10e
26-89762
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Charter Review - Update and Direction on Potential Charter Amendments Pertaining to Council Districts, Directly Elected Mayor, Council Compensation, Civil Service System, Elected vs. Appointed City Clerk and City Treasurer, and Miscellaneous Matters
1. Motion to Note and File, and Provide Direction to Staff
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 24, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report provides an update on the work of the Charter Review Committee (“Committee”) following the Council’s November 4, 2025, discussion of potential Charter amendments. At that time, the Council did not direct staff to place any measures on the June 2026 ballot, leaving November 2026 or March 2028 as the next opportunities for voter consideration. The Committee generally recommends maintaining the City’s current governance structure—five at-large councilmembers with a rotating mayor— while proposing targeted amendments in other areas. These include requiring periodic review of council compensation, allowing certain administrative updates (e.g., meeting locations and outdated language), and considering additional reforms related to civil service and governance practices.
The Committee spent a significant amount of time on proposed Civil Service amendments. The Committee recommends clarifying hiring practices through a revised “Rule of Three,” allowing limited flexibility in probationary periods (while maintaining a 12-month cap for sworn personnel), and streamlining promotional reallocations for specialized positions. The Committee also reviewed the City Manager’s proposal to transition Department Heads to at-will status and remove Council approval of their hiring and dismissal, but ultimately recommended no changes in these areas while supporting the addition of a non-interference clause to reinforce the council–manager form of government.
Finally, this Report outlines ongoing and future considerations, including potential changes related to the City Clerk and Treasurer (which is still an ongoing discussion for the Committee), exploration of an independent audit committee, and additional Charter 10e2
26-89762
6 7
0 6
clean-up items. It also highlights timing and cost implications for placing amendments on future ballots, noting that Civil Service changes must appear on a statewide general election ballot.
RECOMMENDATION
1. With respect to the Committee’s recommendations pertaining to the Civil Service system, staff concurs with the Committee’s recommendations pertaining to the Rule of Three, Length of Probationary Period, and Position Reallocations. Staff are still engaged in the meet-and-confer process with one of the associations with respect to some of these provisions.
2. With respect to the Council’s and City Manager’s roles pertaining to the City’s administrative functions, staff agree with the Committee’s recommendation to propose to the voters a provision prohibiting councilmember interference in the administrative process.
3. Notwithstanding the Committee’s recommendation, the City Manager recommends that the Council submit to the voters a proposed Charter amendment that will remove Department Heads from Civil Service for Department Heads hired after the effectiveness of the Charter amendment and give the City Manager sole authority over the hiring and termination of department heads.
4. Staff concur with the Committee’s recommendations regarding location of Council meetings, obsolete job titles and positions, and cleanup language to the provision related to the holding of compensated City office or City employment after Council service.
5. Staff have no recommendations pertaining to Council districts, an expanded City Council, a directly elected mayor, and Council compensation.
6. Staff have no recommendation regarding timing of placing matters on the ballot, other than to note that the California Elections Code requires amendments pertaining to the Civil Service system be held at a statewide general election.
7. Staff seek further direction on the Committee’s remaining scope of work.
ANALYSIS
On November 4, 2025, the Council received a status update on the activities of the Committee regarding consideration of Charter amendments relating to Council districts, directly elected Mayor, Council compensation matters and some miscellaneous matters. (Exhibit 1). The Council provided no direction on placing any Charter amendments on the ballot for the June 2, 2026, general municipal election. The next elections in which the Council may place Charter amendments on the ballot are the November 2026 statewide general election or the March 2028 general municipal election that is consolidated with the statewide primary election. Cost and timing considerations are discussed further below in this report.
A full description of the Committee’s discussions and recommendations pertaining to Council districts, a directly elected Mayor, and Council compensation, as well as the pros and cons of Charter amendments on these issues, is provided in the November 4, 2025, staff report. For summary purposes, the Committee’s recommendations are set 10e3
26-89762
6 7
0 6
forth below.
Council Districts and Directly Elected Mayor - The Committee recommends no changes to the current structure of five councilmembers elected at-large with a rotating mayoral appointment. In the event the Council is inclined to pursue Council districts and a directly elected mayor, the Committee has no recommendation on the size of the Council or the role and duties of a directly elected mayor.
