government accountability

Pomona’s New Rules for Commissioners: Show Up, Shut Up and Behave

Pomona City Hall is about to start counting minutes like a manager who just discovered time sheets.

Under Ordinance 4372, which is scheduled for a second reading and possible adoption Monday night, arriving more than five minutes after a commission meeting begins would make someone officially tardy. Leave at least 15 minutes before adjournment and that would be an early departure. Collect any combination of three and congratulations, City Hall would convert them into one absence.

Then the proposal takes a hard left turn from an attendance policy into a municipal etiquette manual.

Commissioners would be required to maintain “civility and professionalism” during meetings and remain professional outside them. We would imagine that means no name calling or telling people to “go to hell” on social media. An interesting approach to “progressive” leadership. Such conduct reflects poorly on City Hall and can reinforce the negative stereotypes the city has long endured. But will councilmembers hold themselves to the same standard? Hopefully. That would mean no calling people “stupid” or talking shit in the streets. The ordinance does not explain where this expectation begins, where it ends or who gets to decide when somebody has failed it.

Ordinance 4372 appears as Item 9 on the October 19 consent calendar. The Council can approve it with the other consent items unless a councilmember pulls it for discussion.

City staff describes the proposal as eight revisions intended to provide clearer guidance. Some of them do. If attendance carries consequences, defining a tardy makes sense. Someone who arrives 40 minutes late should not receive the same attendance credit as someone who sat through the whole meeting.

The rest deserves a closer look, particularly because Pomona is attempting to deliver a lecture about precision through paperwork that could use some.

When The Pomonan reviewed the October 5 legislative page for Ordinance 4372, the attachment labeled “Staff Report.pdf” opened an unrelated July report concerning the attendance of Vehicle Parking District Commissioner Alejandra Tessier.

The staff report attached to Monday’s second reading says the Council introduced the ordinance on October 5, 2025. The meeting occurred October 5, 2026.

The proposed ordinance itself says City staff “shall will prepare the Agenda.”

The City wants to regulate whether a commissioner arrives six minutes late while its October 5 record carried the wrong staff report and its current documents carry the wrong year and two verbs crashing into each other. Maybe professionalism should begin at home.

The Dos and Don’ts of Ordinance 4372

Do

Watch the clock. Arriving more than five minutes after the meeting is called to order would count as a tardy.

Stay until the end. Leaving at least 15 minutes before adjournment would count as an early departure unless the commissioner leaves because of a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Keep track of both. Three tardies, early departures or any combination of the two would become one absence.

Be present when the meeting begins. If a regular meeting fails for lack of a quorum, a commissioner who is not present at the start and does not have an excused absence would receive an unexcused absence.

Remember that commissioners do not direct staff. The proposal says commissioners may not direct staff to initiate programs, conduct major studies or establish policy without approval from the City Council or city manager.

Do without the official extras. The ordinance states that City email accounts and business cards will not be issued to commissioners.

Don’t

Turn disagreement into a personal attack. The proposed standards prohibit abusive conduct, personal charges and verbal attacks on the character or motives of commissioners, City employees and members of the public.

Pretend to speak for Pomona when you do not. Commissioners may identify themselves as commissioners while performing official business or when authorized by the City. At other times, they must make clear that they are not speaking for the commission or the City.

Assume City Hall’s concern ends when the meeting does. Commissioners would be required to “maintain professionalism both during and outside of public meetings.”

Outside public meetings covers a lot of territory. It could mean social media, a neighborhood event, a protest, a candidate forum or an argument over a parking space at Stater Bros. The ordinance does not define unprofessional conduct outside a meeting. It does not identify who evaluates an alleged violation or establish a specific process for handling one.

“Be professional” is easy advice. As a rule governing people the Council can remove, it is something else. It can mean do not threaten people or scream at staff. It can also mean do not embarrass City Hall. The language leaves enough room for future officials to decide what it means when a dispute arrives.

That is the problem with gummy words such as civility and professionalism. They sound neutral because nobody openly campaigns for abuse or chaos. But vague behavioral standards can be harmless when ignored and powerful when selectively applied.

The Rule Pomona Did Not Change

The rewrite leaves the central threshold of three absences unchanged. Three absences in a calendar year, excused or unexcused, trigger a commission review and a possible recommendation for removal. The commission secretary “shall” place the matter on the agenda.

That matters because a response sent to The Pomonan on the City’s behalf recently described the trigger as “more than three absences.” That is incorrect. The existing bylaws say three. The proposed bylaws still say three.

It also matters because Pomona has not explained why Jacqueline “Jacky” Elizalde’s failed removal recommendation was taken to the City Council while other commissioners with comparable or worse attendance records remained after their commissions declined to recommend removal.

The Pomonan documented those cases earlier this month. The Parks and Recreation Commission voted 3 to 3 on whether to recommend Elizalde’s removal, so the recommendation failed. Councilmember Elizabeth Ontiveros-Cole then made a separate request to place the matter before the City Council.

The Council possessed the authority under the City Charter to remove Elizalde and used it. The unanswered question is why her case received that additional proceeding when the other cases did not.

Ordinance 4372 does not answer that question or establish a mechanism for showing that attendance and conduct rules are being applied consistently. It adds more ways to accumulate an absence and introduces a new collection of behavioral standards.

The timing should be stated plainly. The City created the legislative file on September 22, before The Pomonan published its October 13 report about Elizalde and commission attendance. There is no evidence that the ordinance was drafted in response to the article.

The ordinance is nevertheless arriving in the middle of an unresolved argument about what happens when a routine attendance matter moves beyond a commission and into City Council politics.

Maybe the Council will discuss the unanswered parts Monday night. Someone could ask who decides when criticism becomes incivility, what professionalism outside a meeting actually means and why City Hall needs authority over conduct it has not bothered to define.

