The Problem: Appointments “At the Pleasure”

Currently, Irvine operates on a direct-appointment system. Each Councilmember hand-picks a representative to each of Irvine’s six commissions:

1. Planning
2. Transportation
3. Finance
4. Sustainability (formerly Green Ribbon Environmental Committee)
5. Community and Library Services
6. Irvine Advisory Commission for Older Adults

Additionally, each Councilmember hand-picks a representative to each of the following committees:

1. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Committee
2. Health and Wellness Advisory Committee (prior to April 2025, formerly the Irvine Children, Youth and Families Advisory Committee)
3. Investment Advisory Committee
4. Public Arts Committee

See: City of Irvine website – Commissions and Committees

Because these appointees serve “at the pleasure” of the appointing official, they can be removed or replaced at any time, for any reason, without public oversight.

While this ensures like-mindedness between a Councilmember and their appointee, it creates a ‘revolving door effect’ that places a burden on city employees due to the multi-departmental onboarding process.

In many instances, Councilmembers rely on a narrow social or political circle to find appointees. This results in a small, recurring pool of individuals, which feels contradictory in a city like Irvine—one of the most educated in the nation. The current system fails to provide equal opportunity to the vast wealth of talent and expertise residing in our community.

Additionally, because these seats are often used for political positioning, some commissioners serve for only a few months prior to an election, with seats rotating yet again after an election depending on the election results. And in cases like the most recent one, a Councilmember does not need a good reason other than they were offended by something said, done, or in this case, written.

Is this current system serving the best interests of Irvine? 

Take a look at how the game was played before the 2024 election. Read: [Opinion] Why Is the Musical Chairs Game Being Played at Irvine Commissions

The Hidden Cost of Political Churn

This “musical chairs” approach to governance is more than just a political quirk — it creates tangible friction for the city’s operations. Whether turnover is sporadic or arrives in waves around an election, the constant churn strains the City Clerk’s office and the departments that the commissioners serve under.

The administrative burden—processing resignations, vetting applications, conducting background checks, setting up accounting and city profiles, and holding swearing-in ceremonies—is only the first hurdle. When you add mandatory training and the learning curve of the Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order, the resulting disruptions can stall essential commission business, and has. Furthermore, vacancies have led to tie votes, creating costly inefficiencies that prevent the city from moving forward.

Individual/Direct v. At-Large Appointment Models

The “Individual/Direct” Appointments

This is the model used in Irvine. Each City Councilmember, including the Mayor, has the authority to appoint one “personal” commissioner to each board. While there is often a formal application on the city website, the selection is frequently more personal or political. The appointee often serves “at the pleasure” of the council member who picked them.

Pros – Individual/Direct Appointments

• Guaranteed Diversity of Opinion: Even a lone dissenter on the City Council is guaranteed to have “their” voice represented on the Planning or Finance Commission. This ensures minority viewpoints are heard during the deliberation process.

• Efficiency: Appointments happen quickly. When a council member is elected, their commissioners are seated almost immediately, preventing “lame duck” periods.

• Clear Accountability: There is no mystery as to why a commissioner was chosen. If a commissioner acts poorly, the public knows exactly which council member to hold responsible.

Cons – Individual/Direct Appointments

• Political Patronage: Seats may be given as “rewards” to campaign donors or political allies rather than the most qualified applicants.

• High Turnover: If a council member loses an election or resigns, their appointees are often removed immediately (“serving at the pleasure of”), which can disrupt the continuity of long-term city projects.

• Fragmented Commissions: The commission can become a “mini-Council,” where members simply vote along the lines of the person who appointed them rather than collaborating independently.

The “At-Large” Appointment Model

In these cities, the entire City Council votes on a slate of candidates who applied. Residents submit a formal application/resume. The Council (or a subcommittee) interviews finalists and then votes in a public meeting. Examples include Tustin, Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. In Beverly Hills, for instance, they strongly recommend applicants complete a “Team Beverly Hills” educational program before applying. 

Pros – At-Lage Appointments

• Merit-Based Focus: Because the whole council must agree, there is often a higher emphasis on professional qualifications and technical expertise rather than political loyalty.

• Council Consensus: Commissioners enter the role knowing they have the support of a majority of the council, which can lead to smoother adoption of their recommendations.

• Reduced “Siloing”: Commissioners represent the city as a whole rather than being seen as “the Mayor’s person” or “Councilmember X’s person.”

Cons – At-Lage Appointments

• Minority Exclusion: A council majority (e.g., a 4-vote bloc) can theoretically shut out the minority’s preferred candidates, leading to a commission that lacks ideological diversity.

• Lengthy Process: Coordinating interviews and getting seven council members to agree on 5–7 names is logistically heavy and can lead to long vacancies.

• Less Direct Accountability: It is harder for a resident to hold a specific council member responsible if a commission makes a controversial decision.

What Reform Could Look Like

To protect the professional integrity of Irvine’s commissions, the City Council should consider structural changes that prioritize stability over political convenience.

1. Fixed Terms with Just-Cause Removal: Transitioning to fixed terms (e.g., two years) would prevent Councilmembers from swapping appointees like chess pieces. Under this model, commissioners could only be removed for specific ethics violations or attendance failures, shielding them from sudden political shifts.
2. Year of Service for Ballot Use: Implementing a rule that prevents a commissioner from using their title on a ballot if they have served for less than one year would discourage those who are only seeking a title for an upcoming election.
3. Standardized Onboarding: To alleviate the administrative burden on city staff, the city could move to a semi-annual appointment cycle. This would consolidate background checks and training sessions, ending the perpetual loop of one-off on/off-boarding.
4. Transition to At-Large Appointments: Moving from an “Individual/Direct” appointment system to an “At-Large” model would require a majority of the Council to approve each commissioner. This encourages the selection of consensus-builders rather than political proxies.

The Bottom Line

Irvine’s commissions should serve as a reservoir of community insight and advocacy, not as a revolving door for political favors. When the system prioritizes “at the pleasure” loyalty over institutional stability, the true cost is borne by the taxpayers and the city staff who must manage the resulting churn. By adopting common-sense reforms like fixed terms and standardized onboarding, Irvine can move toward a governance model that values professional integrity and long-term planning. Our city deserves a system where commissioners are empowered to offer independent, thoughtful guidance—ensuring that their seat on the dais is a commitment to public service, rather than a temporary stop on a political roadmap.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Irvine Watchdog.