From Councilmember Ardy Kassakhian:

Friends,

[The Glendale City Council] will revisit the process by which we selected the mayor for Glendale. This process has been anything but smooth the last two years and I’ve shared my thoughts on this process and the reasons I voted the way I did (see below).  

I’m hoping this brings some clarity and understanding to how I vote and what my intentions are serving as your councilmember. I welcome your thoughts. Feel free to respond to this email if you have any questions or disagree with anything I’ve written.  

I’ve posted this on Facebook and LinkedIn. It was too long for X and Instagram. Hopefully some of you will take the time to read it.

In Your Service,
A. Kassakhian

𝙈𝙮 𝙏𝙬𝙤 𝘾𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨: 𝙁𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙍𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙉𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙍𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝙂𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙡𝙚’𝙨 𝙈𝙖𝙮𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨

Serving on the Glendale City Council is an honor. And with that honor comes the responsibility to uphold not just the letter of our policies, but their spirit. The mayoral selection process – largely ceremonial though it may be – should reflect fairness, inclusivity and the best interests of the city we serve. In recent years, this process has become the subject of scrutiny, division and even litigation. As someone who has both authored and participated in this process, I believe the time has come for reflection, accountability and reform.

A few years ago, I was the councilmember who advocated for and helped craft the ordinance that now guides how we select our mayor. My intention was simple: remove the guesswork, remove the politics, and create a transparent, equitable rotation that gives each councilmember a fair opportunity to serve. The ordinance aimed to establish clear criteria: the mayor should be the councilmember with the longest continuous service who hasn’t recently served and is not seeking reelection in that year.

But as we’ve learned, even the best intentions can lead to unforeseen complications. The past two mayoral selections – of Councilmember Elen Asatryan in 2024 and Councilmember Ara Najarian in 2025 – have tested that process in different ways. And while each decision sparked debate, my votes in both instances were guided by the same principles: fairness, inclusion, and the long-term interests of our city.

In 2024, when it was technically the turn to select Ara Najarian, I instead voted for Councilmember Elen Asatryan to serve as mayor. I did so knowing full well that had we rigidly applied the ordinance by seniority, Councilwoman Asatryan, as a first-term councilmember, would have been bypassed for the entirety of her term. That, to me, would have been unjust. Glendale has had very few women serve as mayor in our history, and representation matters. Elen brought a fresh voice, new energy, and a perspective that reflected the diversity of our city. Her appointment marked progress, not just for our council, but for our community.

However, her selection was contested. Councilmember Ara Najarian filed a lawsuit against the City of Glendale, challenging our decision and asserting that he should have been selected based on seniority. The matter went to court, where a judge ultimately ruled in favor of the city and upheld the council’s discretion under the ordinance. It was a difficult and unfortunate situation – one that placed strain on our council and community – but I stood by our decision. I did so not out of favoritism, but because I believed the outcome reflected the intent of the ordinance and the broader values we strive to uphold.

Fast forward to 2025. After a long year of contentious meetings and lots of hurt feelings amongst my colleagues, it was time to go through this exercise again. This time, I was technically next in line according to the ordinance. But I made a deliberate and personal decision to step aside. As I shared at the time, “Being mayor is not something I take lightly. It requires time and presence that, at that moment, I could not guarantee.” Personal obligations made it difficult for me to dedicate the full attention the role deserves. I believed then – and still do – that stepping aside was the right and responsible thing to do.

With Councilmember Najarian having announced that he would not seek reelection, the criteria of the ordinance were more clearly aligned in his favor. The ordinance was written to avoid granting the mayoral role to someone actively seeking reelection, in order to prevent the perception or reality of using the position as a political advantage. Ara’s decision not to run again removed that concern. Based on the rules we created and the fairness we sought to preserve, I voted to support his selection. Though this marked his fifth term as mayor, it was consistent with both the letter and the intent of the ordinance.

Some may look at these two decisions – supporting Councilmember Asatryan in one year and Najarian the next – and see inconsistency. But I see the same throughline in both: a commitment to fairness, to giving everyone a chance, and to preserving the dignity of this process. That said, it’s clear that the ordinance, as written, contains ambiguities that can be exploited or misinterpreted. It was not built to handle every possible scenario, including what happens when someone voluntarily defers their turn, or when service overlaps in ways the ordinance doesn’t fully address.

Without a doubt, I believe we should revisit and refine the ordinance. Let’s make it clearer, more equitable, and better suited to the realities of a diverse and evolving city. Let’s eliminate confusion, prevent future legal challenges, and ensure that the process honors both our rules and our values. We came up with a process that was supposed to work, and we were wrong. It had flaws. Arguments can be made to keep it as is or to follow the letter of the law as some have. I understand where they are coming from. Some are purists who believe that if we put rules in place – even if they are flawed – we should follow them. Others want us to follow flawed systems because it benefits their preferred councilmember from being mayor, and hopefully supporting them on the issues that matter the most to them.

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰 𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴 – 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦, 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘨𝘰. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱.

As someone who has stepped aside when it was my turn, who has stood by decisions rooted in equity, and who helped create the very framework we rely on today, I remain committed to strengthening the process – not for me, but for everyone who will follow.

Glendale deserves nothing less.

Ardashes “Ardy” Kassakhian