Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Covina council votes to introduce ordinance easing removal of commissioners over objections from minority member and residents
Summary
The council voted 3–1 to introduce an ordinance that would allow removal of appointed commissioners without the current 'for cause' requirement; Councilman Cantos voted no and multiple residents spoke against the change during public comment.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The West Covina City Council voted 3–1 on April 1 to introduce an ordinance that would amend municipal code section 2‑67 to allow the council to remove commissioners without the current 'for cause' requirement. Councilman Brian Cantos cast the lone vote opposed.
Council Member Brian Gutierrez, who introduced the item as a “Mother may I” request at an earlier meeting, argued the change would increase accountability and oversight of commissioners. “...this is an accountability measure,” Gutierrez said during the item’s discussion, urging the council to consider removal authority as a tool to ensure commission performance.
During oral communications, multiple residents and commissioners urged the council to withdraw the proposal or to preserve the existing standard. Nick Lewis, a former commissioner and public commenter, said the change would enable politicization and asked, “Will the result of your actions tonight be that you will without cause remove all of council member Cantos' commissioners?” Jerry Patrice called the proposal “a malicious power grab designed to reduce the voice of the minority.”
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viado and others described prior incidents in which commissioners’ personal conduct had prompted concerns and said the current higher vote threshold provided deliberative protection; Lopez Viado said she supports keeping a supermajority threshold as a safeguard but also described past situations where removal was ultimately necessary for the council’s ability to function.
City Attorney clarified that the proposed ordinance would remove the statutory definition of “for cause” and lower the procedural barrier to removal to a four‑member majority vote; the draft red‑line presented to council shows specific edits to section 2‑67.
Council adopted a motion to introduce the ordinance for further consideration by a 3–1 vote (Gutierrez, Lopez Viado and Mayor Wu voting yes; Cantos voting no). The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez Viado. No final adoption vote occurred on April 1; the item will proceed through the normal ordinance introduction and subsequent public hearing/second‑reading steps if council directs.
Separately, the council approved the consent calendar items 1–5 (except item 2, which was pulled for discussion) by a 4–0 roll-call vote earlier in the meeting.