Council Compensation - The Committee recommends a Charter amendment that requires the Council to determine within a year following each general municipal election and at least once every two years whether to adjust Council salaries in accordance with the Government Code. The amendment would provide as follows:
“Article IV Officers and Employees Generally
§ 3 Compensation.
(1) Compensation and increase in compensation of council members.
Compensation for council members is hereby set, and from time to time shall be changed, in accordance with the schedule and procedure for adjustment applicable to the City of Glendale set forth in the provisions of the Government Code relating to salaries of council members in general law cities. No later than one year following each general municipal election, and no less frequently than once every two years, the council shall determine at a public meeting whether and the extent to which compensation for council members shall be changed in accordance with the Government Code. Any such determination shall be supported with written findings setting forth the basis for the decision, including any reasons for maintaining the current compensation. The compensation of council members may also be increased during the terms of their respective offices by vote of the electors.”
Miscellaneous Charter Amendments – The Committee recommends miscellaneous Charter changes to permit special meetings of the Council to occur outside the Council Chambers, eliminate obsolete job title references, and clarify language pertaining to the holding of other compensated City office or employment while on Council and during the two-year period after Council service.
Council Discussion and Direction from November 4, 2025
Council Districts and Directly Elected Mayor
Two Councilmembers (Gharpetian, Najarian) expressed a desire to maintain the current structure and not put forth a Charter amendment to transition to districts and a directly 10e4
26-89762
6 7
0 6
elected mayor, while three Councilmembers (Asatryan, Brotman, and Kassakhian) needed more time to assess whether to put the issue before the voters (while expressing general support for districts conceptually).
Council compensation
Two Councilmembers (Najarian, Gharpetian) expressed general agreement with the Committee’s recommendation. Three Councilmembers (Asatryan, Brotman, Kassakhian) expressed varying levels of interest in modifying the charter to establish a new formula for setting compensation. There was not a consensus on a specific criterion or approach, but interest was expressed for area median income (80% AMI for councilmembers with 100% AMI for the Mayor) or the compensation committee model.
For reference purposes, set forth in Exhibit 2 is a table previously provided to Council of the different approaches and formulas used by other charter cities for setting Council salaries.
Miscellaneous Amendments
The Council expressed general support for the miscellaneous items, although Councilmember Kassakhian expressed qualms about allowing action items (even at a special meeting) from taking place outside of Council Chambers other than in the case of emergency or unavailability of the Chambers.
Discussion of Civil Service Amendments
Since the November 4, 2025, Council meeting, the Committee engaged in an extensive discussion regarding potential amendments to the Charter as it pertains to the Civil Service System.
Proposed amendments to the Charter’s Civil Service provisions that affect the terms or conditions of employment of employees represented by the City’s bargaining unit trigger the “meet-and-confer” process with the City’s recognized employee bargaining units.
The City has engaged in this process during the discussions with the Committee and the summaries below indicate where there is agreement and where additional discussions may be required.
The Committee recommends three revisions to the City Charter pertaining to the Civil Service regarding the Rule of Three, Length of Probationary Periods, and Promotional Reallocations.
Rule of Three - The Committee recommends Charter language to clarify how candidates are ranked and selected from eligible lists. Currently, the Charter allows the Civil Service Commission (Commission) to establish rules for eligibility lists provided that the hiring manager may appoint only from among the three highest ranked candidates. The proposed revision would allow appointments to be made from candidates within the Rule of Three Whole Score system. Under the Rule of Three 10e5
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Whole Scores, candidates are ranked based on their examination scores, and the appointing authority may select from among candidates who fall within the top three distinct score levels (or “whole scores”), rather than being restricted to only the top three ranked individuals. For example, if candidates receive scores of 99, 98.6, 98.4 98.2, 95, and 93, the “three whole scores” would be 99, 98, and 95. All five candidates who achieved those scores would be eligible for selection. This approach allows hiring managers some flexibility while preserving the integrity of a merit-based ranking system.
Rule of Three - Proposed Language
“(6) “For the appointment of any person from among those one of the three persons standing within the three highest whole scores on the appropriate eligible list, except when competition has been suspended as provided in this article; provided that the appointing agency may appoint a person from an eligible list containing less than three names; and provided further that any person whose name has been certified three times without appointment shall have his name dropped to the end of said list. For the purposes of this section, a "whole score" shall mean a total examination score, after the application of any veterans’ preference, and all persons receiving the same whole score shall be deemed to occupy the same rank upon the eligible list.”
The City’s recognized bargaining groups have all expressed agreement with the proposed three whole scores language.
Length of Probationary Period - The Commission established rules for probationary periods but, under the Charter, probationary periods may not exceed twelve months. Generally, the Civil Service Rules provide for 12-month probationary periods for managers/supervisors and sworn personnel, and 6-month probationary periods for non-managers. Occasionally, there is a need for a supervisor or department head to extend probation beyond the 12-month period to determine whether deficiencies can be addressed in an extended period of time. This Charter change would grant the Commission the authority to write a rule to allow the extension of the 12-month probationary in specified circumstances.1 The bargaining groups representing sworn personnel state that a 12-month probationary period is sufficient time to assess the continued employment of a police officer or firefighter and thus requested that probation for sworn personnel be limited to 12 months without additional extensions. Staff, the Committee and the Commission all agreed with this assessment; thus, the proposed language specifies the maximum probationary period for sworn personnel is 12 months.
Length of Probationary Period – Proposed Language
“(7) Probation Period. For a period of probation not exceeding 1218 months, 1 Pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 2 of the City Charter, the City Council must review and approve proposed amendments to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations. 10e6
26-89762
6 7
0 6
except for positions for sworn personnel in which case the maximum probationary period shall not exceed 12 months, before appointments or promotions are made complete.”
Four of the City’s five recognized bargaining groups have expressed agreement with the proposed probationary period language. The International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local 18 (IBEW) has raised concerns that the draft language provides broad authority to extend probationary periods without clearly defining the circumstances under which an extension may occur. (Exhibit 2). The Civil Service Rules currently provide guidance for extending probationary periods when an employee is on an approved leave of absence. Should the Charter amendment be adopted, the Rules would need to be revised to address the rare and exceptional situations in which a probationary extension may be requested when an employee has not been on an approved leave of absence.
Promotional Reallocation Process - The Civil Service Rules define promotion as an advancement to a higher classification. The Rules also define a promotional examination as an examination that provides an equal employment opportunity to City employees who have completed at least six months of service in their current classification. Under a longstanding interpretation of the Charter, a reallocation of an existing classification (position) to a higher classification is deemed to be a “promotion,” requiring a competitive examination. Frequently, however, the proposed reallocation is intended to procure candidates with specific skills and experience within that particular department’s operations. Yet, candidates Citywide often apply and compete for what is plainly an internal promotion. While this process can be viewed as an open, transparent and a competitive-based effort at promotions, it is burdensome and can be viewed as superfluous and even a sham process. The Committee agrees with a recommendation to propose Charter language that will allow the appointment of a person with specialized knowledge and experience unique to the reallocated position, provided a vacancy does not exist:
Reallocation Process - Proposed Charter Language
“(3) In a case where a vacancy does not exist, the rules shall provide for a process for the chief examiner to authorize the appointment of a person who has attained specialized knowledge or experience unique to the reallocated position. Such authorization shall be based upon documented evidence of the employee’s demonstrated proficiency, technical competence, and familiarity with the specific functions of the reallocated position. This provision shall not be construed to permit general suspension of competition, but only to recognize exceptional or unique qualifications developed through service.”
Promotional reallocations seldom apply to public safety classifications; therefore, those two bargaining groups have not taken a formal position on the proposal and have indicated they do not oppose the proposed language. Within public safety, promotions 10e7
26-89762
6 7
0 6
resulting from reallocation of a position are rarely considered unless an eligible list has already been established. The Glendale Management Association (GMA) and the Glendale City Employees’ Association (GCEA) support the concept and have expressed no objection to the language as currently proposed.
The IBEW opposes the proposed Charter amendment, expressing concern that it may weaken merit-based hiring principles. Specifically, IBEW contends that suspending the examination process and allowing promotion following a position reallocation, without clearly defined safeguards to ensure fairness and equity, could create the potential for inconsistent application.
Department Heads in Civil Service
Under the Charter, Department Heads are part of the classified service. The Charter contains an exemption to the Civil Service process whereby the City Manager may hire persons filling offices created by ordinance (which includes many Department Head positions) and where the appointing authority determines the appointee is a person of “recognized attainments.” Other than this exemption related to hiring, Department Heads have similar rights pertaining to Civil Service, including requirements that discipline including discharge may be imposed only when cause exists and subject to due process rights including notice and hearing. Additionally, the City Manager’s decisions on the hiring and discharge of Department Heads is subject to the approval of the City Council.
