Proposed Library Subcommittee Raises Transparency Concerns

  • February 2, 2026, 6:52 am America/Los_Angeles

On February 4, 2026, the Community and Library Services Commission will discuss an item requested by Anita Bhat, who was appointed to the Commission by Councilmember William Go in August 2025. The request is for an ad hoc subcommittee to advise the Commission to support the development of the Irvine Public Library Master Plan. 

According to the staff report: 

City staff is conducting a Request for Proposals to procure services of a consultant to assist with the development of the Master Plan. Once a consultant has been selected, it is anticipated the Master Plan will take 12-18 months until a final draft is ready for Commission and City Council consideration. The Master Plan will serve as a strategic roadmap for building and operating a fully municipal, modern, innovative, and community-centered library system. 

However, there are concerns surrounding subcommittees in general. As stated in the staff report, “an ad hoc subcommittee is not subject to the Brown Act’s notice and meeting requirements but is limited to a makeup of less than a quorum of members of the Commission (three or less members).” The First Amendment Coalition describes the core purpose of this sunshine law is to provide public access to meetings of local government agencies and to enhance transparency. When these Brown Act protections are violated or circumvented, the public loses the ability to observe government proceedings or participate in our decision-making process. 

Brown Act violations occur when: 

  • The “Ad Hoc” becomes “Standing”: If a subcommittee has a fixed meeting schedule or an ongoing subject matter (like a permanent “Budget Subcommittee”), it becomes a Standing Committee.
  • The Consequence: Standing committees must post agendas 72 hours in advance and allow public comment, just like a full council meeting. Treating a standing committee as “ad hoc” to avoid public notice is a direct violation.

The most sophisticated Brown Act violation is the serial meeting. This happens when a quorum of the legislative body communicates outside of a public meeting to develop a collective concurrence on an item. Subcommittees are often the vehicle for this.

There are two primary ways this happens:

  • The Daisy-Chain: Member A talks to Member B in a subcommittee. Member B then takes that information and talks to Member C (who isn’t on the subcommittee). Suddenly, a majority has deliberated in secret.
  • The Hub-and-Spoke: A staff member or a subcommittee chair acts as the “hub,” talking to members individually to line up votes before the public meeting even starts.

Additionally, a subcommittee violates the law if it is given actual or de facto authority to make a final decision. If the full legislative body simply “rubber stamps” whatever the subcommittee recommends without any public deliberation, the subcommittee has effectively acted as the legislative body.

Key Rule: The public has a right to hear the deliberation, not just the final vote. Given there are seven commissioners, if the debate happens in a three-person subcommittee and the full council merely votes “yes” based on a private report, the public has been robbed of the decision-making process.

When subcommittees bypass the Brown Act, they don’t just break a rule—they erode trust.

  • Lack of Scrutiny: Critical flaws in a proposal might be missed if only three like-minded people review it.
  • Backroom Deals: It creates the perception (and often the reality) that special interests only need to lobby three people in private to sway an entire city council.
  • Legal Risk: Actions taken in violation of the Brown Act can be declared null and void by a court, and the agency could be forced to pay the plaintiff’s steep attorney fees.

A secondary concern with the proposed subcommittee may manifest by giving too much deference to the select few sub committee members, and sideline non-committee members. The purpose of the Community and Library Services Commission is for seven Commissioners to hold equal footing and weight on Commission matters, and prepare an optimal course of action for City Council to take. A sub-committee disrupts this equal footing and may give outsized influence to a select few Commissioners. It’s preferred that not one Commissioner dominates a discussion on a topic, and for Commissioners to deliberate and shape the narrative on the topic equally and in public view. 

Subcommittees are useful for deep-diving into complex data, but they should never be used as a shield against public eyes. If a subcommittee starts looking like a permanent fixture or starts “counting heads” to see how the rest of the board feels, it’s time to open the doors and post it on the agenda. After all, if the work is worth doing, it’s worth doing in the light.

If you wish to observe or provide public comment on this February 4th agenda item, please click here. The meeting begins at 5:30pm and may be attended in person at City Hall, or by Zoom.