Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale council votes 4–3 to direct city attorney to appeal judge's reinstatement order for Councilmember Conchas
Summary
After public comment and extended debate, the council voted 4–3 to direct the city attorney to appeal a judge's ruling that reinstated Councilmember Lupe Conchas and found parts of the council's earlier removal action void; supporters and critics of the appeal voiced concerns about legal clarity and taxpayer cost.
The Glendale City Council on June 23 voted 4–3 to direct the city attorney to pursue an appeal of a recent court ruling that reinstated Councilmember Lupe Conchas and found aspects of the council's prior removal action void.
City Attorney Michael Bailey explained the item and asked the council to confirm direction provided during an executive session earlier the same day. Bailey said the executive session had occurred on June 23 (a typographical error in the notice referenced March 25) and recommended an appeal to seek clarity on the citizen-ratified code provision implicated by the court ruling.
Public commenters, including Marisol Oliva Valenzuela of the Akimel O'odham District, criticized the council's earlier actions and urged accountability. Valenzuela told the council, "You guys just made a really bad decision. That's shameful." Several residents, including Judith Clark and James Diebler, spoke in support of Councilmember Conchas and expressed concern about disenfranchisement of voters.
Councilmember Lupe Conchas argued the court's decision made clear that the $60 SRP per-diem payment is not compensation and that the council's removal action was void; Conchas said the ruling restored his right to serve. "I am the duly elected council member of the Cactus District," he said, and urged the council to consider the impact on district constituents before spending city funds on an appeal.
Those favoring an appeal, including the city attorney and other councilmembers, framed the step as necessary to obtain a definitive legal interpretation. One speaker for the motion said pursuing an appeal would ensure "an accurate interpretation of the law to ensure that justice is fully and properly served for all parties involved."
After extended discussion and the public remarks, the council held a roll-call vote. Councilmembers Diana Guzman, Lauren Tomachoff, Vice Mayor Ray Melnor and Mayor Jerry Weiers voted to direct the city attorney to appeal; Councilmembers Leandro Baldenegro, Lupe Conchas and Bart Turner voted no. The motion passed 4–3.
Why it matters: the vote moves the dispute to an appellate court and affects whether the city's prior removal of a councilmember is affirmed or overturned on broader legal grounds. Supporters say an appeal protects long-term legal clarity for the city; opponents warned of the financial cost and urged deference to the trial court's interpretation.
Next steps: the city attorney will initiate appellate proceedings consistent with the council's direction; the timetable and potential costs will depend on procedural filings and counsel strategy.
