Glendale taxpayers deserve accountability on council stipends

Adobe Stock

OPINION — Thank you to Richard Smith for his ongoing reporting on Attorney General Kris Mayes’ investigation into Glendale’s council stipends.

The issue is simple: in 2019, Glendale voters explicitly rejected a salary increase. In 2022, City Administrative Policy 11 quietly bypassed the public’s clear vote, handing council members a $900 monthly stipend plus a $450 monthly car allowance.

Former City Manager Kevin Phelps framed this $1,350 monthly payout as an administrative efficiency to cut processing paperwork under the city’s merit system setup. In reality, this scheme completely avoids transparency.

Under CAP 11, council members receive unvetted cash payouts with zero obligation to submit receipts, log miles or prove a single cent is spent on city business. Councilmember Lupe Conchas spoke out against this very stipend before his controversial removal, exposing how toxic this policy has become for local government accountability.

City Attorney Michael Bailey’s 15-page response relies on legal evasion challenging AG Mayes’ statutory authority while trying to debunk the timeline of a secret 2022 executive session.

If city leadership truly believes the attorney general lacks jurisdiction, Bailey should explicitly state which oversight agency holds authority rather than forcing the state to justify its standing. Furthermore, invoking a standard one-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) on Open Meeting Law claims ignores the discovery rule for discussions hidden behind closed doors.

The timeline tells the story. After receiving notice on May 6, 2026, the standard 30-day response window would have ended June 6. Instead, the city took a 15-week extension through Aug. 20 to manufacture a procedural defense.

Glendale taxpayers deserve direct accountability not administrative smoke and mirrors that dodge transparency and pad council compensation with unvetted cash payouts behind closed doors.

The city attorney’s office stated in its response to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office that the executive session occurred after the city manager’s office enacted CAP 11. Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.