Both aspects of this framework for Department Head positions are rather unique to Glendale, as cities comparable to Glendale grant the City Manager exclusive authority over the decisions relating to the hiring and dismissal of executives, although some city councils of general law and charter cities retain the authority for approval over the Police Chief position.
City Department Heads are executive-level employees responsible for the leadership, management and oversight of their respective departments. Reporting directly to the City Manager, they are responsible for, among other things: translating city council priorities and city manager direction into projects and departmental plans, developing and managing annual operating and capital budgets, and supervising and mentoring senior departmental managers.
There are important considerations for transitioning City Department Head positions from classified (Civil Service) to unclassified (at-will). The designation of Department Heads as members of the classified service is outdated, inconsistent with modern government practices and out of line with the practices of cities comparable to Glendale.
In the years since Glendale’s Civil Service system was established, the roles of Department Heads have transformed significantly. When the current system was established, the City’s workforce and budget were smaller, and compliance with regulatory requirements of federal and state law was significantly less burdensome. As the City’s work, workforce and budgets have grown significantly, so have the 10e8
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Department Heads’ roles. They oversee large numbers of employees, ensure that services are properly delivered to the public, and have responsibility over substantial public revenues.
With these expanded roles and responsibilities comes greater accountability. The City has the right to expect outstanding performance from the City’s Department Heads, something it is getting from the current Executive team. Under the Civil Service system, employees who have obtained permanent status have a property interest in continued employment and may only be disciplined or discharged for cause. This requires notice, whether for malfeasance or poor performance, and the right to an administrative appeal, which includes the right to a hearing. After an administrative hearing, an employee may then challenge any decision in court. This process can be lengthy, sometimes 1-2 years if the matter goes to court. Civil Service rules also require progressive discipline, meaning discharge can only occur after lesser discipline or remedial action has taken place to correct poor performance, absent a compelling reason such as a blatant case of misconduct. Such an extensive process for removal of a Department Head is not in the City’s interest where it must ensure that services are being delivered by departments and must adapt quickly to changed circumstances.
The City Manager is accountable to the City Council to ensure its priorities are being implemented. Having the City’s Department Heads as part of the classified service can pose challenges to the City Manager’s ability to hold them accountable for performance that does not meet the City’s expectations of outstanding performance. Having clear managerial control and rapid alignment of leadership with priorities of the City Council and City Manager is common in council-manager systems where the Manager appoints and supervises Department Heads.
It may be necessary for the City Manager to replace a Department Head where he or she determines that the Department Head is not acting in alignment with the City’s priorities, organizational goals or management philosophy. While such alignment is not necessary or appropriate in the context of Civil Service, it is a common feature of council-manager form of government with respect to Executive team governance.
It can be a challenging problem in the context of Civil Service to establish that an Executive employee is not performing at the level and in alignment with the Manager’s priorities. For example, assume a disagreement exists between the City Manager and an Executive regarding management style, operational performance or leadership abilities. If the City Manager decides a Department Head is not up to par with his or her expectations and decides to make a change, deference to that decision in the council- manager form of government should be left to the discretion of the City Manager. Yet, under Civil Service and the due process protections afforded employees with Civil Service protections, the City Manager will be given no such deference and will have the burden to prove to five Civil Service Commissioners that the Executive – who may not be what one thinks of as incompetent or a “poor performer” and has not engaged in malfeasance – is not performing at the level expected of a City Executive. In theory, this may seem simple; in practice it is not.
10e9
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Most cities in Glendale’s relevant labor market and other cities surveyed by staff have at-will Department Heads. Department Heads in Beverly Hills, Burbank, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa Monica (except City Clerk), Anaheim, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana (except Police), and Ventura are at-will, while Torrance and Inglewood are Civil Service.
Further, at-will status for Department Heads does not leave them without legal protection. When the existing Civil Service system was established, there were very few laws protecting employees from being disciplined or discharged for inappropriate or unlawful reasons. Thus, Civil Service protection for Department Heads may have made more sense to protect those employees from being treated unfairly. Now, there are effective laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, national origin, or religion, retaliation for asserting legal rights, as well as laws protecting whistleblowers who report unlawful conduct.
