CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 17, 2026
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.: A
FILE I.D.: CYC200
DEPT.: CITY MGR.
PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: FIRST READING — CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 26–1018 AMENDING THE
MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDER SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECOND READING AND TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 26–1018 ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 36516, as amended by Senate Bill 329 ( June 2023), compensation for city council members may be adjusted as prescribed in state law by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance. Amendments to the Montclair Municipal Code require public hearing review and approval by the City Council.
The City Council is requested to consider first reading of Ordinance No. 26–1018 amending Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to the compensation schedule for members of the Montclair City Council. A copy of proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 is attached for City Council review and consideration, subject to final review and modification by the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND: At its meeting of March 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26–3511 reaffirming the provisions and recitals of Resolution No. 22–3344, including but not limited to, City Council disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior by Councilmember Benjamin Lopez (“Lopez”, “Defendant Lopez” or “Cross– Defendant Lopez”) and re–ratifying the protection actions taken by the City Manager and, further, expanding on Resolution No. 22–3344 by directing that certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions be taken against Councilmember Lopez.
The censure action was taken after certain employees of the City (the “Plaintiffs”) reported to City management allegations of what they believed to be inappropriate actions by Councilmember Lopez. The City Manager determined there was an immediate need to request the hiring of an independent workplace investigator, followed by implementation of several workplace measures to protect City of Montclair employees from further or potential inappropriate behavior. Protective measures gained greater relevance and urgency after an independent workplace investigator presented findings that sustained the allegations made by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Lopez and the City and, on October 6, 2022, the City and Plaintiffs (“Participating Parties”) participated in mediation to resolve outstanding litigation and economic matters through a combined settlement agreement and settlement payment. Lopez, however, failed to participate in Settlement proceedings or contribute toward settlement costs. The City then pursued a cross–complaint against Lopez—the cross–complaint seeking reimbursement and indemnification from Defendant Lopez [See California Code of Civil Procedure § 428.10] for the sums paid to plaintiffs in settlement of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits against the City and to recover monies spent on the City’s defense.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 5 of 164 On December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson (“Judge Mathewson”) issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both Plaintiffs and the City of Montclair (or “Cross–Complainant Montclair” or “Cross Complainant/Defendant Montclair”) against Defendant and Cross–Defendant Lopez.
Judge Mathewson awarded each Plaintiff $350,000 in past damages and $50,000 in future damages for a total of $800,000 ($400,000 per Plaintiff) plus punitive damages to be determined when court resumed on December 12, 2025. Cross–complainant Montclair was awarded indemnity in the amount of 100 percent ($550,000 in settlement costs) plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
On December 12, 2025, Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages, or $88,000 per Plaintiff, calculating the punitive damages award as equivalent to the earnings Defendant Lopez is set to receive as a City Council Member over his two four–year terms in office. Cross–Complainant Montclair did not seek punitive damages.
On January 5, 2026, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period) and, after assessing “the demeanor of all the parties and witnesses”, considering the “testimony and credibility of all of the parties and witnesses”, and considering “all of the evidence that was received”, the court found against Defendant Lopez in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of the following respective causes of action:
1. Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(j); and
2. Unlawful violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA).
The court further found in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims for punitive damages against Defendant Lopez, and, accordingly, judgement was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Lopez in the aggregate amount of $488,000 for each Plaintiff for past and future emotional distress and punitive damages.
The court also found in favor of Cross–Complainant/Defendant Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez and, as the prevailing party, Cross– Complainant / Defendant Montclair was awarded equitable relief and should be indemnified for attorneys’ fees and costs and $550,000 in past settlement payments made to Plaintiffs. To date, the City of Montclair has spent approximately $751,000 on attorneys’ fees, costs and settlement payments, and more than $200,000 in lost productivity and dedicated staff time on the matter. Final attorneys’ fees and costs have yet to be determined.
Judge Mathewson further determined the following:
1. Said conduct by Defendant Lopez amounted to malice, oppression, and/or fraud justifying a punitive damage award.
2. “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair [Emphasis added] because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City [Emphasis added]. Lopez is also a supervisor [Emphasis added] within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t):”
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 6 of 164 ““Supervisor” means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”
3. The Court further found that “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code Section 12940(j)(3), which states:” “An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee [Emphasis added], regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”
Based on Judge Mathewson’s decision in Case Number CIVSB2133471, the Montclair City Council, in Closed Session on February 17, 2026, directed introduction and consideration of Resolution No. 26–3511—a Resolution reaffirming Resolution No. 22– 3344, including the disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior of Lopez and re–ratifying protective actions taken by the City Manager; and, further, the City Council directed that certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions against Lopez be incorporated into Resolution No. 26–3511, and be implemented.
The City Council determined that Lopez is a Supervisor, Member of the Workforce and an Employee of the City.
In determining what sanctions the City Council may impose against Lopez, the City Council took into consideration Judge Mathewson’s finding that Lopez is “liable as an employee of the City of Montclair [Emphasis added] because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City [Emphasis added]. Lopez is also a supervisor [Emphasis added] within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t)”. The City Council also found that various state laws, including the following, define locally elected officials as “supervisors,” or infer that they are “members of the workforce”:
1. Assembly Bill 1661, codified at California Government Code Section 53237.1, requires “local agency officials” to attend two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years, which must include “information and practical guidance regarding the federal and state statutory provisions concerning the prohibition against, and the prevention and correction of, sexual harassment and the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment in employment. The training shall also include practical examples aimed at instructing the local agency official in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation ….” Additionally, AB 1661 provides that local agencies may have non–elected employees satisfy their training requirement under Government Code section 53237.1, rather than under Section 12950.1 (see below discussion on AB 1825).
2. Assembly Bill 1825, codified at California Government Code section 12950.1 requires that “training and education regarding sexual harassment [shall be provided] to all supervisory employees [Emphasis added] and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 7 of 164 harassment to all nonsupervisory employees . . ..” City council members, as “supervisors,” are required to attend AB 1825 training. The training requirement for elected officials benefits not only the trainees, but also the city or public agency, which is almost always named as a co–defendant in workplace harassment lawsuits involving the misconduct of governing members.
3. AB 1234 (2005), codified at California Government Code Chapter 700 and SB 827 (2025), codified at California Government Code Chapter 661 require that local elected officials, department heads and similar administrators of local agencies complete an ethics training course within six months of hiring and every two years thereafter. Additionally, as of January 1, 2026 (SB 827) a new fiscal and financial training requirement mandates all local agency officials involved in financial oversight, with “local agency official” to include “a member of a local agency legislative body . . . who receives any type of compensation, salary, or stipend or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties . . . a department head or other similar administrative officer”, receive at least two hours of training every two years covering budgeting, debt management, auditing, revenue mechanisms, investments, and ethical stewardship. Certain officials like county auditors and treasurers who already comply with fiscal training requirements are exempt from this requirement.
4. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA") (California Government Code Sections 12900–12951 & 12927–12928 & 12955–12956.1 & 12960–12976), employers are liable for harassment against their employees as follows:
a. Employers are strictly liable for the acts of agents and supervisors. b. Employers are responsible for the acts of a non–supervisory employee if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action. c. Employers are responsible for the acts of non–employees if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action.
d. Under the FEHA, elected officials are supervisors. A supervisor is defined as “any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority … requires the use of independent judgment.” Because a city council generally has the authority to hire, fire, and issue direction to, at minimum, the city manager and city attorney, councilmembers fit within the definition of “supervisor” and, as such, are subject to the FEHA’s protections and responsibilities, which include preventing and correcting harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
Under the FEHA, elected officials can expose a city to liability in a FEHA lawsuit because the city is responsible for harassment against its employees even if carried out by a nonemployee, if the city knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action. An elected official’s conduct toward city employees can and does expose a city REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 8 of 164 to liability; therefore, the city council and city manager have a duty and responsibility to take corrective action within the limits and abilities of both.
As a supervisor/member of the workforce/employee, a city council member in California is subject to specific legal, administrative and procedural requirements; and such actions may include censure, removal from committees, or other sanctions conducted in accordance with City policies and practices, state laws and the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and, further, the public has a right to know the basis for any sanction(s) taken against an elected member.
