Irvine officials are making more changes to their lobbying rules after resident concerns about unintended consequences on union members and a lawsuit threat.
Council members ended up making an exception for labor unions after concerns that the original proposal could force union members who contact city officials to register as lobbyists and prevent them from serving on city commissions.
The council originally approved updates to the city’s lobbying ordinance on Sept. 10 in a unanimous vote.
The changes would require more people to register as lobbyists more often and publicly disclose their activities to the city — but a second vote was required to officially adopt the changes.
[Read: Irvine Tightens Lobbying Rules]
The second vote was scheduled for Tuesday night’s meeting, but the council was met with concerned public speakers and a letter from a law firm alleging Brown Act violations and threatening to sue.
The letter was sent on behalf of a group of residents identified only as Orange County Advocates for Transparency.
Some speakers were concerned that union members and other workers who engage with the city council would get roped in with lobbyists.
Luis Aleman, a staff member with the Orange County Labor Federation, said the changes would harm their members and working families who have an interest in running for council or serving on a commission.
“You’re going to tell me that a grocery worker who spends their time trying to make sure their council member understands their issues is the same as a six-figure lobbyist?” Aleman said the council at the meeting.
“We urge you to make sure that this reform has the intended reform which is to make government accountable while at the same time not punishing working men and women who want to be part of that government and make sure we have policies that support working families.”
Councilmember Kathleen Treseder said that was never her intention when supporting the item. In response, she amended the changes at the meeting to include an exception for labor unions.
Those changes were approved in a 3-0 vote. Mayor Farrah Khan and Councilmember Mike Carroll were absent from the vote.
Since changes were made to the ordinance, the council is still required to vote on the ordinance a second time before it can go into effect.
The item is expected to return to council on Oct. 8.
Other speakers were concerned that a part of the ordinance is being used to target an individual in a political move.
At the Sept. 10 meeting, Councilmember Carroll asked staff to include a section that prohibits city officials from engaging in lobbying activities in Irvine or other Orange County municipalities.
Treseder and other speakers voiced concern on how that change would affect council candidate Ayn Craciun, who works with the Climate Action Campaign to advocate for climate policy action in Southern California. She also chairs the city’s sustainability commission.
Since Craciun is running against Carroll, speakers questioned if he made that change to benefit his campaign.
“It’s hard for me to know anyone’s intentions for sure, but it did appear that Councilmember Carroll made this amendment to try to hurt his political opponent,” Treseder said at Tuesday’s meeting. “I do think that is gross, and I don’t think that that is something we should do from the dais. We should govern based on what’s best for the city, not what’s best for one’s campaign.”
But officials emphasized that the item, if approved, wouldn’t go into effect until after the election, meaning it won’t affect Craciun’s campaign.
“I too agree that this was made to target a single individual,” Councilmember Tammy Kim said. “And I don’t think that’s right. But with that being said, I do support the spirit in which it was brought up. Even though this was brought to be used as a political tool, it’s not even effective until after the election anyway, so this is a moot point.”
Lawsuit Threatened
The city also received a letter from a law firm alleging the city violated the Brown Act — California’s open meeting law — and threatening to sue.
The letter, dated Sept. 20 from the Coast Law Group, claims the discussion on Sept. 10 wasn’t properly agendized, meaning the public wasn’t able to review the item properly before the meeting.
But City Attorney Jeff Melching said that is no longer an issue since the ordinance was reintroduced and the public has multiple chances to comment on the issue.
He said the council’s vote Tuesday night resolves the issue and no other action needs to be taken.
“The public had the opportunity to come and speak about that issue tonight, and they did come and speak about that issue specifically tonight, and the city council is of course going to create that opportunity again on Oct. 8,” Melching told the council. “The issues surrounding transparency are effectively resolved by this.”
The letter also argued the city was disregarding Measure H and the lobbying changes must be put on the ballot for a public vote.
Melching disagreed, saying it’s lawful for a majority of the council to vote and make amendments to the ordinance.
The council meets next on Oct. 8 at 4 p.m.
Angelina Hicks is a Voice of OC Tracy Wood Reporting Fellow. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13
•••
Can you support Voice of OC with a donation?
You obviously care about local news and value good journalism here in Orange County. With your support, we can bring you more stories like these.
