A recently expelled Glendale City Council member has filed a legal challenge against his removal from office, arguing that city officials misapplied local charter provisions when they voted him out over his simultaneous service on a major utility board.
Jose Conchas Jr., known publicly as Lupe Conchas, was removed from his council position Thursday following a 4-3 vote by his fellow council members. The controversy centers on whether his position on the Salt River Project governing board violates city charter rules prohibiting council members from holding other paid public offices.
Conchas, who was elected to the Glendale City Council in 2024 representing the southern district, recently secured a seat on the Salt River Project board in April as part of a slate of candidates focused on renewable energy and utility affordability. The Salt River Project ranks among Arizona’s largest utilities, serving significant portions of the state.
The dispute arose when Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers indicated that residents had expressed concerns about Conchas’s eligibility to continue serving on the council after his utility board appointment. Weiers and a council majority determined that the $60 per diem Conchas would receive for attending board meetings qualified as compensation under the city charter’s restrictions.
In his lawsuit filed Thursday night in Maricopa County Superior Court, Conchas maintains that per diem payments fundamentally differ from compensation. He argues that while compensation represents earnings exchanged for services rendered, per diem serves as reimbursement for costs incurred. Furthermore, Conchas states he has waived his right to receive any per diem payments from his Salt River Project board service.
The 12-page legal filing asserts that neither the Glendale City Charter nor the Arizona Constitution prohibits him from occupying both positions simultaneously. Conchas cites historical precedent, including a 1978 Arizona attorney general opinion that approved similar dual-service arrangements. He specifically references Richard D. Mahoney, who served as both Arizona secretary of state and a board member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District from 1989 to 1990.
Conchas’s legal argument extends beyond the interpretation of compensation versus per diem. He contends that even if the city charter did prohibit dual service, state law would supersede local regulations because the Salt River Project board handles matters of statewide importance. According to his filing, the City of Glendale cannot impose restrictions not found in state law, particularly when voters elected him to the utility board under a state legal framework that permits such service.
The Salt River Project’s bylaws indicate that board members may receive a salary in addition to per diem payments, though Conchas states he has waived both forms of payment. His lawsuit emphasizes that he has not received and will not receive any payments as a board member.
Conchas is requesting that a judge nullify his removal from the city council and prevent any future attempts to remove him on the same grounds. He notes in his complaint that no council member, including Mayor Weiers, responded to a letter he sent on May 1 explaining his legal position on why he hasn’t violated any laws.
The case raises questions about the interpretation of local government charter provisions and their interaction with state law, particularly regarding what constitutes compensation for public service and whether local jurisdictions can restrict elected officials from serving in multiple capacities when state law appears to permit such arrangements.
Leave a Reply