Together, under AB 1661, AB 1825, AB 1234, SB 827 and FEHA, each cited above, local agency officials [city council members] are “supervisors” and are, collectively, with department heads and other non–elected members, part of an agency’s “workforce” where, together, they may attend the same training [as they sometimes do], learn about the common set of workplace responsibilities that belong equally to both elected and non–elected members and are tasked to receive training related to organizational operations and ethical stewardship and comply with laws that govern the behavior and interaction of members within the workforce.
The City Council determined that Lopez, as a Supervisor, Member of the Workforce and an Employee of the City is subject to Sanctions, Including Economic Sanctions.
In addition to the above provisions of state law, the Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (pages 1606–1608) (Nov. 2024) clarifies that the FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” expressly refers to authority and responsibility over “other employees.” An elected official’s conduct toward city employees can and does expose a city to liability; therefore, the city council and city manager have a duty and responsibility to take corrective action within the limits and abilities of both. As a supervisor / member of the workforce / employee, a city council member in California is subject to specific legal, administrative and procedural requirements; and such actions may include censure, removal from committees, or other sanctions conducted in accordance with City policies and practices, state laws and the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and, further, the public has a right to know the basis for any sanction(s) taken against an elected member.
Under various provisions of the California Government Code, the State Legislature has provided for the removal of locally elected officials that are separate from recall efforts by members of the electorate. These disciplinary provisions include the following:
1. California Government Code Sections 3060 through 3075 outline a process for presenting to a grand jury an accusation against a public official (defendant) for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. Upon conviction, the grand jury shall pronounce judgement that the defendant shall be removed from office.
2. California Government Code Section 1770 provides, among other provisions, that an office becomes vacant on the happening of the following before expiration of the term:
a. 1770(h) – “His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties. An officer shall be deemed to have been convicted . . . when trial court judgment is entered . . . sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict or finding.”
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 9 of 164 Various California Government Code Sections and Attorney General legal opinions provide that compensation and/or benefits for City Council Members is/are not mandatory or is/are otherwise limited by conditions affecting agency employees, for example, see the following:
1. California Government Code Section 53235provides that, “If [Emphasis added] a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.”
2. California Government Code Section 36516 provides that. “A city council may [Emphasis added] enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth [therein].”
3. Senate Bill 329 (2023–2024) was adopted to provide cities with the option to adjust council member compensation beyond specified maximums to account for inflation and support diversity.
4. California Government Code Section 53208 provides that, “any member of a legislative body may [Emphasis added] participate in any plan of health and welfare benefits . . .”
5. California Government Code section 53201 provides that, “The legislative body of a local agency, subject to conditions as may be established by it, may [Emphasis added] provide for any health and welfare benefits for the benefit of its officers, employees, retired employees, and retired members of the legislative body, as provided in subdivision (b), who elect to accept the benefits [Emphasis added] and who authorize the local agency to deduct the premiums, dues, or other charges from their compensation, to the extent that the charges are not covered by payments from funds under the jurisdiction of the local agency as permitted by Section 53205.”
6. California Government Code Section 53205 provides that, “From funds under its jurisdiction, the legislative body may authorize [Emphasis added] payment of all, or such portion as it may elect [Emphasis added], of the premiums, dues, or other charges for health and welfare benefits of officers, employees, retired employees, former elective members specified in subdivision (b) of Section 53201, and retired members of the legislative body subject to its jurisdiction.”
7. California Government Code Section 53208.5 provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature to provide a uniform limit on the health and welfare benefits for members of the legislative bodies of all political subdivisions of the state [. . ..] In the case of agencies with different benefit structures, the benefits of members of the legislative body shall not be greater than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees.”
8. California Attorney General Opinion No. 08–405 provides that, “A city may provide a vehicle allowance [Emphasis added] to its city council members in lieu of reimbursing actual vehicle expenses after such expenses are incurred.” REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 10 of 164
9. California Government Code Section 36516 provides that salaries for councilmembers are elective; are enacted by ordinance “up to” established maximums; may be based on several factors including population, inflation, or adjustments based on the operative date of the last adjustment; or enacted by a vote of the people at a municipal election to provide for, increase or decrease compensation.
10.Other actions courts have determined fall within the prerogative of the governing body majority to restrict, prohibit, limit, admonish, regulate, or otherwise sanction an elected colleague.
In addition to the above, the Montclair City Council, through its foundational legislative prerogative, the “power of the purse”, has the authority to impose economic sanctions against an employee or, in this case, a City Council colleague adjudicated to be in violation of their duty to office. “Power of the Purse” is the ability of a legislative body or other designated authority to allocate, control, regulate and restrict the use of funds for a variety of initiatives including, but not limited to, activities, services, infrastructure, maintenance and operations, fiscal and operational accountability, labor and other personnel–related matters—either positively or negatively—the latter, for example, which may include withholding, controlling, limiting, constraining, reducing or restricting available forms of compensation or reimbursement for an employee or a city council colleague found liable for violations of his or her official duties. Forms of compensation subject to sanctions may include, but not be limited to, travel, meals, lodging and other forms of non–mandatory compensation and/or reimbursement.
In addition to the above, the City Council predicates its authority, in part, on the following:
1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 1360, each public officer, including an elected city councilmember, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Article XX § 3 of the California Constitution, and the oath consists of a commitment to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that the person taking the oath promises to take the obligation freely and to faithfully perform the duties of their position.
2. The Fair Political Practices Commission's (FPPC’s) code of ethics for locally elected officials emphasizes the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity, honesty and conduct in all activities, and requires officials to be impartial, responsible and accountable to the public. Further, the FPPC mandates that all city councilmembers conduct their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by each governing board, and such conduct should ensure their actions are above reproach and free from impropriety.
3. By their oath of office, city councilmembers are not only duly sworn to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions but also the vast network of national, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and procedures, including those that govern the workplace and interrelationships between elected officials, managers, supervisors and employees.
4. The Montclair City Council has a duty to the residents and employees of the City of Montclair to ensure that the laws of the United States and State of California are followed and the rules, regulations, policies and ordinances of the City are complied with and that this duty is primary in employer/employee relations.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 11 of 164
5. It is essential for the effective governance of the City of Montclair for the public to have confidence in the integrity, dignity, competence, professionalism, decorum and behavior of its locally elected and appointed leaders and their fair, respectful, courteous and dignified treatment and regard for employees of the City of Montclair and members of the public.
6. It is essential that members of the City Council demonstrate the highest level of professionalism and respect while in office and not behave or perform in a manner that is detrimental to the City or adverse to the City’s interests.
Based on the above discussion of laws, legal opinions, legislative prerogatives including the “power of the purse”, court cases, duly–sworn promises, FPPC Code of Ethics and other relevant factors the Montclair City Council, in its consideration and adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511, did, in addition to censure and those sanctions, restrictions and protective actions enumerated in, and imposed under, Resolution No. 22–3344 and supportive documentation and reaffirmed in Resolution No. 26–3511, impose additional sanctions against Lopez, including the following direction to the City Manager related to compensation:
1. The City Manager shall submit for City Council consideration revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council Compensation, and that such revisions shall (i) comply with state law; and (ii) take into consideration any civil tort rulings in which a court of competent jurisdiction may have ruled that a member of the Montclair City Council, as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council of the City of Montclair did act in violation of his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of California law, including under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
2. Revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Council Members, and such differing rates of pay shall demonstrate a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay schedule, and a lower rate of pay to be assigned to a member of the City Council found to be not in good standing due to having being found liable for any adjudicated violation(s) as described above in Paragraph “1.”, such lower rate of pay to be set at no less than the minimum rate of pay, if any, as proscribed by state law.
3. Further, if such payrate policy change for Montclair City Council Members is adopted by ordinance of the City Council, such payrate change shall apply to current Montclair City Council incumbents and future Montclair City Council incumbents, unless otherwise changed by ordinance of the City of Montclair; such ordinance to otherwise comply with applicable provisions of state law.
