria to the list. Alternatively, if it would like to maintain the Best Interest Clause in some form, the Council could modify the language to include other concerns such as fairness, modifying the language to focus on the interests served by appointing a particular councilmember rather than the current language which appears to give a negative connotation of the councilmember next in line that is being passed over, as well as any other criteria the Council deems appropriate.
Other Considerations
Change of the Mayoral Selection Date
As required by the GMC, the mayor is currently selected at the regular meeting occurring after the first Monday in April. Mayor selection has historically occurred in April although it previously occurred later in April when the City’s general municipal elections were held in April of odd-numbered years. The City’s general municipal elections now coincide with the dates of the statewide primary elections, which are in March in presidential election years (2024, 2028, etc.) and June in non-presidential election years (2026, 2030 etc.). Thus, mayor selection is occurring prior to the seating of new councilmembers. Even after the March elections, mayor selection is occurring before new councilmembers are sworn in due to the length of time it takes Los Angeles County to certify election results.
88a
5 7
8 7
During a discussion of the Policy at the April 1, 2025 meeting, the Council inquired about changing the mayor selection date. To ensure mayor selection occurs after the City holds its municipal elections, the Council may want to consider mid-to-late July, or later. If the Council makes a change, it would have to decide when that change would take effect and its applicability to the current mayor’s term.
Consideration of Repeal of Policy
The Policy was adopted for the purpose of providing a level of certainty in the mayor selection process. As noted, in the last two years, the Council has utilized the Best Interest Clause to select a councilmember who was not next in line under the Seniority Rule. Suffice it to say this has caused consternation from segments of the community, especially from supporters of those councilmembers who were next in line under the current seniority rule. Although the Council may make changes to eliminate or soften the impact of the seniority rule, it is difficult to predict that a revised rule will in all circumstances result in decisions that will be deemed fair. For example, by granting preference to ensure councilmembers who have not previously served as mayor can do so during their first term, it is possible more seasoned councilmembers could get skipped over if new councilmembers come aboard every election cycle. One option for consideration is to repeal the Policy and revert to the prior ordinance which simply gave preference to councilmembers who had some experience on council prior to mayor selection. Returning to the prior policy would permit Council to choose a mayor based on who the Council feels is the appropriate choice for that particular year, without the level of angst that has occurred when it is perceived a councilmember is being “skipped over.”
Staff requests City Council direction on the above options presented, as well as on any other provisions of the currently existing ordinance which Council would like to modify.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to the process for selecting the mayor, and such internal procedural changes have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
98a
5 7
8 7
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation and seeks direction from the City Council.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Dorine Martirosian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. G.M.C. Section 2.04.020