Glendale council directs staff to repeal mayor-selection ordinance, seek options on timing and seating

The Glendale City Council on July 1 directed staff to repeal the city's mayor-selection ordinance and return with options for changing the mayor-selection date and when a new mayor takes office.

The action follows more than three hours of public comment and lengthy council debate about sections of the Glendale Municipal Code governing mayor selection, including a "best interest" clause, seniority rules and a prohibition on selecting a council member who is in the final year of their council term. City Attorney Garcia presented alternative draft language and explained the tradeoffs; several council members urged removing discretionary language that has been the focus of litigation and public criticism.

Why it matters: The ordinance, adopted after the council sought a predictable order for mayoral succession, has become a flashpoint in Glendale politics. Speakers and some council members said the rule has produced bitter disputes and legal challenges; others said some sort of guideline is still useful. The council's direction will require staff to draft new ordinance language or a repeal and return to the council for future action.

City Attorney Garcia told the council the office prepared options that range from keeping objective criteria to removing discretionary exceptions. "One option is obviously to remove it outright and not have that discretion," Garcia said while summarizing alternatives for seniority, the 180-day rule and the best-interest clause.

Council member Asatryan proposed a simpler seniority standard: "longest serving since your last election," an option he said would avoid penalizing newly elected members while still recognizing experience. Several public speakers asked the council to eliminate the best-interest clause entirely; Alan Durham said, "The best interest clause should be totally eliminated."

The council motion, as stated on the record, directed staff to repeal the current ordinance and bring back options on changing the selection date and the seating of the new mayor. The motion passed in a roll call with four yes votes and one abstention; the clerk recorded Rotman (yes), Garpetian (yes), Kazakian (yes), Mayor Najarian (yes) and one council member who abstained (name not specified on the roll call excerpt). The council did not adopt new ordinance language at the meeting; staff will prepare draft ordinances reflecting the directions given and return for future hearings.

Public comment and context: Multiple residents urged elimination of the best-interest clause and greater transparency. Beth Brooks said the clause "guts" the other provisions and creates public suspicion. Other commenters recommended moving the selection to July so newly elected members can participate; some council members voiced concerns about certification timing and practical effects of shifting the date.

Next steps: Staff was instructed to draft options that include repeal and, alternately, revised language (for example: seniority measured since last election; elimination or narrowing of the best-interest clause; moving selection to July) and to return with ordinance language for council consideration. The motion as recorded is direction to staff rather than a final change to the municipal code.

Votes at a glance: Motion to direct staff to repeal the mayor-selection ordinance and return with options on selection date and seating: outcome ' approved (direction to staff). Recorded roll call in the minutes: Rotman ' yes; Garpetian ' yes; Kazakian ' yes; Mayor Najarian ' yes; one abstention (name not specified).