[ad_1]
Irvine city officials have been eyeing their lobbying regulation, looking for ways to tighten rules nearly a year after Anaheim’s corruption scandal demonstrated a lack of lobbyist oversight in that city.
The discussion came up in Irvine after Anaheim commissioned an independent investigation following a federal corruption probe that alleged Disneyland resort interests held outsized influence on city policymaking.
Investigators found Anaheim — and Irvine — failed to disclose lobbyist and political operative work at city hall.
[Read: Orange County’s Biggest Cities Tackle Lobbying Reform]
Much of the focus in Irvine has fallen on Melahat Rafiei, a former top aide to Mayor Farrah Khan and former head of the local Democratic Party who pleaded guilty to attempted wire fraud last year and confessed she tried to bribe city council members in 2018.
Irvine officials were slated to review changes to their lobbying ordinance at their meeting last week, but they ended up kicking the item to next month’s meeting.
City Manager Oliver Chi told council members that the item needs additional review before council discussion and vote.
“We’ve recently been made aware there may be some possible unintended consequences based on the structure of the lobbying ordinance update that we’re presenting,” Chi said at the July 23 council meeting.
After additional review, it should return to the council members at their meeting on Aug. 13.
[Read: Irvine Looks to Tighten Lobbyist Rules]
What Would Change For Lobbyists?
Irvine’s current lobbying rules aren’t as strong as some other cities in California, leaving opportunities for loopholes and lacking oversight.
While Rafiei admitted in her signed plea agreement that she was pushing city council members to approve commercial cannabis operations in 2018, she was never a registered lobbyist with the city.
[Read: Orange County’s Biggest Cities Tackle Lobbying Reform]
Most of the proposed changes to the city’s lobbying ordinance would lower the requirements that trigger registration and disclosure, according to the city staff report from last week.
Currently, people don’t need to report lobbying activity to the city unless they receive compensation greater than $10,000 per quarter.
This threshold could dip down to $1,000 per month. That threshold would match cities like Oakland, Los Angeles and Sacramento.
This change would increase the number of people who are required to register as lobbyists in the city.
A city staff report also explains that all lobbyist registrations and reports would be designated as public records subject to public review under the proposed changes.
[Read: Irvine Becomes Second Orange County City to Eye Tightening Lobbyist Rules]
The item was first brought to the council in September, when Councilmember Kathleen Treseder requested to discuss strengthening the city’s lobbyist ordinance.
“Based on the recommendations presented in the Anaheim report, I request that the Irvine City Council consider adding safeguards to increase transparency and undue political influence here in Irvine,” Tresder wrote in a memo included with the staff report.
During a November council meeting, some members expressed concern about how the regulations could impact nonprofits or residents interested in city issues.
“This is extremely difficult to regulate, even when there’s good faith,” Councilmember Larry Agran said at the council’s Nov. 28 meeting. “And when there’s not good faith, no amount of regulation is going to do the trick.”
“If we’re not careful, we’re going to create a mechanism here where people are afraid to come forward,” he said. “I don’t want to create something that’s going to be inhibiting ordinary residents — or extraordinary residents — from coming forward.”
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.
Related
[ad_2]
Source link
