Approved Modifications to Lobbying Ordinance Challenged with Potential Litigation
On September 10, 2024, the city introduced and approved modifications to the City’s lobbying ordinance (Title 1, Divison 7, of the City of Irvine Muncipal Code relating to Lobbying). In response to the adopted modifications, a Special Meeting has been called for Tuesday, September 24, 2024, due to “significant exposure to litigation.”
Click here for the September 20, 2024 Notice of Intent to Sue and Brown Act Demand for Cure and Cease and Desist letter.
Click here for the September 24, 2024 Special Meeting Agenda.
Information to participate in the Special Meeting:
To participate virtually, visit zoom.us/join using any web browser, or the Zoom app on smartphones or tablets, and enter the Meeting ID and Passcode.
Meeting ID: 848-4853-1263
Passcode: 272906
Website: zoom.us/join
Telephone: (669) 900-6833 or (346) 248-7799
For technical assistance before or during the meeting, call 949-724-6078.
2 Comments
Doug Elliott
September 23, 2024 at 9:43 pmWhat this comes down to is a blatant bait and switch orchestrated by Councilmember Mike Carroll, and an end run around the notice requirements of the Brown Act. Unless the City Council takes corrective action tomorrow, the City is likely to be sued, and likely to lose. The demand letter is worth reading in its entirety. It accurately lays out the problem in detail. But perhaps the key paragraph is on page 4:
“Title 1, Division 7 of the Municipal Code is entitled “City Lobbying” and Sections 1-7-101 to 1-7-110 enumerate the City’s lobbying requirements. Viewing the City’s September 10th and 24th agendas would alert the public the City was considering amendments to Division 7 and City Lobbying only. Notably, Division 7 deals largely with lobbyist registration, reporting, and restrictions on lobbying activities. It does not set forth restrictions on public service based on lobbying efforts. Those restrictions are enumerated in Divisions 6 and 9, with Division 9 (adopted by initiative) controlling.”
The agenda for the September 10 meeting notified the public of proposed changes to the Lobbying Ordinance, Division 7. In his presentation of the proposed changes, City Attorney Jeff Melching made it very clear what was and what wasn’t on the agenda: “The Lobbyist Ordinance, the one that’s in front of you right now is fundamentally about disclosure … It doesn’t forbid anyone from lobbying, it doesn’t say that if anyone engages in lobbying, they can’t serve in another capacity. It only requires that if they go over certain thresholds in compensation or activity, they have to register.”
The public was notified only of proposed changes to Division 7, and not of any changes regarding the matters Melching stated were beyond the scope of Division 7. Melching went on to explain that those matters were covered by Divisions 6 and 9, the latter known as Initiative Measure H.
Yet Carroll proposed no additional changes to Division 7. Instead, his modification of the staff proposal entailed only changes to Division 6. His stated intention was to prohibit councilmembers, commissioners, and committee members from lobbying the City. He said nothing in his comments about repealing the exemption in Division 6 for lobbying as an in-house employee on behalf of one’s employer. Yet when Melching read the language of Carroll’s motion, obviously drafted prior to the meeting, it included that repeal.
The repeal of the in-house exemption was the real point of Carroll’s motion: to prohibit an entire class of employees of nonprofit organization from ever serving as councilmembers, commissioners, and committee members. If allowed to stand, this would be a serious blow to the public interest, depriving our city of the services of highly qualified and public spirited citizens for no good reason. This must not stand.
edmondsmeyerson
September 24, 2024 at 3:55 pmI could not disagree more with Mr. Elliot’s last sentence. Lobbyists have one thing in mind and that is what ever policy they are trying to influence. This may not be in the City’s best interest. I believe this law firm is the same one that sues city’s that do not meet their climate goals. They work for the non profit Climate Action Campaign. Not a surprise at all.
Comments are closed.