Disclaimer: The comments in this blog are my personal opinion and may or may not reflect an adopted position of the city of Glendale and its city council.

This morning I watched the special Glendale city council voting meeting. There was only one agenda item, consideration of the removal of Lupe Conchas as the Cactus district councilmember. It was a painful meeting but necessary. Frankly, it should have occurred after Conchas was sworn into his other public and compensated office on the SRP board in early May.

After the mayor opened the meeting and the resolution in its entirety was read, the mayor opened the floor for citizen comments. There were 27 speakers. The breakdown was a follows:

• 8 speakers from the Cactus district (which is the district Conchas served)
• 19 speakers from outside the Cactus district with 12 speakers from Phoenix, 2 from the Cholla district, 1 each from the Sahuaro and Barrel districts, 1 from Tempe and 1 from Peoria.
• 18 speakers spoke on behalf of Conchas remaining
• 9 speakers spoke opposed to Conchas remaining

The general themes of the speakers in support of Conchas were:

• Conchas is of good character and was a good councilmember.
• It was City Attorney Michael Bailey’s fault for not advising Conchas of the ramifications.
• Conchas is not receiving compensation from Salt River Project.
• Council does not have the right to ignore the will of Cactus district voters.
• Former Councilmember Hugh was not a good councilmember.
• Threats to remove all sitting councilmembers at their next elections.

The general themes of speakers opposed to Conchas remaining were:

• It creates a conflict of interest between Salt River Project and the City of Glendale.
• Conchas had been advised multiple times of the consequences of having two elected offices publicly compensated.
• Conchas was willing to try his luck in the court of public opinion.
• Conchas was not willing to follow the rule of law as expressed in the Glendale city charter.

After citizens’ comments closed the mayor called for a motion. Conchas immediately made the motion to table the resolution. It was seconded by Councilmember Turner. Conchas’ comments after he made his motion summarized were he urged all councilmembers to look at the full picture; he thanked all councilmembers; he did his due diligence; he offered to resign from SRP if retained as councilmember.

However, the most remarkable comment was that he offered to “abandon all political plans” if he were retained. We know he has declared to run for mayor of Glendale in 2028. His offer could be construed as an open political bribe.

Councilmember Turner opined that the resolution to remove was premature and may not be necessary as Conchas has not received any compensation thus far. His ultimate solution was that Conchas resign from the SRP board.

The motion to table failed on a 4 to 3 vote with Conchas, Baldenegro and Turner voting to table and Weiers, Malnar, Tolmachoff and Guzman voting to reject tabling.

Councilmember Tolmachoff made the motion to accept the resolution for removal.  Seconded by Vice Mayor Malnar.

All councilmembers commented on their votes with the exception of Mayor Weiers and Councilmember Baldenegro.

Conchas said that this action would silence Cactus district residents. He asked councilmembers to reconsider and said that if he were not expelled, he would resign from SRP.

Councilmembers Guzman and Tolmachoff stated that it was their duty as elected officials to follow the law and to uphold the city’s charter.

Vice Mayor Malnar said that this meeting was stressful for all and that action was taken only after receiving legal advice from outside counsel who had no interest to the city.

Councilmember Turner stated that there was no evidence that Conchas has received compensation to date. He suggested that if Conchas virtually attended SRP meetings, he would receive no compensation.

Councilmembers Conchas, Baldenegro and Turner voted to deny the motion.

The Mayor and Councilmembers Malnar, Tolmachoff and Guzman voted to approve the motion.

The motion passed on a 4 to 3 vote.

The most surprising vote was that of Councilmember Baldenegro. It is generally known that Baldenegro and Conchas were not buddies. So, why did Baldenegro vote to support Conchas? I’ll leave that for you, the reader, to figure out.

One interesting citizen speaker was Gary Hirsch of the Cactus district. Mr. Hirsch will be running for the Cactus council seat and is supported by Conchas.

The night before this council meeting Conchas posted the following on his Facebook page:

Arizona Legislative District 26 Democrats · May 27 9pm

Let’s support Lupe!

The Glendale City Council will vote Thursday on whether to expel member Lupe Conchas over his election to the Salt River Project power board last month.

Can you be there to support Lupe? Bring friends and pack the room. The meeting starts at 10am, but we ask you to be there early to fill out a comment card prior to the meeting.

If you wish to speak on a matter concerning Glendale city government that is not on the printed agenda, please fill out a Citizen Comments Card located in the back of the Council Chambers and give it to the City Clerk before the meeting starts.

Mari Alvarado

Tomorrow Thursday, at 10:00 a.m. please come early and fill out a card to support Council Member, Lupe Conchas at Glendale City Hall, 5750 W. GLENN DR. GLENDALE, AZ There is a vote scheduled to expel him. We need Indigenous Coalition Of Arizona LICA to show up.

8 people from the Cactus district showed up.

Final comment. No one is above the law especially of Glendale’s city charter. Conchas bet that the court of public opinion, rather than the law, would save him. He bet wrong.

^{© Joyce Clark, 2026}   

^{FAIR USE NOTICE}

^{This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such material. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.}