Glendale counters lawsuit to remove Quintero

An attempt to boot Councilman Frank Quintero out of office has more to do with his support of a recent ban on gun shows on city-owned property than a misinterpretation of a decades-old revolving-door policy, attorneys for Glendale contend in court documents.

Last month, two Glendale residents, John Rando and Mariano Rodas, filed a request with the state attorney general for permission to file a lawsuit that would seek to remove Quintero from his appointed seat because they contend the city is violating a 1982 provision that prevents council members from being employed by the city until two years after they leave the dais.

Quintero retired when his term ended in April but he was appointed a short time later to fill the seat left by colleague Rafi Manoukian, who was elected city treasurer.

In the city’s response filed last week with the state attorney general, an attorney for Glendale contends Rando and Rodas are misconstruing the provision and calls their complaint “misguided, unconstitutional and contrary to both the voters’ intent and the city’s longstanding, well-established interpretation.”

Andrew Rawcliffe, an attorney hired by the city, also contends in the filing that Rando and Rodas are targeting Quintero because he voted to ban gun shows from city property earlier this year, a prohibition they fought against.

Their attorney, Sean Brady, also represented the Glendale Gun Show’s operator during the proceedings. But Brady has said that the filing is not connected to the gun show ban, but rather is intended to make sure the city follows its own rules.

In an interview this week, he said he plans to respond to the city’s filing on Monday.

“That is what this action is about, keeping the government honest, not the gun show,” Brady said. “Their response shows the city thinks some people’s voices that don’t agree with the city should be disregarded or discounted.”

Rando and Rodas must get the attorney general’s permission before filing a lawsuit against Quintero — a protection against frivolous lawsuits filed against elected officials.

According to court documents, the city contends that when voters approved the revolving-door policy, it was never meant to prevent people from holding elected office. Rather, Rawcliffe argues, it was meant to clarify a former policy that seemingly prevented council members from holding outside employment.

In his filing, he points to the 1982 ballot pamphlet in which elected offices are not mentioned in a description of the provision. Council members work part-time and many have other jobs outside of City Hall.

Quintero announced he was retiring after 12 years in office before the April municipal election. When Manoukian won the city treasurer’s seat, his two-year term was left open.

The City Council chose to appoint Quintero to a 14-month term rather than hold a special election.

At the time, City Atty. Mike Garcia said the revolving-door policy exempted elected positions. Although the Charter language doesn’t specifically do that, Garcia said the voters intended to prevent council members from taking cushy positions with the city after their terms, not to create a term-limit.

“It is clear that this … action would discourage citizens from holding elected office and/or at the very least, discourage elected officials from taking positions unpopular with the National Rifle Assn.,” Rawcliffe wrote in the filing.

It could be months before the attorney general’s office makes a decision.

--

Follow Brittany Levine on Google+ and on Twitter: @brittanylevine.