Based on the above direction, the City Manager has determined that Government Code Section 36516 provides that salaries for city council members are elective; are enacted by ordinance “up to” allowable maximums; may be based on several factors including population, inflation, or adjustments based on the operative date of the last adjustment; or enacted by a vote of the people at a municipal election to provide for, increase or decrease compensation. Further, as an employee and/or supervisor of the City, Montclair Council Members are subject to economic sanctions just as any employee of the City would be.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 12 of 164 Proposed Adjustment to Salary
The City Council last amended Sections 2.12.050 of the Montclair Municipal Code on March 18, 2024, with an operative date of January 1, 2025, following certification of the General Municipal Election held on November 5, 2024, and installation of re–elected and/or newly elected officials on December 10, 2024. The amendment considered Senate Bill 329 (SB 329), signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 29, 2023.
SB 329 utilizes tiers for city council compensation based upon the population of a city, establishes maximum base tiers and reiterates that any actions related to adjusting the rate of compensation is at the discretion of the jurisdiction’s governing board. For Montclair, the maximum base tier for salaries approved by ordinance is up to and including one thousand two hundred seventy–five dollars ($1,275) per month—the previous maximum amount was four hundred dollars ($400) per month.
Government Code §36516 also provides two alternatives for adjusting the monthly salaries for council members:
1. By an amount not to exceed 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted—this is the methodology used by the City to establish the current monthly salary rate of $1,438.00; or
2. By an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI), which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year applied.
No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in city council compensation. For the purposes of §36516, compensation does not include payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which a city council member serves. If other statutes authorizing such service do not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.
Government Code §36516.5 further specifies that a change in city council compensation shall not apply to a council member during his or her term of office. This prohibition does not prevent the adjustment of compensation for all members of a city council serving staggered terms whenever one or more members of a city council begin a new term of office.
For the City of Montclair, the next general municipal election is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. If adopted by the City Council, provisions of Ordinance No. 26–1018 would not be effective until after certification of the 2026 General Municipal Election and installation of the re–elected and/or newly elected officials, which typically occurs following the election in early– to mid–December. However, because members of the City Council are compensated monthly, if adopted, the proposed changes to the salary schedule would not be implemented until January 1, 2027.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 13 of 164 City Council Member Compensation
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24–1008, Table 1, below, shows the current monthly salary for members of the City Council, including the Mayor.
Table 1.
Current Monthly Compensation
for All Members of the City Council
Salary (Monthly) Notes
$1,438.00 • Effective January 1, 2025.
$0.00 – $1,437.99 • Elective — Govt. Code §36516(f) salary waiver.
Presently, the directly–elected position of Mayor, in addition to receiving the above– noted salary as a member of the City Council, receives additional compensation in the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00) per month, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24–1008. No changes are being proposed to this additional compensation for Mayor.
Table 2, below, establishes a proposed monthly compensation schedule for members of the City Council.
Table 2.
Proposed Monthly Compensation Schedule
for All Members of the City Council
Compensation Level
(Monthly) Notes
Schedule “A”
$1,438.00
• The current base salary for all members of the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 24–1008, as of January 1, 2025.
Schedule “B”
$1,150.00
• The base salary that was in effect for all members of the City Council from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2024, pursuant to Ordinance No. 17–970.
• By a majority vote of the City Council, a member of the City Council may be assigned to this schedule if:
o The member is found liable for a civil tort in violation of official duties in office, or other violation of state or federal law.
Schedule “C”
$742.00
• The base salary that was in effect for all members of the City Council from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2018, pursuant to Ordinance No. 06–872.
• By a majority vote of the City Council, a member of the City Council may be assigned to this schedule if:
o The member is found liable for a civil tort in violation of official duties in office or other violation(s) of state or federal law; and o They have committed two or more violations or committed the same violation against two or more victims.
Schedule “X”
• Elective — Govt. Code §36416(f) salary waiver.
• Members of the City Council may waive all or part of their compensation, allowing them to receive from $0.00 up to any amount below their authorized compensation level.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 14 of 164 • Schedule “A” – $1,438.00.
Table 2, Schedule “A” reflects the current monthly salary with an operational date of January 1, 2025. Except as otherwise provided for under Table 2, Schedules “B”, “C”, and “X”, each member of the City Council shall receive as salary one– thousand four–hundred thirty–eight dollars ($1,438.00) per month as provided for in Section 36516(a)(4)(A) of the Government Code. The Schedule “A” salary shall remain in force and applicable to each member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time the salary is modified by adoption of an ordinance so modifying the Schedule “A” salary.
• Schedule “B” – $1,150.00.
Table 2, Schedule “B” reflects the proposed monthly salary for any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for a civil tort in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involves willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution when such violation occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties. Upon entry of judgment against the member or immediately upon the operational date of proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 if the operational date succeeds the entry of judgment, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Table 2, Schedule “B”, reduced to one–thousand one–hundred fifty dollars ($1,150.00) per month—the City Council salary in effect prior to January 1, 2025.
The salary provided for in Schedule “B” shall not be adjusted and provisions of Ordinance No. 26–1018 shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the Schedule “B” salary and/or its provisions by a majority vote of the City Council in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to the Schedule “B” salary shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while the council member is subject to its provisions.
• Schedule “C” – $742.00.
Table 2, Schedule “C” reflects the proposed monthly salary for any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for two or more civil torts in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involve willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violations of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution when such violations occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties, and / or commits such violation(s) against two or more victims. Upon entry of judgment against the member or immediately upon the operational date of proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 if the operational date succeeds entry of judgment, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Table 2, Schedule “C”, reduced to seven–hundred forty–two dollars ($742.00) per month— the City Council salary that was in effect prior to January 1, 2019.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 15 of 164 The salary provided for in Schedule “C” shall not be adjusted, and provisions of Ordinance No. 26–1018 shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the Schedule “C” salary and/or its provisions bya majority vote of the City Council in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to the Schedule “C” salary shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while the council member is subject to its provisions.
• Schedule “X”
Pursuant to Government Code §36516(f) and as provided for in Table 2, Schedule “X” each City Council Member may individually elect to waive all or any portion of the salary established under Ordinance No. 26–1018, and such salary remaining shall be listed in a City–provided waiver form to be completed by the City Council Member waiving all or any portion of the salary otherwise provided for in Table 2.
Effective Date of Ordinance No. 26–1018
Ordinance No. 26–1018 would become effective 30 days after adoption. However, Table 2, Schedule “A” has been in effect since January 1, 2025, and would remain in effect.
The operational date of any salary change taking place pursuant to Schedules “B” and “C” would be January 1, 2027, following certification of the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election and installation of re–elected and/or newly elected officials.
For Schedule “X”, the operational date is the first month following the completion of a City–provided waiver form by a member of the City Council electing to waive all, or any portion of, his or her salary as provided for under Table 2.
It should be noted that in the past, all members of the City Council have had the option to either forgo any increases to their present compensation level, waive a salary entirely, or request a reduction in salary to any amount following each election when a new base level of compensation takes effect. These options would remain available to all members of the City Council regardless of whether Ordinance No. 26–1018 is adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT: If adopted, proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 would result in the following:
• Schedule “A”. Each member of the City Council subject to the provisions of Table 2, Schedule “A” shall receive as salary the sum of one–thousand four– hundred thirty–eight dollars ($1,438.00) per month as provided for in Section 36516(a)(4)(A) of the Government Code.
• Schedule “B”. Each member of the City Council subject to the provisions of Table 2, Schedule “B” shall receive as salary the sum of one–thousand one– hundred fifty dollars ($1,150.00) per month.
• Schedule “C”. Each member of the City Council subject to the provisions of Table 2, Schedule “C” shall receive as salary the sum of seven–hundred forty–two dollars ($742.00) per month.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 16 of 164 • Schedule “X”. As indicated in Table 2, Schedule “X”, and pursuant to Government Code §36516(f), each member of the City Council may individually elect to waive all or any portion of the salary established under Ordinance No. 26– 1018, and such salary remaining shall be listed in a City–provided waiver form to be completed by the City Council Member waiving all or any portion of the salary otherwise provided for in Table 2 within the applicable Schedule for salaries.
Proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 does not recommend any enhancement to salaries provided for under Table 2, Schedule “A”—the base salary rate for members of the Montclair City Council will remain at $1,438.00 per month.
RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommend the following:
1. Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 26–1018 amending the Montclair Municipal Code related to the compensation schedule for members of the City Council.