Staff recognize that there are important factors to consider whether to maintain Department Heads within the classified service, including limiting the day-to-day interference with the operations of the City and preventing arbitrary or retaliatory discipline and terminations. Maintaining Department Heads as part of Civil Service may limit political interference with Department Heads and their operations. There may be risks of politicization, impacts on candor from Department Heads, and overall stability in some situations. This may especially be true in communities with significant or frequent turnover on the city council or in the city manager position.
These considerations notwithstanding, it is the view of the City Manager – as the person held directly accountable to the City Council for the performance of the organization and for meeting the Council’s goals – that it is necessary to have the flexibility to change course when necessary if an assigned department head is not performing at the high level expected to move the department and organization forward. Making this change will align Glendale with similarly situated cities and further the Council’s goals of maintaining Glendale as a high-performing organization.
Application to Sitting Department Heads
California case law holds that public employment is governed by statute (legislation) and the voters of a charter city may revise their governance to apply new rules to existing employees. Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness and with an understanding that sitting Department Heads would be hired into the classified service, the City Manager proposes that any amendment be applicable to only those Department Heads hired after the election date of a proposed Charter amendment. This would allow the conversion of Department Heads positions to at-will positions on a gradual basis, as new Department Heads come onboard with the full understanding that new hires will be at-will.
Council Authority over Hiring and Discharge of Department Heads 10e10
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Another unique feature of Glendale’s Charter is that the hiring and discharge of Department Heads are subject to Council review and approval. While this approval authority can be seen as oversight of hiring critical personnel, it is also unusual in the council-manager form of government. Of the cities identified above related to the Civil Service question, only one other charter city (Anaheim) and one general law city (Beverly Hills) require Council approval for appointment of department heads.
Additionally, although Council involvement in the hiring or removal of Department Heads is limited to approval or disapproval, it is inconsistent with a principal purpose of the council-manager form of government: to make the City Manager accountable to the Council for the performance of the Executive team. In the council-manager form of government, the experienced and trained City Manager is best situated to assess the type of performer necessary to manage and direct the assigned department. The City Manager also has the experience and knowledge to assess the needs of the department and organization to determine the best fit to run a particular department and serve on the City Manager’s Executive team. Incorporating a Council approval process into the selection or discharge of a City executive requires the City Manager to take into account political considerations that may not be in the best interests of the department and organization.
For these reasons, staff recommend that any Charter amendment proposal that removes Department Head positions from the classified service be coupled with an amendment to provide the City Manager with the sole authority to appoint and dismiss Department Heads. (The appointment and dismissal of deputies and assistants of the City Attorney is also subject to Council review and approval. To the extent that a Charter amendment is advanced to provide the City Manager with sole authority to appoint and dismiss Department Heads, a consistent amendment should provide the City Attorney with sole authority to appoint and dismiss deputies and assistants.
Notably, of the cities identified above related to the Civil Service question, none require Council approval for appointment and dismissal of the City Attorney’s deputies or assistants).
Non-Interference Clause
Finally, a common feature in a council-manager form of government such as Glendale is a provision in the Charter or municipal code that limits Council interference in the administrative function of the government. The council-manager form of government as outlined in the Charter delineates between the policymaking role of the Council and the day-to-day operational role that the City Manager holds. To further implement this separation of powers, staff proposes language that expressly limits City Council interference in administrative functions of the City.
Article IX, Sec. 5. Non-Interference in administrative matters Except for the purpose of inquiry, the council and its members shall deal with the 10e11
26-89762
6 7
0 6
administrative function of the City government solely through the city manager or his or her designated assistant, and neither the council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager, either publicly or privately. Neither the council nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or their removal from, an office by the city manager or by any of their subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees, except as specifically authorized in this Charter.
In addition to being a “good governance” practice, this provision would also address concerns about political interference with Department Heads and departmental operations. In accordance with First Amendment principles, this provision would not prevent councilmembers from making inquiries or strongly expressing opinions to staff.
It applies to the bright line of councilmembers individually directing or ordering staff regarding the administrative function within the City Manager’s purview or directing or requesting the appointment or removal of City employees. See Levy v. City of Santa Monica (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1252.
