On Tuesday, June 21, the Irvine City Council unanimously voted to rescind a rule that dictated the manner in which council members were able to place an item on the agenda. Better known as the “Rule of Two”, the policy was established by a previous council in 2019. The item was reinstated by current Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan in 2021.  

Since then, the rule of two has become the focus of criticism from the public and Irvine City Councilmember Larry Agran, who has addressed the issue multiple times during council meetings, adding that he has no ability to move items of his interest to the council agenda.

The rule required two members of the council to sign off on items that would appear on the agenda. During the vote to reinstate the rule of two in 2020, Agran was the only member of the council to vote against reinstatement. 

In the most recent discussion, council members Tammy Kim and Mike Carroll requested the item appear on the agenda. However, during the meeting, Kim voiced her displeasure with the final agenda, saying it was not what she originally requested. 

However, Kim went on to elaborate about how operating under the rule of two felt like a “disservice to the public.” 

“I introduced this memo. It did not come out perfectly, or even closely to how I wanted it, but this is something I’ve been working on for the greater part of this past year – in wanting to completely get rid of the rule of two,” she said. “After working under the rule of two, after having done it for a year, I believe that it is a disservice to our community.”

Using her colleague’s previous agenda requests as examples, Kim referenced Carroll’s request to discuss the on-going Anaheim corruption probe and Agran’s request to discuss redistricting, as important items that deserve to be agendized, regardless of how many members support the item.  

“Moving forward, I agreed that I would be a standing second [vote] for anyone who needed it, which is why I am happy that I approved council member Agran’s memo about districting and expansion – not all the points I actually agree with,” Kim said. “But, it is definitely worthy of having a discussion and if my colleague, council member Carroll believes that the recent events of Anaheim corruption merits a discussion, regarding the current process of our mayor – we should have a discussion.”  

In the same meeting, Kim and Carroll worked to place an item on the agenda that would limit the mayoral power in Irvine, by creating an appointed mayor. 

During her comments, Kim emphasized that she spoke to several people, including Khan, about her desire to remove the ordinance. Kim thanked Carroll for his willingness to support the item, in order to “see where the chips may fall.”

While Carroll supported the item, he admitted that he moved to remove it from the agenda, referencing a conversation with Irvine City Manager Oliver Chi. 

“I think it’s really incumbent on us as council members and leaders of a great city to take heed with some of the more strenuous voices,” he said. “Obviously, there was a considerable amount of heat during a change to the charter – we don’t need to inflame a situation that is certainly quite inflamed, on national, even state and regional levels.”    

Agran, who also requested this item be agendized, but was not given a second vote, said that the rule of two limits the opportunity of each council member to discuss items and leads to “backdoor” discussions. Agran added that the rule of two was never allowed to sunset, and creates many more problems “than it solves.”

“A legitimate matter of city business is entitled to be placed on the agenda, and given a hearing. It might be as little as a 10 minute presentation, at which time others on the council could say, ‘You know what? I hate this idea – I move to table it,’ and it’s gone. But, at least it got presented and given a reasonable opportunity. I just think if we went back to that, it would remove all the tension, and all the backdoor kind of negotiations,” he said. 

Agran added that operating under this manner calls into question violations of the Brown Act, adding that there should be no type of pre-negotiation of votes prior to discussion of a council agenda item.

“It makes me very uncomfortable. If you take the Brown Act seriously, you don’t want any kind of pre-negotiating before something is actually on the agenda – in order to lock down three votes,” he said. “I don’t think that’s what any of us want, but we kind of get sucked into that through this highly formalized process.” 

Council member Anthony Kuo said he did not believe that reinstating the rule of two was a motive upon which the council operated, but added that in his professional experience there has been major pushback from alternative organizations in accepting the rule. 

“We have an evolved public now, who in fact, during my time on planning commission, during my time on council, has raised strenuous objections,” he said. 

During the meeting, Khan pointed out that despite Agran filing for the same item, it was not seconded. Khan said she was open to the removal. 

“But, if we’re going to discuss removing the rule of two, I would support removing it fully – which I believe was council member Agran’s first proposal,” she said. “I would like to go back to where we were before.”

Prior to the rule of two policy, according to Irvine City Attorney Jeff Melching, council members had the option of filing an agenda item request two weeks prior to an agenda, and seven days if the item did not require a staff report.  

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting Irvine Weekly and our advertisers.