2. Set a public hearing for second reading and consider adoption of Ordinance No. 26–1018 on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Montclair City Council Chambers.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 17 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 26–1018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTCLAIR AMENDING SECTION 2.12.050 OF CHAPTER
2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, at its April 4, 2022, meeting the Montclair City Council adopted Resolution No. 22–3344 disapproving and censuring certain conduct and behavior of Montclair City Council Member Benjamin Lopez (“Council Member Lopez”), and ratifying certain actions taken by the City Manager to protect City employees; and WHEREAS, adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344 was taken after (i) certain employees of the City reported allegations of what they believed to be inappropriate actions by Council Member Lopez, and (ii) an independent workplace investigator hired to investigate the allegations presented findings at a March 1, 2022, special meeting that adjourned to Closed Session sustaining the allegations, including the following:
1. Council Member Lopez, as a private individual and outside the course and scope of his duties as a council member, did (i) conduct an extended and unwanted conversation with one employee about his sexual orientation; and (ii) intentionally did hide his identity from another employee when they communicated on social media dating sites, and that their communications included sharing sexually explicit content and photographs; and WHEREAS, Council Member Lopez failed to participate in a global mediation settlement to resolve the complaints and settle with the employees, and the City, separately and without prejudice, resolved outstanding litigation and economic matters between the City and the employees; and
WHEREAS, the City then did pursue a cross–complaint against Council Member Lopez (“Defendant Lopez”); and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both of the employees (“Plaintiffs”) and the City, and awarded each of the two Plaintiffs$400,000 in past and future damages with punitive damages to be determined, and awarded Cross– complainant City of Montclair $550,000 in settlement costs plus attorneys’ fees and costs; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2025, Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2026, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period) finding (i) in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective causes of action for Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code §12940(j) and the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), said conduct by Defendant Lopez amounting to malice, oppression, and / or fraud justifying a punitive damage award; (ii) the court further found in favor of Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims for punitive damages; (iii) the court also found in favor of Cross–Complainant / Defendant City of Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez; (iv) additionally, the court found that Defendant Lopez is “liable as an employee of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City. Lopez is also a supervisor within the meaning of Government Code Section 12926(t)”; and (v) the court found that “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code Section 12940(j)(3) . . ..”; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26–3511, reaffirming the provisions and recitals of, and expanding on, Resolution No. 22–334 and, in addition, directing that certain economic sanctions be taken against Council Member Lopez, including the following:
1. The City Manager shall submit for City Council consideration revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council Compensation, and that such revisions shall (i) comply with state law; and (ii) take into consideration any civil tort rulings in which a court of competent jurisdiction may have ruled that a member of the Montclair City Council, as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 18 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 2 of 4
of the City of Montclair did act in violation of his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of California law, including under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
2. Revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Council Members, and such differing rates of pay shall demonstrate a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay schedule, and lower payrate tiers available for assignment to a member of the City Council found to be not in good standing due to having being found liable for adjudicated violations as described in Paragraph “1.” of this recital, such lower payrate tiers to take into consideration the violations of federal and / or state law(s).
3. Further, if such payrate policy change for Montclair City Council Members is adopted by ordinance of the City Council, such payrate change shall apply to current Montclair City Council incumbents and future Montclair City Council incumbents, unless otherwise changed by ordinance of the City of Montclair.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Amendment to Code. Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12. of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2.12.050. Compensation—Salary schedule and effective date—exclusion of benefit costs in salary computation.
Table 1 provides for the monthly compensation schedule for City Council Members.
Table 1
Monthly Compensation Schedule for Members of the City Council Schedule A Schedule B Schedule C Schedule X
$1,438.00 $1,150.00 $742.00
Govt. Code
§36416.5(f)
salary waiver
A. Schedule A. Except as otherwise provided for in Paragraphs B, C, and D of this Section, each member of the City Council shall receive as salary the sum of one–thousand four–hundred thirty–eight dollars ($1,438.00) per month as provided for in Section 36516(a)(4)(A) of the Government Code. The salary provided for in this Paragraph shall remain in force and applicable to each member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time the salary is modified by adoption of an ordinance so modifying Schedule A.
B. Schedule B. Except as otherwise provided for in Paragraph A, C, and D of this Section, any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for a civil tort in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involves willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution, when such violation occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties., Upon entry of judgment against the member or immediately upon the operational date of this amendment if the operational date succeeds the entry of judgment, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Paragraph A of this Section, reduced to one–thousand one– hundred fifty dollars ($1,150.00) per month.
The salary provided for in Section 2.12.050(B) shall not be adjusted and provisions thereof shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the salary and/or its provisions by a majority vote of the City Council voting on the matter in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to Schedule B shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while subject to its provisions.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 19 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 3 of 4
C. Schedule C. Except as otherwise provided for in Paragraph A, B, and D of this Section, any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for two or more civil torts in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involves willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violations of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution when such violations occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties, and/ or commits such violations against two or more victims. Upon entry of judgment against the member for the second violation or immediately upon the operational date of this amendment if the operational date succeeds the entry of judgment, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Section 2.12.050(A), or as provided for in Section 2.12.050(B), reduced to seven–hundred forty–two dollars ($742.00) per month.
The salary provided for in Section 2.12.050(C) shall not be adjusted and the provisions thereof shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the salary and/or its provisions by a majority vote of the City Council voting on the matter in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to Schedule C shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while subject to its provisions.
D. Schedule D. Pursuant to Government Code §36516(f) and except as otherwise provided for in Paragraphs A, B, and C of this Section, each member of the City Council may individually elect to waive all or any portion of the salary permitted by this Section and such salary remaining shall be listed in a City– provided waiver form completed by the City Council Member waiving all or any portion of the salary otherwise provided for in Table 1.
E. Effective Date. The operational date of salaries provided for under Table 1, Schedule A of this Section is January 1, 2025; for Schedules “B” and “C” the operational date is January 1, 2027, following certification of the 2026 General Municipal Election and installation of the re–elected and/or newly elected officials; and for Schedule D the operational date is the first month following completion of a City–provided waiver form by a member of the City Council electing to waive all or any portion of his or her salary as provided for under Table 1.
SECTION II. Severability.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION III. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage.
SECTION IV. Posting.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted pursuant to Government Code Section 36933.
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 20 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 4 of 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 26–1018 of said City, which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 20XX, and finally passed not less than five (5) days thereafter on the XX day of XX, 20XX, by the following vote, to–wit:
AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
REVISED MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 21 of 164
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 17, 2026
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.: A
FILE I.D.: CYC200
DEPT.: CITY MGR.
PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: FIRST READING — CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 26–1018 AMENDING THE
MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDER SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECOND READING AND TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 26–1018 ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 36516, as amended by Senate Bill 329 ( June 2023), compensation for city council members may be adjusted as prescribed in state law by an ordinance or by an amendment to an ordinance. Amendments to the Montclair Municipal Code require public hearing review and approval by the City Council.
The City Council is requested to consider first reading of Ordinance No. 26–1018 amending Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to the compensation schedule for members of the Montclair City Council.
A copy of proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 is attached for City Council review and consideration, subject to final review and modification by the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND: At its meeting of March 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26–3511 reaffirming the provisions and recitals of Resolution No. 22–3344, including but not limited to, City Council disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior by Councilmember Benjamin Lopez (“Lopez”, “Defendant Lopez” or “Cross– Defendant Lopez”) and re–ratifying the protection actions taken by the City Manager and, further, expanding on Resolution No. 22–3344 by directing that certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions be taken against Councilmember Lopez.
The censure action was taken after certain employees of the City (the “Plaintiffs”) reported to City management allegations of what they believed to be inappropriate actions by Councilmember Lopez. The City Manager determined there was an immediate need to request the hiring of an independent workplace investigator, followed by implementation of several workplace measures to protect City of Montclair employees from further or potential inappropriate behavior. Protective measures gained greater relevance and urgency after an independent workplace investigator presented findings that sustained the allegations made by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Lopez and the City and, on October 6, 2022, the City and Plaintiffs (“Participating Parties”) participated in mediation to resolve outstanding litigation and economic matters through a combined settlement agreement and settlement payment. Lopez, however, failed to participate in Settlement proceedings or contribute toward settlement costs. The City then pursued joined with the Plaintiffs in a cross–complaint against Lopez—the cross–complaint seeking reimbursement and indemnification from arising out of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Lopez [See REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 5 of 164 California Code of Civil Procedure § 428.10] for the sums paid to plaintiffs in settlement of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits against the City and and the intent of the City to recover monies spent on the City’s defense.
