Council divided over proposal to move oversight of council assistants to city clerk

Council members debated whether supervisory oversight of city council assistants should move from the city manager's office to the city clerk's office, with proponents citing better alignment and fairness and opponents citing staff relationships and operational continuity.

A council member introduced an ordinance request to transfer supervisory responsibility for council assistants to the city clerk, saying the city clerk's office handles boards and commissions, public-records matters and agenda support and is physically co-located with council offices in the new building. The proposer said the change would improve "synergy" and allow council members greater access to applicant pools and hiring oversight.

Supporters argued the change would create a clearer check and balance between council and manager, and increase transparency in hiring. One council member said applicants with relevant experience were not being interviewed in the current system and argued the change would let the council see applications and help ensure a level playing field.

Opponents said current arrangements work and that council assistants who were hired under the current system have close operational ties with the city manager's office and department heads. One council member reported meeting with the current council assistants, who told her they were "very concerned" and "happy where they're at," and said the assistants feared the move would be detrimental. Council Member Millner, after speaking with staff and others, said he supported keeping assistants under the city manager because it facilitates rapid problem resolution for constituents.

Several council members said there was a structural problem to address, including cases where some council members had no assistants and inconsistent hiring experiences across offices. Another council member said Scottsdale uses a model that places assistants under the city clerk and suggested Glendale could revert if the change did not work.

Council members were split on whether to advance the ordinance to the evening voting meeting. The mayor asked for a consensus to move the ordinance forward; the council recorded mixed verbal responses and no consensus to place the ordinance on the voting agenda that night. Staff told the council that because three council members had used the charter process to request the item on the voting agenda, staff needed direction whether to proceed; council did not reach a workshop consensus and the item was not advanced that evening.

No formal vote occurred at the workshop; staff indicated the item could be scheduled for a future voting meeting if the council provides direction.