Glendale committee directs staff to draft regular council compensation review process

The Glendale Charter Review Committee voted Aug. 7 to direct staff to draft charter amendment language requiring the City Council to take up the question of council member compensation on a recurring schedule.

The committee approved a motion directing staff to return with language that would require the council to consider compensation "no later than one year after each municipal election," producing a recurring review roughly every two years. The motion was seconded and passed by roll call vote.

Committee members and staff discussed details of the draft language the committee had requested at an earlier meeting. Staff said the draft was based on a Pasadena charter provision the committee asked them to adapt: it would establish an appointed advisory commission to review the full scope of council compensation (salary and other pay elements), require the council to adopt any change by supermajority, allow referendum on any council ordinance changing pay, and limit annual increases to a fixed percentage.

Staff explained two notable differences from the Pasadena text: the draft proposes a compensation review at least once every four years (to align with four-year terms for permanent boards and commissions in Glendale) and leaves appointment mechanics to ordinance language rather than prescribing a panel-based appointment in the charter. The staff presenter summarized the package: "The basic elements ... were: a provision requiring the city council to establish an appointed advisory body, that the advisory body consider the full scope of council member compensation, not just salary," and that council action be subject to referendum if adopted as an ordinance.

Committee members pressed staff on mechanics: whether the draft's cap on increases (5% per calendar year) was cumulative, how soon a convened commission would have to report (staff said the draft sets 180 days for a convened commission to return a recommendation), and how an advisory commission would be appointed. Members also discussed whether to require the council to act promptly on the commission's recommendation; staff noted the Pasadena model imposes a reporting deadline for the commission but not a mandatory council action deadline.

Public speakers and committee members offered a range of views during oral communications and public comment. Speakers called for clearer ethics rules, better audit oversight, and tying council compensation to median family income; others said a compensation commission would be cumbersome for modest increases and suggested simpler periodic review requirements instead.

After further discussion the committee approved the motion directing staff to draft amendment language that would require the council to take up compensation no later than one year after each municipal election (creating a recurring review cycle) and return with ordinance language to implement it. A roll-call of committee members was recorded and the motion carried.

The committee asked staff to return with precise draft text incorporating requested clarifications — especially whether increases are cumulative and the mechanics for appointment of any compensation advisory body — for consideration at a future meeting.