Fullerton residents are encouraged to attend a crucial city council meeting scheduled for December 16, 2025, at 5:30 PM, where the selection of the 2026 mayor and mayor pro tem will take place. This meeting represents a pivotal moment for the city’s governance, as it will test the commitment to the city’s fair rotation policy outlined in Policy No. 226 of the Policy and Procedures Manual.
Under this policy, the Mayor Pro Tem is automatically elevated to the position of Mayor after serving a year, with the Mayor’s term limited to just one year. The selection process is designed to prioritize seniority, rewarding council members based on their consecutive years of service without holding the mayoral position. However, the integrity of this process has come under scrutiny.
District 5 representative Councilmember Ahmad Zahra, who has dedicated the past seven years to the council, has repeatedly been denied the mayoral position thwarted by fellow council members from Districts 1, 2, and 4, who appear to favor selecting themselves instead. This trend raises serious concerns about adherence to the city’s policy and fairness in council appointments.
A growing segment of the community is rallying behind Dr. Ahmad Zahra for the mayoral role, particularly as this will be his final year in Office. While District 3 representative Mayor Pro Tem Dr. Shana Charles is technically next in line for the role, residents are hopeful that the upcoming meeting will address these issues, ensuring that the leadership of the council reflects the community’s values and commitment to equitable governance by not overlooking District 5 again.
Residents have various avenues to address the deviation from the discretionary mayoral rotation policy, which include political pressure, formal complaints, and, in certain circumstances, legal challenges.
Political and Public Pressure
Civic engagement remains the most direct method for constituents to influence council decisions. Attending city council meetings and voicing concerns during public testimony can amplify residents’ voices.
Public advocacy, such as engaging with local media and community groups, can galvanize public opinion around ensuring adherence to the fair rotation policy. Organizing citizen groups to lobby the city council could apply sufficient pressure to compel compliance with established norms, ultimately influencing future electoral outcomes. Collecting signatures for petitions to make the rotation policy mandatory could also enhance its legal weight.
Formal Complaints and Ethics
Residents may file formal complaints if they suspect deviations from the policy violate ethical standards or state laws. Reporting these allegations to the City Attorney’s Office or the City Manager could prompt further investigation.
If supported by evidence, complaints can also be submitted to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), addressing any potential conflict of interest that may have influenced council decisions.
Legal Recourse
While legal options are limited due to the discretionary nature of the policy, avenues such as a writ of mandate or a quo warranto action may be pursued under certain circumstances. Consulting with legal counsel specializing in municipal law can provide clarity on potential claims and actions to take.
As the December 16 meeting approaches, residents are encouraged to engage in the democratic process and hold their elected officials accountable. The successful enforcement of the fair rotation policy will not only restore integrity to Fullerton’s governance but also ensure that all voices within the community are represented.
Below is a short history of the uneven mayor rotation in recent years.
- 2018: Mayor Chaffee; Mayor pro tem Silva (Zahra elected Nov 2018)
- 2019: Mayor Silva; Mayor pro tem Fitzgerald
- 2020: Mayor Fitzgerald; Mayor pro tem Whitaker (Dunlap and Jung elected Nov. 2020)
- 2021: Mayor Whitaker; Mayor pro tem; Dunlap
- 2022: Mayor Jung; Mayor pro tem Whitaker; (Dunlap declined to serve as Mayor)
- 2023: Mayor Jung; Mayor pro tem Whitaker ; (Charles elected Nov 2022)
- 2024: Mayor Dunlap; Mayor pro tem Jung; (Valencia elected Nov 2024)
- 2025: Mayor Jung; Mayor pro tem Charles
- 2026: Who will be Mayor and Mayor pro tem?
Fullerton Fair Mayor/Mayor Protem Rotation Policy 226 (As revised in 2020 by council majority)
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Election, Elections, Local Government, Local News
Great article – Thank you Jack for making it so clear. It is ridiculous to bypass any district representative. The voters of every district deserve to see their representative serve as mayor. As a regular council viewer I have seen the excellent job Ahmad Zahra has done over the years asking tough questions, coming up with good ideas, and and being responsive and polite to the public. Even though I don’t live in his district I want him to have the mayor position.
“… it will test the commitment to the city’s fair rotation policy outlined in Policy No. 226 of the Policy and Procedures Manual.” The council’s selection will test the policy, yet again? How many tests do you need? Are you seriously expecting a different outcome this time? The policy is meaningless. Add it to the municipal code if you want to ensure a regular mayoral rotation (if that’s possible). If you feel that strongly about it start collecting signatures for the 2026 election. (If it isn’t possible for such a policy to be part of the municipal code, then perhaps begin contemplating a directly elected mayor).
Well, that was a farce of a night. Jung gets to be mayor for two years in a row. Was that ever done before? He should step down and walk away. Or better yet, the crowd should continue to hold him for not looking up when his people speak to him.
He was busy texting with the North OC Chamber of Commerce reps who were sitting next to me in chambers.
Not a single public comment supported Jung being mayor – many explicitly said they did NOT want Jung to be mayor, and almost every one (except for two off-topic commenters) supported either Charles or Zahra for the position.
Cue the usual gaslighting from Dunlap saying that the 20 or so public commenters weren’t representative. Well then, where were the dissenters? How convenient that they all chose to stay home last night. Dunlap and Jung dismiss public sentiment whenever it benefits them to do so.
It seems they have trouble accepting the reality that virtually no one supports them, and that they are poor excuses for leaders.
Tell me Amy,
Who wants to go pe apart of a meeting where a bunch of out of towners and the same old goon squad constantly hijack and disrespect the normal folks who show up?
I’ve been to many a meeting and this is a constant issue. It includes the so-called editor and her mother from this publication.
It’s disgraceful.