Irvine city leaders are settling a lawsuit with a group of residents who alleged the council violated the state’s open meeting law when it passed new lobbying regulations last year.
In a series of meetings last year, the council discussed and approved new regulations that require lobbyists to register with the city earlier and disclose their activities more often.
The new rules were meant to provide oversight for advocates paid to influence city decision-making, especially after the Anaheim corruption scandal that demonstrated what can happen when cities lack local lobbyist oversight.
[Read: Irvine Tightens Lobbying Rules]
Irvine City Council members went back and forth on the ordinance, making a few changes before the regulations were finally approved by the council on Oct. 8, 2024.
[Read: Irvine Officials Backtrack Approving New Lobbying Rules]
During a discussion about the ordinance last year, Councilmember Mike Carroll made a late addition that prohibits city officials, including commissioners, from engaging in lobbying activities in the City of Irvine or other Orange County municipalities.
The council ended up making an exception for labor unions after concerns that the regulations would force union members who contact city officials to register as lobbyists and prevent them from serving on city commissions.
But those changes landed the city in a legal challenge from a group of residents dubbed the Orange County Advocates for Transparency.
The group sent the city a letter in September — while discussions on the lobbying ordinance were ongoing — alleging the city violated the Brown Act by improperly agendizing the item and failing to fully alert the public about the agenda item.
Since the council made a change to prevent city officials and commissioners from engaging in lobbying, it altered the city’s code of ethics, a separate division of the city’s municipal code. The agenda title only mentioned changes to the city’s lobbying regulation and did not mention the code of ethics.
In order to settle the lawsuit, the city council voted unanimously to rescind and re-adopt nearly the exact same ordinance during Tuesday night’s meeting with an updated agenda title that mentioned changes to the city’s code of ethics.
The city also agreed to pay $19,000 to cover a portion of fees and costs associated with the lawsuit as part of the settlement.
“The gist of the challenge was that the agenda title, when we adopted the ordinance, really only mentioned city lobbying ordinance and didn’t talk specifically about ethical public service,” City Attorney Jeff Melching said at the council’s June 24 meeting.
“We disagree about whether there’s merit to that argument, but we’re trying to be practical. If all that’s really required is for us to come back, provide a new agenda title and re-adopt the ordinance, we expressed a willingness to do that.”
Melching said the lawsuit would be dismissed as a result of the council rescinding and re-adopting the ordinance with a new agenda title.
The item was approved on a first reading without any council discussion. It will require a second vote at a future meeting to fully go into effect.
When Councilmember Carroll added the new section extending lobbying restrictions to commissioners, some critics said the move was a targeted attack on Ayn Craciun, who was a council candidate at the time running for the same seat as Carroll.
She also previously chaired the city’s sustainability commission.
Craciun works with the Climate Action Campaign to advocate for climate policy action in Southern California.
She spoke during Tuesday’s meeting, calling the lobbying restrictions for city commissioners a direct attack on First Amendment rights.
“Courts have repeatedly struck down laws that attempt to silence people based on their employer or the causes they support,” she said.
“Furthermore, without explanation, this ordinance exempts employment while advocating for one type of nonprofit, unions, but would ban people who work for nonprofits that advocate for organizations like the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, the BIA or any nonprofit while serving on the city council or city commission who wants to keep their jobs.”
Jeremy Ficarola, an Irvine resident who’s named in the lawsuit as the main plaintiff with the Orange County Advocates for Transparency, said he stands with Craciun.
“I still think there are constitutional concerns with overly broad restrictions on in-house employees seeking political office in Irvine City Council,” he said.
“The city council here can carve out a little change to allow — just like in-house employees for unions — to also allow in-house employees for nonprofits, so long as the nonprofit is not directly related to the city of Irvine. That would allow somebody like city council candidate Ayn Craciun to run for office without losing her career.”
Melching said the city has a rational basis for implementing the lobbying regulations and told council members the city doesn’t have significant constitutional exposure in this case.
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.