On December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson (“Judge Mathewson”) issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both Plaintiffs and the City of Montclair (or “Cross–Complainant Montclair” or “Cross Complainant/Defendant Montclair”) against Defendant and Cross–Defendant Lopez.
Judge Mathewson awarded each Plaintiff $350,000 in past damages and $50,000 in future damages for a total of $800,000 ($400,000 per Plaintiff) plus punitive damages to be determined when court resumed on December 12, 2025. Cross–complainant Montclair was awarded indemnity in the amount of 100 percent ($550,000 in settlement costs) plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
On December 12, 2025, Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages, or $88,000 per Plaintiff, calculating the punitive damages award as equivalent to the earnings Defendant Lopez is set to receive as a City Council Member over his two four–year terms in office. Cross–Complainant Montclair did not seek punitive damages.
On January 5, 2026, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period) and, after assessing “the demeanor of all the parties and witnesses”, considering the “testimony and credibility of all of the parties and witnesses”, and considering “all of the evidence that was received”, the court found against Defendant Lopez in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of the following respective causes of action:
1. Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(j); and
2. Unlawful violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA).
The court further found in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims for punitive damages against Defendant Lopez, and, accordingly, judgement was entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Lopez in the aggregate amount of $488,000 for each Plaintiff for past and future emotional distress and punitive damages.
The court also found in favor of Cross–Complainant/Defendant Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez and, as the prevailing party, Cross– Complainant / Defendant Montclair was awarded equitable relief and should be indemnified for attorneys’ fees and costs and $550,000 in past settlement payments made to Plaintiffs. To date, the City of Montclair has spent approximately $751,000 on attorneys’ fees, costs and settlement payments, and more than $200,000 in lost productivity and dedicated staff time on the matter. Final attorneys’ fees and costs have yet to be determined.
Judge Mathewson further determined the following:
1. Said conduct by Defendant Lopez amounted to malice, oppression, and/or fraud justifying a punitive damage award.
2. “Defendant Lopez is liable as an employee of the City of Montclair [Emphasis added] because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 6 of 164 City [Emphasis added]. Lopez is also a supervisor [Emphasis added] within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t):”
““Supervisor” means any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”
3. The Court further found that “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code Ssection 12940(j)(3), which states:” “An employee of an entity subject to this subdivision is personally liable for any harassment prohibited by this section that is perpetrated by the employee [Emphasis added], regardless of whether the employer or covered entity knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.”
Based on Judge Mathewson’s decision in Case Number CIVSB2133471, the Montclair City Council, in Closed Session on February 17, 2026, directed introduction and consideration of Resolution No. 26–3511—a Resolution reaffirming Resolution No. 22– 3344, including the disapproval and censuring of certain conduct and behavior of Lopez and re–ratifying protective actions taken by the City Manager; and, further, the City Council directed that certain restrictions and administrative/economic sanctions against Lopez be incorporated into Resolution No. 26–3511, and be implemented.
The City Council determined that Lopez is a Supervisor, Member of the Workforce and an Employee of the City.
In determining what sanctions the City Council may impose against Lopez, the City Council took into consideration Judge Mathewson’s finding that Lopez is “liable as an employee of the City of Montclair [Emphasis added] because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City [Emphasis added]. Lopez is also a supervisor [Emphasis added] within the meaning of Govt Code Section 12926(t)”. The City Council also found that various state laws, including the following, define locally elected officials as “supervisors,” or infer that they are “members of the workforce”:
1. Assembly Bill 1661, codified at California Government Code Section 53237.1, requires “local agency officials” to attend two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years, which must include “information and practical guidance regarding the federal and state statutory provisions concerning the prohibition against, and the prevention and correction of, sexual harassment and the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment in employment. The training shall also include practical examples aimed at instructing the local agency official in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation ….” Additionally, AB 1661 provides that local agencies may have non–elected employees satisfy their training requirement under Government Code section 53237.1, rather than under Section 12950.1 (see below discussion on AB 1825).
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 7 of 164
2. Assembly Bill 1825, codified at California Government Code section 12950.1 requires that “training and education regarding sexual harassment [shall be provided] to all supervisory employees [Emphasis added] and at least one hour of classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all nonsupervisory employees . . ..” City council members, as “supervisors,” are required to attend AB 1825 training. The training requirement for elected officials benefits not only the trainees, but also the city or public agency, which is almost always named as a co–defendant in workplace harassment lawsuits involving the misconduct of governing members.
3. AB 1234 (2005), codified at California Government Code Chapter 700 and SB 827 (2025), codified at California Government Code Chapter 661 require that local elected officials, department heads and similar administrators of local agencies complete an ethics training course within six months of hiring and every two years thereafter. Additionally, as of January 1, 2026 (SB 827) a new fiscal and financial training requirement mandates all local agency officials involved in financial oversight, with “local agency official” to include “a member of a local agency legislative body . . . who receives any type of compensation, salary, or stipend or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties . . . a department head or other similar administrative officer”, receive at least two hours of training every two years covering budgeting, debt management, auditing, revenue mechanisms, investments, and ethical stewardship. Certain officials like county auditors and treasurers who already comply with fiscal training requirements are exempt from this requirement.
4. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the "FEHA") (California Government Code Sections 12900–12951 & 12927–12928 & 12955–12956.1 & 12960–12976), employers are liable for harassment against their employees as follows:
a. Employers are strictly liable for the acts of agents and supervisors. b. Employers are responsible for the acts of a non–supervisory employee if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action. c. Employers are responsible for the acts of non–employees if the employer, or one of its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate corrective action.
d. Under the FEHA, elected officials are supervisors. A supervisor is defined as “any individual having the authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend that action, if, in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of that authority … requires the use of independent judgment.” Because a city council generally has the authority to hire, fire, and issue direction to, at minimum, the city manager and city attorney, councilmembers fit within the definition of “supervisor” and, as such, are subject to the FEHA’s protections and responsibilities, which include preventing and correcting harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 8 of 164 Under the FEHA, elected officials can expose a city to liability in a FEHA lawsuit because the city is responsible for harassment against its employees even if carried out by a nonemployee, if the city knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take corrective action. An elected official’s conduct toward city employees can and does expose a city to liability; therefore, the city council and city manager have a duty and responsibility to take corrective action within the limits and abilities of both.
As a supervisor/member of the workforce/employee, a city council member in California is subject to specific legal, administrative and procedural requirements; and such actions may include censure, removal from committees, or other sanctions conducted in accordance with City policies and practices, state laws and the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and, further, the public has a right to know the basis for any sanction(s) taken against an elected member.
Together, under AB 1661, AB 1825, AB 1234, SB 827 and FEHA, each cited above, local agency officials [city council members] are “supervisors” and are, collectively, with department heads and other non–elected members, part of an agency’s “workforce” where, together, they may attend the same training [as they sometimes do], learn about the common set of workplace responsibilities that belong equally to both elected and non–elected members and are tasked to receive training related to organizational operations and ethical stewardship and comply with laws that govern the behavior and interaction of members within the workforce.
The City Council determined that Lopez, as a Supervisor, Member of the Workforce and an Employee of the City is subject to Sanctions, Including Economic Sanctions.
In addition to the above provisions of state law, the Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (pages 1606–1608) (Nov. 2024) clarifies that the FEHA’s definition of “supervisor” expressly refers to authority and responsibility over “other employees.” An elected official’s conduct toward city employees can and does expose a city to liability; therefore, the city council and city manager have a duty and responsibility to take corrective action within the limits and abilities of both. As a supervisor / member of the workforce / employee, a city council member in California is subject to specific legal, administrative and procedural requirements; and such actions may include censure, removal from committees, or other sanctions conducted in accordance with City policies and practices, state laws and the Fair Political Practices Commission Public Official and Employee Rules and Code of Ethics, and, further, the public has a right to know the basis for any sanction(s) taken against an elected member.
