Settlement Confirms City Violated Public Process, Forcing Irvine to Revisit Controversial Lobbyist Ordinance
**Disclosure: The author of this article was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit described below**
The Irvine City Council will be forced to reconsider its September 2024 lobbyist ordinance after a lawsuit settlement confirmed serious procedural flaws. The ordinance, adopted unanimously on September 10, 2024, included a last-minute amendment pushed by Councilmember Mike Carroll that targeted political rival Ayn Craciun, and now must be re-evaluated due to violations of public transparency laws.
The legal challenge was brought by Orange County Advocates for Transparency (OCAT), a local watchdog group, and alleged that Carroll’s amendment was introduced in violation of the Brown Act, which mandates proper public notice and opportunity for comment. The lawsuit also cited state election laws and the City Charter, arguing that the changes required voter approval.
The Carroll Amendment: A Political Weapon?
While the ordinance was intended to tighten lobbyist reporting rules, Councilmember Carroll—after public comment had ended—added language altering an entirely different part of the municipal code: the City’s Code of Ethics. His amendment removed a key exemption that allowed in-house employees who lobby on behalf of their employer to serve on city council or commissions. The provision is unprecedented in California and perhaps the U.S. — likely due to U.S. Constitutional grounds and overly broad barriers toward seeking public office.
Supporters of environmental advocate and former council candidate Ayn Craciun said the move was clearly aimed at disqualifying her from serving if elected or forcing her to quit her job. Craciun works as a policy director for nonprofit Climate Action Campaign, which engages in limited advocacy across the county. By eliminating the in-house employee exemption, Carroll’s amendment would have made her employment incompatible with holding elected office in Irvine unless she resigned. The ordinance as originally proposed would have also prevented other nonprofit advocates — such as union, LGBTQ, racial equity, or housing advocates from serving on city commissions or council.
Legal Action and Settlement
Following the first reading of the ordinance, OCAT sent the city a cease-and-desist letter and a Brown Act violation notice. The city later reintroduced the ordinance, still including the controversial amendment, and adopted it on October 8, 2024.
OCAT filed a lawsuit soon after. On April 23, 2025, the City settled the case, agreeing to consider rescinding the ordinance entirely within 60 days. The settlement includes the following key provisions:
- The Council may rescind the current ordinance, re-adopt it, or introduce a revised version.
- The City Council must post proper public notice and allow for comment before any action.
- OCAT will be notified at least eight days prior to publication of the agenda for the vote.
- If the City readopts the rescinded ordinance (which includes the Carroll amendment), it must pay $19,000 to OCAT’s legal counsel.
What Happens Next?
As of today, the ordinance has not yet been placed on a future agenda, but the clock is ticking. A new council majority, including recently elected District 5 Councilmember Betty Martinez Franco, could take a different approach. Whether the Carroll amendment survives or is scrapped remains to be seen.
What’s certain is Brown Act transparency violations and other tactics that pushed this ordinance through the first time won’t go unnoticed now. With legal scrutiny, media attention, and growing public engagement, Irvine voters will be watching closely to see whether transparency and fairness are restored to the city’s policymaking process.
10 Comments
edmondsmeyerson
May 9, 2025 at 3:36 pmSo if I understand this correctly it wasn’t that it was a bad ordinance it was the process that was flawed?
Jeremy Ficarola
May 9, 2025 at 3:49 pmBoth. Procedural issues ie Brown Act public notice violations, making substantial changes to an entirely different Section of our municipal code (the one on Ethics) which triggers state and city charter requirements that they be subject to a ballot measure vote. Then there’s the underlying bad policy of Carroll’s Amendment which would have many unintended consequences of creating barriers for many civil servants to serve Irvine elected office. If Carroll never introduced his amendment on Sept 10, this lobbyist ordinance update would have been perfectly reasonable and a great improvement to our existing ordinance. He got petty and went after a political rival by using the law to attack her eligibility to run and ended up triggering a host of procedural and policy problems.
Dee Fox
May 10, 2025 at 2:07 pmSo, the City just has to present the ordinance with the amendment to allow for public comments. I don’t get the issue here. People, like Ayn Cracuin, should not be lobbying AND employed with the city! Cracuin and her cronies have done enough damage to our city, and the reason why Mike Carroll was elected and not her.
Branda Lin
May 12, 2025 at 9:46 amPlease allow me to offer a correction to your statement. Ayn Craciun is not an employee of the City of Irvine. Regarding your use of the term “cronies,” if this refers to members of the Climate Action Campaign, it is important to recognize that this is a group of advocates, similar to any other individuals or organizations expressing their perspectives, like you and I.
edmondsmeyerson
May 11, 2025 at 10:17 am“If Carroll never introduced his amendment on Sept 10, this lobbyist ordinance update would have been perfectly reasonable and a great improvement to our existing ordinance”. But it would have still allowed Ayn to lobby for Climate Action Campaign while sitting as a Councilmember for the City? A possible conflict of interest on certain issues, OCPA, that could have required recusal?
ocinfo2012
May 11, 2025 at 3:53 pmJeremy, seriously? You want to convince voters to allow someone who works for a lobbyist to serve on the City Council?! There is a reason the amendment passed unanimously. By the way, your user registration sign-up page is seriously broken. It’s almost impossible to create a password it likes, and I’ve been in tech a long time. Even my bank makes it easier to set a password.
Branda Lin
May 12, 2025 at 9:52 amHello ocinfo2012. Due to past instances of fraudulent accounts and malicious activity, we have implemented necessary security measures on our website. To ensure accountability and maintain a respectful online environment, we kindly request that all individuals posting comments on our website identify themselves. Also, we will look into improving our registration signup page. Thank you.
Ayn Craciun
May 12, 2025 at 7:09 amExcluding nonprofit lobbyists from serving on city council is not only unfair—it’s also bad for equity. Nonprofits often advocate for low-income and working families who otherwise wouldn’t have a voice in local government. Blocking people from public service just because they work in advocacy—especially on behalf of the public good—sends the message that only certain interests are welcome at the table.
Legally, this kind of ban raises serious red flags. It could violate equal protection if it unfairly targets nonprofit advocates while letting corporate lobbyists or business executives serve without question — which Irvine does (see Irvine Community Land Trust board of directors). It also risks infringing on First Amendment rights—because advocacy is a form of free speech, and running for office is a core part of civic participation. You can’t just silence people because of the cause they represent.
And if there’s ever a conflict of interest? Recusal is the answer. We don’t need a special ban to keep things ethical. What we do need is representation from people who understand and advocate for our most vulnerable communities. Let’s not write the rules to exclude them.
edmondsmeyerson
May 12, 2025 at 6:14 pmI don’t have a problem with advocates but when they are paid advocates I think that changes things. I speak all the time at Council meetings voicing my concerns and opinions and no one is paying me to do that. They are my own personal thoughts and beliefs. When someone is paid for this service it becomes a job and it calls into question the reason the the remarks are being made. In other words it is their job to advocate for the non profit whether they truly believe what they are advocating for or not. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am sure you believe what you are advocating for but it is still your paid job.
Branda Lin
May 12, 2025 at 9:42 amDee, Thank you for your patience. As you know, our organization is run entirely by volunteers. Due to past experiences with fraudulent accounts and malicious activity, we have implemented necessary security measures on our website. These safeguards can sometimes take time. We appreciate your understanding.
Comments are closed.