Arcadia Lawsuit Over Mayor’s Censure Could Cost Taxpayers,Council Stands by Reforms to Restore Order

ARCADIA, Calif. — Two Arcadia residents have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mayor Sharon Kwan against the City of Arcadia, escalating tensions that began after the City Council voted to censure the mayor earlier this month. The suit was delivered in dramatic fashion during the September 16 City Council meeting, just minutes after Mayor Kwan herself presented a Certificate of Commendation to the same HOA and the city’s Architectural Review Board for their dedication to preserving Arcadia’s character and beauty.

During the meeting’s public comment period, a representative announced the lawsuit, filed by residents Stephanie Aikin, Secretary of the Downtown Arcadia Association, and Laurie Thompson, Chair of the Architectural Review Board of the Santa Anita Village HOA. The complaint seeks to invalidate the council’s censure of Mayor Kwan, strip the council of its authority to adopt rules of procedure, and require taxpayers to cover related legal expenses.

Background: The Censure and New Decorum Rules

On September 2, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 7649, formally censuring Mayor Kwan, alongside Resolution No. 7652, which established new Rules of Procedure and Decorum. Councilmembers David Fu, Michael Cao, Paul Cheng, and Mayor Pro Tem Eileen Wang supported the measures, emphasizing that these steps were essential to maintaining order, fostering civility, and ensuring the Council could focus on addressing the city’s priorities and “get back to business.”

The Rules of Procedure outline standards for conduct, require adherence to the Ralph M. Brown Act, and affirm that the mayor must preside fairly while remaining subject to the will of the majority. Importantly, the charter itself states that the mayor is “the chief official of the City for ceremonial purposes” and presides at council meetings, but with no executive powers independent of the council majority

The Lawsuit’s Claims

The plaintiffs argue that the censure and related rules violate the Brown Act, the California Constitution, and the Arcadia City Charter. Specifically, they claim:

• The City Council lacked authority to remove or curtail mayoral powers.

• The censure was retaliation for Mayor Kwan’s protected speech, including allegations of sexism against colleagues.

• The decorum rules unlawfully restrict public comment and dissent.

• The council’s actions created a “chilling effect” on the mayor’s ability to represent constituents.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including a writ of mandate requiring the City to reverse the censure and refrain from enforcing the new rules. Plaintiffs also request attorney’s fees and continuing court oversight.

Legal Framework: What the Charter Allows

The Arcadia City Charter, amended in 2022, establishes a council-manager form of government where all powers are vested in the City Council unless otherwise specified. Under Section 404, the mayor’s role is limited to presiding over meetings and serving ceremonial functions; both the mayor and mayor pro tem retain only “a voice and a vote” equal to other councilmembers.

The charter grants the council broad authority to “establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings”. While the charter does not explicitly provide for censure of a mayor, legal precedent, including the U.S. Supreme Court case Houston Community College System v. Wilson (2022), recognizes censure as a lawful accountability tool for elected bodies.

Thus, while plaintiffs argue that Resolution 7649 unlawfully stripped the mayor’s authority, the council maintains that its actions were within its rights to ensure orderly governance and protect the institution’s credibility.

Analysis and Implications

From a legal standpoint, the case raises two central questions:

Scope of Authority — Does the City Council’s power to set rules and censure extend to limiting a mayor’s presiding role, given that the position is largely ceremonial under the charter?

First Amendment and Brown Act — Do the censure and rules infringe upon the mayor’s or public’s rights to free expression and participation, or are they standard procedures to maintain decorum?

If the plaintiffs prevail, the council could be forced to rescind the censure and rules, potentially weakening its ability to manage future disruptions. If the City prevails, the lawsuit may be seen as a costly and unnecessary attempt to litigate political disagreements, leaving taxpayers footing the bill.

Moving Forward

Councilmembers Fu, Cao, Cheng, and Wang have emphasized that the goal of the new rules is not to silence dissent but to restore functionality to council meetings after months of disruption. Supporters argue that public comment remains protected, censure is a routine accountability mechanism, and the charter clearly vests ultimate authority in the council.

Council’s Position

Supporters of the reforms argue that the lawsuit flips reality on its head. Public comment has always been allowed, decorum rules are standard practice, and censures are a time-tested way of maintaining accountability. “Our responsibility is to keep meetings functional so city business doesn’t grind to a halt,” one councilmember remarked.

The irony was not lost on observers that Mayor Kwan, after saying it was “time to move on” from her censure, stood by while allies filed a lawsuit demanding the council abandon its accountability measures.

Taxpayer Concerns

Beyond the politics, many residents are concerned about the financial burden. The plaintiffs are asking taxpayers to cover attorney’s fees for what some see as a political dispute dressed up as a legal case. Councilmembers Fu, Cao, Cheng, and Wang, by contrast, have framed their reforms as essential steps to protect Arcadia’s governance and credibility — and to avoid precisely this type of costly distraction.

What Comes Next

The lawsuit now heads to court, where judges will weigh the balance between individual expression and the council’s authority to govern. For Arcadia, the stakes go beyond one mayor’s censure: the case will test whether a small group of residents can override rules designed to ensure order, or whether the City Council can continue exercising its charter-granted responsibility to keep the city on track.

Mayor Kwan (L) & Mayor Pro Tem Wang (R)

***

Sidebar: What Residents Need to Know

What is Censure?

Censure is a formal statement of disapproval adopted by a governing body. It does not remove an elected official from office but serves as a public reprimand. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have upheld censure as a lawful means of accountability.

What the Arcadia Charter Says About the Mayor

• The mayor’s role is ceremonial and includes presiding at council meetings.

• Both the mayor and mayor pro tem retain only one vote each, equal to all other councilmembers.

• All governing authority is vested in the City Council as a whole.

Why New Rules Were Adopted

• To require courtesy and respect during debate.

• To prevent meetings from being derailed by personal attacks or disruption.

• To clarify that the mayor must act within the council’s majority direction.

What the Lawsuit Seeks

• Invalidate the censure of Mayor Kwan.

• Strike down the new decorum rules.

• Force taxpayers to cover plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees