(L-R) Top row: Councilmembers Steve Madison (Dist. 6), Tyron Hampton (Dis. 1), Justin Jones (Dist. 3), Jason Lyon (Dist. 7), and Rick Cole (Dist. 2). Bottom row: Vice Mayor Jessica Rivas (Dist. 5), Mayor Victor Gordo, and Councilmember Gene Masuda (Dist. 4) (Insert Photo – cityofpasadena)
With Mike Futrell opting to remain in Riverside, Pasadena is once again at a familiar crossroads: how it selects its city manager, and whether its current approach is serving the city well.
By The Editorial Board
This latest episode raises a basic but important question. Why did Pasadena rely on the same search firm that previously recruited Miguel Márquez, whose tenure lasted just over three years? Repeating the same process while expecting a different outcome is not a strategy; it’s a gamble.
To be clear, the issue is not any single candidate. Whether Futrell’s decision to stay in Riverside proves to be a missed opportunity or a fortunate near-miss, one thing is clear: the firm’s recruitment process appears too narrow, too insular, and insufficiently transparent.
Pasadena has seen this before. Márquez left a stable, well-compensated role to come to Pasadena, initially at lower pay, only to later receive significant raises and bonuses approved by the City Council. That trajectory should have prompted a more rigorous and skeptical evaluation process this time around, a process grounded in measurable performance, leadership track record, and long-term fit.
Instead, the city appears to have defaulted to a familiar playbook: rely on the same recruiter and target a similar pool of candidates Taxpayers are left funding a process that, from the outside, looks repetitive rather than reflective.
Pasadena can do better. A more effective approach would include a genuinely broad search that extends beyond a small circle of known candidates, along with clearly defined selection criteria and meaningful due diligence conducted directly by Councilmembers. Reviewing candidates’ records, management outcomes, and public accountability should be standard practice, not an afterthought.
The goal is not simply to fill the position, but to find a leader whose experience and approach align with Pasadena’s specific needs. That requires intention, transparency, and a willingness to break from past habits.
In the wake of Futrell’s decision, some have joked that smaller cities are guarding their city managers to avoid losing them to Pasadena. The humor is understandable, but it points to a serious issue: Pasadena’s residents and staff deserve confidence that their city is conducting a thorough, forward-looking search, not repeating a cycle that has already produced mixed results.
Ultimately, this is about governance. The City Council sets the tone for how major decisions are made, including who is entrusted to run the city’s day-to-day operations. If the process remains unchanged, the outcomes are unlikely to improve.
With City Council elections approaching, voters should pay close attention. Leadership choices—both who is elected and how they govern—will shape whether Pasadena continues down its current path or adopts a more deliberate and accountable approach.
This take is largely built around the premise that the current recruiting company is at fault because the previous City Manager it identified – ultimately hired by the City of Pasadena – made a personal decision to leave based on family illness dynamics. Quite a stretch – how would a recruitment firm be able to predict that? And by most assessments, the previous City Manager was quite successful for the ~3 years he served in the role.
Your take just sounds like pot stirring and scapegoating.