Staff recommend the non-interference provision regardless of whether other provisions pertaining to Department Heads are made part of the proposed Charter Amendments.
Bargaining Groups’ Position on Department Head Provisions While the process pertaining to the Department Heads is outside the scope of representation of the bargaining units, the City sought and received their input. With the exception of the IBEW, the bargaining groups all oppose the transition of Department heads within the Civil Service. They expressed their belief that maintaining Department Heads within Civil Service will maintain their independence from political interference. In addition, the GPOA expressed its view that, if the Council is inclined to propose a Charter revision that would take the Department Head positions out of Civil Service, then it requests consideration to make an exception for the Chief of Police. This is based on the unique circumstance of maintaining independence and impartiality in the chief law enforcement officer position. (See Exhibit 3 for GPOA’s position). The IBEW concurs with the GPOA’s recommendation regarding the Police Chief.
While the associations support maintaining the current system of Department Heads in Civil Service and requiring Council approval over Department Head hires, they favor the non-interference clause. Additionally, GPOA requests that if Council approval of hiring and discharge of Department Heads is generally removed from the Charter that an exception be made for the Chief of Police.
Charter Review Committee Recommendations on Department Heads The Committee voted to recommend no change to the Charter language pertaining to Department Heads in Civil Service and the requirement for Council approval of the City Manager’s hiring and firing decisions related to Department Heads. The Committee 10e12
26-89762
6 7
0 6
voted to recommend inclusion of the non-interference provision.
The Committee’s rationales for keeping the current structure include the opinion that City Manager should be able to establish clear goals and expectations and be able to exercise accountability for those goals within the Civil Service system. Committee members felt that keeping the current structure with the inclusion of the non-interference provision will help Department Heads make good decisions in a political environment without the threat or specter of job action. Committee members also expressed support for maintaining Council approval over the hiring of Department Heads as an “advise and consent” type of oversight, as well as to ensure a comfort level from the City’s board of directors regarding the Department Heads being chosen to run City departments.
Civil Service Provisions Reviewed with No Recommended Changes The Committee considered additional Civil Service provisions and reached consensus to recommend no changes to the following:
• Eligibility list duration
• Bumping rules during layoffs
• Duration of layoff and reinstatement lists
• Placement of Department Heads within Civil Service
• Council approval authority regarding the hiring and removal of Department Heads
Civil Service Commission Review of Proposed Civil Service Amendments On March 11, 2026, the Commission considered a report concerning the proposed Charter amendments relating to the Civil Service Rules. The Commission generally supports the proposed changes, with the exception of the Rule of Three Whole Scores.
Two Commissioners recommended removing the Rule of Three from the Charter entirely and instead addressing it within the Civil Service Rules. The remaining three Commissioners supported retaining the Rule of Three Whole Scores (as recommended by the Committee) in the Charter to discourage frequent modifications to the hiring practices. However, they emphasized the need for a clearer and more detailed explanation of how this rule would be implemented. One criticism of Rule of Three Whole Scores is that there may be an overly large candidate pool who fall within the top 3 whole scores. It was noted that the Civil Service Rules could be written such that an overly large candidate pool can be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission for adjustments of a more manageable number, without changing the requirement in the Charter.
City Clerk and City Treasurer
At the direction of the Council, the Committee has taken up a review of amendments to the Charter to make the City Clerk and City Treasurer appointed positions. In conjunction with that discussion and in learning about the roles of the City Clerk and City Treasurer, the Committee is also exploring minimum qualifications for City 10e13
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Treasurer and reviewing the Charter’s provisions related to compensation of the City Clerk and City Treasurer.
At its March 5, 2026, meeting, the Committee voted to recommend that the Council not place a Charter amendment on the ballot to make the Clerk and Treasurer into appointed positions.
The Committee is still reviewing potential minimum qualification requirements for the City Treasurer position. The Committee is also considering proposing an amendment to the City Charter that would prohibit the City Clerk’s or City Treasurer’s salary from being reduced beginning 30 days before nominating papers can be filed, and through the official’s term of office. Lastly, the Committee is considering whether to propose term limits for the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions.
Other Work of the Charter Review Committee
In establishing the Committee, the Council directed that it first address the priority matters discussed in this Report but also authorized it to discuss other matters as directed by Council or as may be desired by the Committee. To date, the Committee has requested information and a discussion on one additional item – a Charter- authorized, independent audit committee. The Committee will take up discussion of that matter at an upcoming meeting, unless Council provides alternate direction. There is also additional cleanup language staff have identified, as well as cleanup of the Charter’s finance provisions to ensure consistency with generally accepted accounting principles and best practices. Staff seek direction on future work of the Committee.
Timing and Cost Issues
If the Council desires to put forth some or all the proposed Charter amendments on the ballot for voter consideration, it can place them on the ballot for the (i) 2026 statewide general election on November 3, 2026, (ii) the 2028 statewide primary (which coincides with the City public) or the 2028 statewide general election (November 2028). However, proposals to amend the Civil Service provisions in the Charter must occur at a statewide general election (e.g. November 2026, November 2028) because they appear to “alter procedural or substantive protections, rights, benefits or employment status” of local government employees. (Elections Code §1415.)
If the Council desires to place Charter measures on the November 2026 ballot, it will have to call a special election to be consolidated with the statewide general election that is run by the County. The cost to have a consolidated special election in November 2026 for ballot measures only is roughly estimated to cost the City between $525,000 and $585,000. Placing measures on the ballot during the March 2028 statewide primary election (which coincides with the City’s general municipal election) is roughly estimated to cost the City an additional $70,000 and $115,000 above the costs the City will have to bear for its general municipal election.
10e14
26-89762
6 7
0 6
Additionally, if the Council desires to place Charter amendments on the November 2026 ballot, it must do so no later than August 5, 2026. If the Council desires to consider Council districts for the November 2026 election with a district map as previously proposed, it would need to be brought back up to speed on the draft maps and review, consider and select a proposed district map (assuming the Council intends to have the voters approve the map as part of the district transition process). In that regard, the City’s election counsel advises having at least one additional community or public outreach meeting for additional input on the proposed map, given the amount of time that has lapsed since the prior public outreach on the maps in 2023-24. Staff are further advised that some additional data review of the 2023-24 maps would be necessary based on updates to citizen voting age population data and new election data (not at a significant time or expense), but that those maps remain population-balanced.
During the November 2025 Council discussion on this item, some councilmembers expressed disagreement or dissatisfaction with maps and mapping process of 2023-24.
As an alternative, if Council wants to pursue districts, it could propose a Charter amendment for districts and a directly elected mayor that approves the Charter language, but not the maps, and have the maps approved by Council resolution if the Charter amendment is approved and after conducting a new map selection process.
Conflict of Interest Form – Form 700
Councilmember Kassakhian inquired as to whether the Committee members were required to file an FPPC Form 700 and whether they should be required to file. Form 700 Conflict of Interest Forms which require disclosure of public officials’ financial interests (sources of income, real property, business entity interest etc.) Form 700s are required to be submitted by public officials, as required by statute (City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney) and for those public officials identified in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code (which applies to most boards and commissions). The City’s Conflict of Interest Code does not require the Committee to submit Form 700s. At the time of the creation of the Committee, it was not required as it was anticipated to be a temporary, ad hoc committee (although the City could have required it at the time).
Council may provide direction as appropriate. Staff note, however, that the Committee may be nearing the end of its work and members of appointed boards and commissions required to complete the Form 700 usually have the opportunity to withdraw before commencing service on the board or commission.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Charter Review Committee is comprised of 12 Glendale residents representing a broad cross-section of the community. The meetings are open to the public and are televised on GTV6.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Creation of an office of directly elected mayor, establishment of council districts, an expansion of the number of council 10e15
26-89762
6 7
0 6
seats and adjustments to Council compensation will have fiscal impacts that will be provided if Council provides direction to move forward with Charter amendments incorporating any of those components of potential Charter revisions. Staff will provide an assessment of fiscal impacts if Council directs staff to finalize and submit Charter amendment language to the Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to election procedures and eligibility requirements, and such internal procedural and eligibility 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.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Council may choose among the options and recommendations provided by staff.
2. Council may choose an alternative not identified by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Paula Adams, Chief Human Resources Officer
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Report on Update on Activities of Charter Review Committee, November 4, 2025
2. Summary Table of Council Compensation Models – Charter Cities
3. Letter from IBEW Regarding Civil Service Amendments
4. Letter from Glendale Police Officers’ Association Regarding Civil Service Amendments.