Or maybe Ordinance 4372 will pass on consent, tucked between other items, giving Pomona another set of rules that look harmless on paper and become meaningful only when somebody decides to use them.


SOURCE


The Pomonan is an independent publication of essays, criticism, photography, and cultural commentary.

Pomona Moves to Verify Candidate Residency Mid-Campaign

Pomona is preparing to adopt a formal residency-verification policy for candidates and elected officials, even as the 2026 campaign is already underway.

The City Council will consider Resolution 2026-95 at its meeting Monday, September 21. The item sits on the consent calendar, meaning it could be approved without separate public discussion unless a councilmember pulls it.

Pomona’s charter already requires the mayor to live in the city and councilmembers to live in the districts they represent. The proposed policy does not create that residency rule. It creates a formal process for deciding whether a candidate or elected official has produced enough documentation to prove compliance with it.

Under the proposed policy, candidates would have to show they are registered to vote at the address they claim as their residence, then provide at least two additional records from separate categories.

Those records could include a lease, property-ownership documents, vehicle registration, driver’s license, utility bill, paycheck, bank statement, insurance document, school record or court document.

The records would have to establish that the candidate lived at the address for at least 30 consecutive days immediately before receiving nomination papers. Candidates would also have to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury.

The City Clerk would have five calendar days to review the documents. The policy says candidates who do not provide the required records before the nomination deadline “will not be permitted to file their nomination papers.”

It is a lot of paperwork for something that is supposed to be simple: Do you live where you say you live?

But elections are never simple once the filing deadlines, campaign signs, donor lists and political alliances have begun moving. A residency rule can look clear in a city charter. Proving it can be messier. A person may receive mail at one address, sleep at another, own property somewhere else and still insist they belong in a district.

The policy would give City Hall a checklist instead of leaving those disputes to rumor, neighborhood Facebook groups or last-minute political attacks.

It also raises a fair timing question. The City is moving to formalize the process after candidates have already declared campaigns, raised money and begun asking voters for support. The policy says missing documents can prevent someone from filing nomination papers, but the public agenda summary does not identify a specific candidate or elected official whose residency prompted the resolution.

That does not mean there is no legitimate reason for the policy. Election eligibility matters. So does a clear process that applies evenly, rather than one invented only when a particular candidate becomes politically inconvenient.

The council can adopt the policy in one consent-calendar vote Monday night. If nobody pulls the item for discussion, a new process governing one of the most basic requirements for public office may pass with little more than a motion and a roll call.

Official agenda and Resolution 2026-95⁠


The Pomonan is an independent publication of essays, criticism, photography, and cultural commentary.

Pomona Says Money Is Tight. The City Council Is Considering a Raise.

Pomona City Hall has spent months warning that money is tight. Pomona’s adopted General Fund budget spends approximately $11.4 million more than projected revenue, with the difference coming from reserves. Officials say services may have to be cut. Measure Y has now become the official scapegoat whenever investing in the city’s children is mentioned. And now the City Council is considering a raise.

On Monday, September 21, 2026 councilmembers will decide whether to advance a 9.91 percent increase in their monthly compensation. Regular councilmembers would go from $819 to $900 a month. The mayor would jump from $1,638 to $1,800.

Nobody is buying a yacht with that money. It is an extra $81 a month for councilmembers and $162 for the mayor. But City Hall has a funny way of discovering fiscal restraint when money is headed toward residents and discovering the Consumer Price Index when the money is headed upstairs.

The proposal also includes a one time expense payment of $600 for each councilmember and $1,200 for the mayor.

According to the City staff report, these payments would recognize expenses associated with public service and “extraordinary inflation, including recent increases in fuel costs.”

The recurring raise would cost Pomona approximately $4,544 a year. The on- time payments would add another $4,800. The total cost during the first year is $9,344.

That amount is lint in the municipal couch cushions. It will not wreck the budget, save the budget, or meaningfully alter Pomona’s financial condition. The point is not that a nine thousand dollar expense will bankrupt a city with a General Fund approaching $182 million. The point is timing.

Pomona’s adopted budget projects about $181.9 million in General Fund spending against approximately $170.5 million in revenue. The difference comes from reserves.

At the same time, the City is transferring approximately $9.2 million into the Children and Youth Fund required by Measure Y. Staff has warned that the voter approved youth measure could force reductions to “core services” unless Pomona finds additional revenue.

When the subject is youth funding, the City describes a looming fiscal burden. When the subject is council compensation, staff finds a legal formula and calculates the raise down to the dollar.

The same agenda item also updates Pomona’s salary schedule to reflect a 5 percent increase for full time and part time City classifications beginning October 1.

That raise is not a surprise and it was not negotiated last week. It comes from labor agreements and compensation plans approved in 2023 and was already built into the current operating budget.

The staff report does not disclose the total citywide cost of that 5 percent increase.

Councilmembers have not received a compensation increase since 2014. Pomona’s charter allows council pay to be adjusted using inflation, and state law would permit the City to pay councilmembers as much as $2,550 per month based on population. The proposed $900 remains far below that ceiling.

Those are fair facts. So is this one: the council considering the increase is the same council that controls the City budget and decides which expenses are necessary, which are untouchable, and which become warnings about impending cuts.

Monday’s vote would not make the council raise final. It would introduce the ordinance and approve its first reading. A second reading is scheduled for October 5.

If the ordinance survives both votes, it would take effect on November 5. The increased pay would begin on November 15.

Nine thousand dollars will not break Pomona. But austerity always sounds different depending on whose check is being discussed.

The City Council meeting begins at 7 p.m. at Pomona City Hall, 505 S. Garey Avenue.


The Pomonan is an independent publication of essays, criticism, photography, and cultural commentary.