Under various provisions of the California Government Code, the State Legislature has provided for the removal of locally elected officials that are separate from recall efforts by members of the electorate. These disciplinary provisions include the following:
1. California Government Code Sections 3060 through 3075 outline a process for presenting to a grand jury an accusation against a public official (defendant) for willful or corrupt misconduct in office. Upon conviction, the grand jury shall pronounce judgement that the defendant shall be removed from office.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 9 of 164
2. California Government Code Section 1770 provides, among other provisions, that an office becomes vacant on the happening of the following before expiration of the term:
a. 1770(h) – “His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties. An officer shall be deemed to have been convicted . . . when trial court judgment is entered . . . sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict or finding.”
Various California Government Code Sections and Attorney General legal opinions provide that compensation and/or benefits for City Council Members is/are not mandatory or is/are otherwise limited by conditions affecting agency employees, for example, see the following:
1. California Government Code Section 53235provides that, “If [Emphasis added] a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials shall receive training in ethics pursuant to this article.”
2. California Government Code Section 36516 provides that. “A city council may [Emphasis added] enact an ordinance providing that each member of the city council shall receive a salary based on the population of the city as set forth [therein].”
3. Senate Bill 329 (2023–2024) was adopted to provide cities with the option to adjust council member compensation beyond specified maximums to account for inflation and support diversity.
4. California Government Code Section 53208 provides that, “any member of a legislative body may [Emphasis added] participate in any plan of health and welfare benefits . . .”
5. California Government Code section 53201 provides that, “The legislative body of a local agency, subject to conditions as may be established by it, may [Emphasis added] provide for any health and welfare benefits for the benefit of its officers, employees, retired employees, and retired members of the legislative body, as provided in subdivision (b), who elect to accept the benefits [Emphasis added] and who authorize the local agency to deduct the premiums, dues, or other charges from their compensation, to the extent that the charges are not covered by payments from funds under the jurisdiction of the local agency as permitted by Section 53205.”
6. California Government Code Section 53205 provides that, “From funds under its jurisdiction, the legislative body may authorize [Emphasis added] payment of all, or such portion as it may elect [Emphasis added], of the premiums, dues, or other charges for health and welfare benefits of officers, employees, retired employees, former elective members specified in subdivision (b) of Section 53201, and retired members of the legislative body subject to its jurisdiction.”
7. California Government Code Section 53208.5 provides that it is “the intent of the Legislature to provide a uniform limit on the health and welfare benefits for REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 10 of 164 members of the legislative bodies of all political subdivisions of the state [. . ..] In the case of agencies with different benefit structures, the benefits of members of the legislative body shall not be greater than the most generous schedule of benefits being received by any category of nonsafety employees.”
8. California Attorney General Opinion No. 08–405 provides that, “A city may provide a vehicle allowance [Emphasis added] to its city council members in lieu of reimbursing actual vehicle expenses after such expenses are incurred.”
9. California Government Code Section 36516 provides that salaries for councilmembers are elective; are enacted by ordinance “up to” established maximums; may be based on several factors including population, inflation, or adjustments based on the operative date of the last adjustment; or enacted by a vote of the people at a municipal election to provide for, increase or decrease compensation.
10.Other actions courts have determined fall within the prerogative of the governing body majority to restrict, prohibit, limit, admonish, regulate, or otherwise sanction an elected colleague.
In addition to the above, the Montclair City Council, through its foundational legislative prerogative, the “power of the purse”, has the authority to impose economic sanctions against an employee or, in this case, a City Council colleague adjudicated to be in violation of their duty to office. “Power of the Purse” is the ability of a legislative body or other designated authority to allocate, control, regulate and restrict the use of funds for a variety of initiatives including, but not limited to, activities, services, infrastructure, maintenance and operations, fiscal and operational accountability, labor and other personnel–related matters—either positively or negatively—the latter, for example, which may include withholding, controlling, limiting, constraining, reducing or restricting available forms of compensation or reimbursement for an employee or a city council colleague found liable for violations of his or her official duties. Forms of compensation subject to sanctions may include, but not be limited to, travel, meals, lodging and other forms of non–mandatory compensation and/or reimbursement.
In addition to the above, the City Council predicates its authority, in part, on the following:
1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 1360, each public officer, including an elected city councilmember, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Article XX § 3 of the California Constitution, and the oath consists of a commitment to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that the person taking the oath promises to take the obligation freely and to faithfully perform the duties of their position.
2. The Fair Political Practices Commission's (FPPC’s) code of ethics for locally elected officials emphasizes the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity, honesty and conduct in all activities, and requires officials to be impartial, responsible and accountable to the public. Further, the FPPC mandates that all city councilmembers conduct their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by each governing board, and such conduct should ensure their actions are above reproach and free from impropriety.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 11 of 164
3. By their oath of office, city councilmembers are not only duly sworn to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions but also the vast network of national, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and procedures, including those that govern the workplace and interrelationships between elected officials, managers, supervisors and employees.
4. The Montclair City Council has a duty to the residents and employees of the City of Montclair to ensure that the laws of the United States and State of California are followed and the rules, regulations, policies and ordinances of the City are complied with and that this duty is primary in employer/employee relations.
5. It is essential for the effective governance of the City of Montclair for the public to have confidence in the integrity, dignity, competence, professionalism, decorum and behavior of its locally elected and appointed leaders and their fair, respectful, courteous and dignified treatment and regard for employees of the City of Montclair and members of the public.
6. It is essential that members of the City Council demonstrate the highest level of professionalism and respect while in office and not behave or perform in a manner that is detrimental to the City or adverse to the City’s interests.
Based on the above discussion of laws, legal opinions, legislative prerogatives including the “power of the purse”, court cases, duly–sworn promises, FPPC Code of Ethics and other relevant factors the Montclair City Council, in its consideration and adoption of Resolution No. 26–3511, did, in addition to censure and those sanctions, restrictions and protective actions enumerated in, and imposed under, Resolution No. 22–3344 and supportive documentation and reaffirmed in Resolution No. 26–3511, impose additional sanctions against Lopez, including the following direction to the City Manager related to compensation:
1. The City Manager shall submit for City Council consideration revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council Compensation, and that such revisions shall (i) comply with state law; and (ii) take into consideration any civil tort rulings in which a court of competent jurisdiction may have ruled that a member of the Montclair City Council, as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council of the City of Montclair did act in violation of his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of California law, including under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
2. Revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Council Members, and such differing rates of pay shall demonstrate a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay schedule, and a lower rate of pay to be assigned to a member of the City Council found to be not in good standing due to having being found liable for any adjudicated violation(s) as described above in Paragraph “1.”, such lower rate of pay to be set at no less than the minimum rate of pay, if any, as proscribed by state law.
3. Further, if such payrate policy change for Montclair City Council Members is adopted by ordinance of the City Council, such payrate change shall apply to current Montclair City Council incumbents and future Montclair City Council REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 12 of 164 incumbents, unless otherwise changed by ordinance of the City of Montclair; such ordinance to otherwise comply with applicable provisions of state law.
Based on the above direction, the City Manager has determined that Government Code Section 36516 (§36516) provides that salaries for city council members are elective; are enacted by ordinance “up to” allowableestablished maximums; may be based on several factors including population, inflation, or adjustments based on the operative date of the last adjustment; or enacted by a vote of the people at a municipal election to provide for, increase or decrease compensation. Further, as an employee and/or supervisor of the City, Montclair Council Members are subject to economic sanctions just as any employee of the City would be.
Proposed Adjustment to Salary
The City Council last amended Sections 2.12.050 of the Montclair Municipal Code on March 18, 2024, with an operative date of January 1, 2025, following certification of the General Municipal Election held on November 5, 2024, and installation of re–elected and/or newly elected officials on December 10, 2024. The amendment considered Senate Bill 329 (SB 329), signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 29, 2023.
SB 329 utilizes tiers for city council compensation based upon the population of a city, establishes maximum base tiers and reiterates that any actions related to adjusting the rate of compensation is at the discretion of the jurisdiction’s governing board. For Montclair, the maximum base tier for salaries approved by ordinance is up to and including one thousand two hundred seventy–five dollars ($1,275) per month—the previous maximum amount was four hundred dollars ($400) per month.
Government Code §36516 also provides two alternatives for adjusting the monthly salaries for council members:
1. By an amount not to exceed 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted—this is the methodology used by the City to establish the current monthly salary rate of $1,438.00; or
2. By an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI), which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year applied.
No ordinance shall be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in city council compensation. For the purposes of §36516, compensation does not include payment for service by a city council member on a commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body on which a city council member serves. If other statutes authorizing such service do not specify the amount of compensation, the maximum amount shall be one hundred fifty dollars ($150) per month for each commission, committee, board, authority, or similar body.
Government Code §36516.5 further specifies that a change in city council compensation shall not apply to a council member during his or her term of office. This prohibition does not prevent the adjustment of compensation for all members of a city council serving staggered terms whenever one or more members of a city council begin a new term of office.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 13 of 164 For the City of Montclair, the next general municipal election is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. If adopted by the City Council, provisions of Ordinance No. 26–1018 would not be effective until after certification of the 2026 General Municipal Election and installation of the re–elected and/or newly elected officials, which typically occurs following the election in early– to mid–December. However, because members of the City Council are compensated monthly, if adopted, the proposed changes to the salary schedule would not be implemented until January 1, 2027.
City Council Member Compensation
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 24–1008, Table 1, below, shows the current monthly salary for members of the City Council, including the Mayor.
Table 1.
Current Monthly Compensation
for All Members of the City Council
Salary (Monthly) Notes
$1,438.00 • Effective January 1, 2025.
$0.00 – $1,437.99 • Elective — Govt. Code §36516(f) salary waiver.
Presently, the directly–elected position of Mayor, in addition to receiving the above– noted salary as a member of the City Council, receives additional compensation in the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750.00) per month, pursuant to Ordinance No. 24–1008. No changes are being proposed to this additional compensation for Mayor.
Table 2, below, establishes a proposed monthly compensation schedule for members of the City Council.
Table 2.
Proposed Monthly Compensation Schedule
for All Members of the City Council
Compensation Level
(Monthly) Notes
Schedule “A”
$1,438.00
• The current base salary for all members of the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 24–1008, as of January 1, 2025.
Schedule “B”
$1,150.00
• The base salary that was in effect for all members of the City Council from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2024, pursuant to Ordinance No. 17–970.
• By a three–fifths 3/5) majority vote of the City Council, a member of the City Council may be assigned to this schedule if:
o The member is found liable for guilty of a civil tort in violation of official duties in office, or other violation of state or federal law.
Schedule “C”
$742.00
• The base salary that was in effect for all members of the City Council from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2018, pursuant to Ordinance No. 06–872.
• By a three–fifths 3/5) majority vote of the City Council, a member of the City Council may be assigned to this schedule if:
o The member is found liable for guilty of a civil tort in violation of official duties in office or other violation(s) of state or federal law; and o They have committed two or more violations or committed the same violation against two or more victims.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 14 of 164 Compensation Level
(Monthly) Notes
Schedule “X”
• Elective — Govt. Code §36416(f) salary waiver.
• Members of the City Council may waive all or part of their compensation, allowing them to receive from $0.00 up to any amount below their authorized compensation level.
• Schedule “A” – $1,438.00.
Table 2, Schedule “A” reflects the current monthly salary with an operational date of January 1, 2025. Except as otherwise provided for under Table 2, Schedules “B”, “C”, and “X”, each member of the City Council shall receive as salary one– thousand four–hundred thirty–eight dollars ($1,438.00) per month as provided for in Section 36516(a)(4)(A) of the Government Code. The Schedule “A” salary shall remain in force and applicable to each member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time the salary is modified by adoption of an ordinance so modifying the Schedule “A” salary.
• Schedule “B” – $1,150.00.
Table 2, Schedule “B” reflects the proposed monthly salary for any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for guilty of a civil tort in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involves willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violation(s) of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution, when such violation occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties. shall, Uupon entry of judgment against the memberconviction or immediately upon the operational date of proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 if the operational date succeeds the entry of judgmentconviction, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Table 2, Schedule “B”, reduced to one–thousand one–hundred fifty dollars ($1,150.00) per month—the City Council salary in effect prior to January 1, 2025.
The salary provided for in Schedule “B” shall not be adjusted and provisions of Ordinance No. 26–1018 shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the Schedule “B” salary and/or its provisions by no fewer than four (4) votes out of the five (5) members of the City Council, voting on the matter a majority vote of the City Council in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to the Schedule “B” salary shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while the council member is subject to its provisions.
• Schedule “C” – $742.00.
Table 2, Schedule “C” reflects the proposed monthly salary for any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable forguilty of two or more civil torts in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involve willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violations of state or federal law including, REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 15 of 164 but not limited to, any violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution, when such violations occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties, and / or commits such violation(s) against two or more victims., shall, Uupon entry of judgment against the memberconviction or immediately upon the operational date of proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 if the operational date succeeds entry of judgmentconviction, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Table 2, Schedule “C”, reduced to seven–hundred forty–two dollars ($742.00) per month—the City Council salary that was in effect prior to January 1, 2019.
The salary provided for in Schedule “C” shall not be adjusted, and provisions of Ordinance No. 26–1018 shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the Schedule “C” salary and/or its provisions by no less than four (4) out of five (5) membersa majority vote of the City Council voting on the matter in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to the Schedule “C” salary shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while the council member is subject to its provisions. • Schedule “X”
Pursuant to Government Code §36516(f) and as provided for in Table 2, Schedule “X” each City Council Member may individually elect to waive all or any portion of the salary established under Ordinance No. 26–1018, and such salary remaining shall be listed in a City–provided waiver form to be completed by the City Council Member waiving all or any portion of the salary otherwise provided for in Table 2.
Effective Date of Ordinance No. 26–1018
Ordinance No. 26–1018 would become effective 30 days after adoption. However, Table 2, Schedule “A” has been in effect since January 1, 2025, and would remain in effect.
The operational date of any salary change taking place pursuant to Schedules “B” and “C” would be January 1, 2027, following certification of the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election and installation of re–elected and/or newly elected officials.
For Schedule “X”, the operational date is the first month following the completion of a City–provided waiver form by a member of the City Council electing to waive all, or any portion of, his or her salary as provided for under Table 2.
It should be noted that in the past, all members of the City Council have had the option to either forgo any increases to their present compensation level, waive a salary entirely, or request a reduction in salary to any amount following each election when a new base level of compensation takes effect. These options would remain available to all members of the City Council regardless of whether Ordinance No. 26–1018 is adopted.
FISCAL IMPACT: If adopted, proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 would result in the following:
• Schedule “A”. Each member of the City Council subject to the provisions of Table 2, Schedule “A” shall receive as salary the sum of one–thousand four– REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 16 of 164 hundred thirty–eight dollars ($1,438.00) per month as provided for in Section 36516(a)(4)(A) of the Government Code.
• Schedule “B”. Each member of the City Council subject to the provisions of Table 2, Schedule “B” shall receive as salary the sum of one–thousand one– hundred fifty dollars ($1,150.00) per month.
• Schedule “C”. Each member of the City Council subject to the provisions of Table 2, Schedule “C” shall receive as salary the sum of seven–hundred forty–two dollars ($742.00) per month.
• Schedule “X”. As indicated in Table 2, Schedule “X”, and pursuant to Government Code §36516(f), each member of the City Council may individually elect to waive all or any portion of the salary established under Ordinance No. 26– 1018, and such salary remaining shall be listed in a City–provided waiver form to be completed by the City Council Member waiving all or any portion of the salary otherwise provided for in Table 2 within the applicable Schedule for salaries.
Proposed Ordinance No. 26–1018 does not recommend any enhancement to salaries provided for under Table 2, Schedule “A”—the base salary rate for members of the Montclair City Council will remain at $1,438.00 per month.
RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommend the following:
1. Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 26–1018, amending the Montclair Municipal Code related to the salary compensation schedule for members of the City Council.
2. Set a public hearing for second reading and consider adoption of Ordinance No. 26–1018 on Tuesday, September 8, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Montclair City Council Chambers.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 08/17/2026 Page 17 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE NO. 26–1018
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTCLAIR AMENDING SECTION 2.12.050 OF CHAPTER
2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, at its April 4, 2022, meeting the Montclair City Council adopted Resolution No. 22–3344 disapproving and censuring certain conduct and behavior of Montclair City Council Member Benjamin Lopez (“Council Member Lopez”), and ratifying certain actions taken by the City Manager to protect City employees; and WHEREAS, adoption of Resolution No. 22–3344 was taken after (i) certain employees of the City reported allegations of what they believed to be inappropriate actions by Council Member Lopez, and (ii) an independent workplace investigator hired to investigate the allegations presented findings at a March 1, 2022, special meeting that adjourned to Closed Session sustaining the allegations, including the following:
1. Council Member Lopez, as a private individual and outside the course and scope of his duties as a council member, did (i) conduct an extended and unwanted conversation with one employee about his sexual orientation; and (ii) intentionally did hide his identity from another employee when they communicated on social media dating sites, and that their communications included sharing sexually explicit content and photographs; and WHEREAS, Council Member Lopez failed to participate in a global mediation settlement to resolve the complaints and settle with the employees, and the City, separately and without prejudice, resolved outstanding litigation and economic matters between the City and the employees; and
WHEREAS, the City then did pursue join with the two employees in a cross– complaint against Council Member Lopez (“Defendant Lopez”); and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2025, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga District, Case Number CIVSB2133471, Judge Kory Mathewson issued his oral Tentative Decision in favor of both of the employees (“Plaintiffs”) and the City, and awarded each of the two Plaintiffs$400,000 in past and future damages with punitive damages to be determined, and awarded Cross– complainant City of Montclair $550,000 in settlement costs plus attorneys’ fees and costs; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2025, Judge Mathewson imposed against Defendant Lopez $176,000 in punitive damages; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2026, Judge Mathewson issued his Proposed Statement of Decision (which became the Statement of Decision without objection within the statutory period) finding (i) in favor of the Plaintiffs on each of their respective causes of action for Unlawful Sexual Harassment in violation of Government Code §12940(j) and the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), said conduct by Defendant Lopez amounting to malice, oppression, and / or fraud justifying a punitive damage award; (ii) the court further found in favor of Plaintiffs on each of their respective claims for punitive damages; (iii) the court also found in favor of Cross–Complainant / Defendant City of Montclair on its cause of action for indemnity against Defendant Lopez; (iv) additionally, the court found that Defendant Lopez is “liable as an employee of the City of Montclair because, as a member of the City Council, Lopez is an employee of the City. Lopez is also a supervisor within the meaning of Government Code Section 12926(t)”; and (v) the court found that “Defendant Lopez may be held personally liable pursuant to Government Code Section 12940(j)(3) . . ..”; and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 26–3511, reaffirming the provisions and recitals of, and expanding on, Resolution No. 22–334 and, in addition, directing that certain economic sanctions be taken against Council Member Lopez, including the following:
1. The City Manager shall submit for City Council consideration revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code related to City Council Compensation, and that such revisions shall (i) comply with state law; and (ii) take into consideration any civil tort rulings in which a court of competent jurisdiction may have ruled that a member of the Montclair City Council, as a private individual and acting outside the course and scope of his duties, responsibilities and performance as a member of the City Council REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MM/DD/YYYY Page 18 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 2 of 4
of the City of Montclair did act in violation of his or her official duties, including for willful or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of California law, including under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
2. Revisions to Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12 of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code shall incorporate differing rates of monthly pay for City Council Members, and such differing rates of pay shall demonstrate a normal rate of pay represented by the higher end of the pay schedule, and lower payrate tiers available for assignment to a member of the City Council found to be not in good standing due to having being found liable for adjudicated violations as described in Paragraph “1.” of this recital, such lower payrate tiers to take into consideration the violations of federal and / or state law(s).
3. Further, if such payrate policy change for Montclair City Council Members is adopted by ordinance of the City Council, such payrate change shall apply to current Montclair City Council incumbents and future Montclair City Council incumbents, unless otherwise changed by ordinance of the City of Montclair.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Amendment to Code. Section 2.12.050 of Chapter 2.12. of Title 2 of the Montclair Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 2.12.050. Compensation—Salary schedule and effective date—exclusion of benefit costs in salary computation.
Table 1 provides for the monthly compensation schedule for City Council Members.
Table 1
Monthly Compensation Schedule for Members of the City Council Schedule A Schedule B Schedule C Schedule X
$1,438.00 $1,150.00 $742.00
Govt. Code
§36416.5(f)
salary waiver
A. Schedule A. Except as otherwise provided for in Paragraphs B, C, and D of this Section, each member of the City Council shall receive as salary the sum of one–thousand four–hundred thirty–eight dollars ($1,438.00) per month as provided for in Section 36516(a)(4)(A) of the Government Code. The salary provided for in this Paragraph shall remain in force and applicable to each member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time the salary is modified by adoption of an ordinance so modifying Schedule A.
B. Schedule B. Except as otherwise provided for in Paragraph A, C, and D of this Section, any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for guilty of a civil tort in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involves willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violation of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution, when such violation occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties. shall, Uupon entry of judgment against the memberconviction or immediately upon the operational date of this amendment if the operational date succeeds the entry of judgmentconviction, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Paragraph A of this Section, reduced to one–thousand one–hundred fifty dollars ($1,150.00) per month.
The salary provided for in Section 2.12.050(B) shall not be adjusted and provisions thereof shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the salary and/or its provisions by a majority voteno less than four (4) votes out of the five (5) members of the City Council voting on the matter in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to Schedule B shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while subject to its provisions.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MM/DD/YYYY Page 19 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 3 of 4
C. Schedule C. Except as otherwise provided for in Paragraph A, B, and D of this Section, any member of the City Council adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction to be liable for guilty of two or more civil torts in violation of his or her official duties and/or responsibilities as a member of the City Council that involves willful and/or corrupt misconduct in office or other violations of state or federal law including, but not limited to, any violations of the Fair Employment Housing Act, the Political Reform Act of 1974 and/or Article XX of Section 3 of the California Constitution, when such violations occurred outside the normal scope and course of duties, and/ or commitsof such violations committed against two or more victims., shall, Uupon entry of judgment against the member forconviction of the second violation or immediately upon the operational date of this amendment if the operational date succeeds the entry of judgmentconviction, the member shall have his or her salary, as provided for in Section 2.12.050(A), or as provided for in Section
2.12.050(B), reduced to seven–hundred forty–two dollars ($742.00) per month.
The salary provided for in Section 2.12.050(C) shall not be adjusted and the provisions thereof shall remain in force and applicable to any member of the City Council subject to its provisions unless and until such time either the salary separately, the provisions separately, or both the salary and provisions together, are modified or rescinded by adoption of an ordinance so modifying or rescinding the salary and/or its provisions by a majority voteno less than four (4) votes out of the five (5) members of the City Council voting on the matter in open session; further, and except as provided by law, a member of the City Council subject to Schedule C shall not be eligible to receive any other form of compensation while subject to its provisions.
D. Schedule D. Pursuant to Government Code §36516(f) and except as otherwise provided for in Paragraphs A, B, and C of this Section, each member of the City Council may individually elect to waive all or any portion of the salary permitted by this Section and such salary remaining shall be listed in a City– provided waiver form completed by the City Council Member waiving all or any portion of the salary otherwise provided for in Table 1.
E. Effective Date. The operational date of salaries provided for under Table 1, Schedule A of this Section is January 1, 2025; for Schedules “B” and “C” the operational date is January 1, 2027, following certification of the 2026 General Municipal Election and installation of the re–elected and/or newly elected officials; and for Schedule D the operational date is the first month following completion of a City–provided waiver form by a member of the City Council electing to waive all or any portion of his or her salary as provided for under Table 1.
SECTION II. Severability.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
SECTION III. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage.
SECTION IV. Posting.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same to be posted pursuant to Government Code Section 36933.
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MM/DD/YYYY Page 20 of 164 FIRST
READING
08/17/2026
Ordinance No. 26–1018 Page 4 of 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2026.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 26–1018 of said City, which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 20XX, and finally passed not less than five (5) days thereafter on the XX day of XX, 20XX, by the following vote, to–wit:
AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
REVISED (REDLINE) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MM/DD/YYYY Page 21 of 164