Potential Misfeasance by the Irvine City Clerk in Administering the Citizens’ Initiative Process

March 16, 2026

Mayor Larry Agran
Irvine City Council
City of Irvine
1 Civic Center Plaza
Irvine, CA 92606

VIA EMAIL:
larryagran@cityofirvine.org        
kathleentreseder@cityofirvine.org
jamesmai@cityofirvine.org    
irvinecitycouncil@cityofirvine.org
MikeCarroll@cityofirvine.org    
clerk@cityofirvine.org
williamgo@cityofirvine.org    
cm@cityorirvine.org
bettymartinez@cityofirvine.org    
jmelching@rutan.com

Re: Potential Misfeasance by the Irvine City Clerk in Administering the Citizens’ Initiative Process

Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:

I write to formally notify the Irvine City Council of serious concerns regarding the conduct of the Irvine City Clerk in the administration of the citizens’ initiative process, specifically relating to the Clerk’s statutory duties under the California Elections Code §§ 9202–9210 and the Irvine Municipal Code §§ 1-2-103, 2-1-103, and 1-2-501 et seq. The Clerk’s actions constitute misfeasance—the improper performance of a lawful duty—and have materially interfered with the public’s constitutional right to initiative.

On January 15, 2026, I filed a Citizens Initiative with the City Clerk’s Office for the purpose of protecting All Irvine Open Space. The intent was to gather signatures for an Initiative Measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot for the citizens of Irvine to vote on that gave the citizens of Irvine the exclusive right to determine if there should be land development on all Irvine Open Space. Of course, this includes the Oak Creek area of Planning area 12 Open Space O. On or about January 30, 2026, we received the Title and Summary for the Initiative. The next thing we had to do was to publish the Initiative in a newspaper as required by State Law.

On February 2, 2026, at 11:41 AM, my Co-Chair, Scott Carpenter, sent an email to City Clerk Carl Peterson asking him to confirm if the Orange County Business Journal is an acceptable newspaper to publish the petition and follow the law in doing so. On February 2, 2026, at 12:55 PM, Mr. Peterson responded in an email to Mr. Carpenter to utilize the following website to choose a publication: https://www.occourts.org/system/files?file+general/11116.pdf. This was asked and answered as a direction for us to follow the law; it was not “legal advice” that Mr. Peterson now states it is. The Orange County Business Journal (OCJB) was selected from the list. We were also asked by Mr. Peterson to ask the publication if they qualified. This seemed awkward in that why doesn’t the City Clerk just know what’s on the list to confirm we are following the law? (See attachment of emails). We then published in OCJB and sent proof of the publication to Mr. Peterson that we had done so to comply with the law and his directions. There was never a follow-up by Mr. Peterson on the newspaper we had chosen and the incorrect newspaper to publish in. The OCJB’s receipt shows us that they believe they are a newspaper of general circulation in Irvine. (See attached). We then began gathering signatures for the Initiative on our printed petitions beginning in the Irvine City Plaza on January 10, 2026, following the Irvine City Council Meeting.

On March 9, 2026, I met with an official from the Irvine Company, who handed me a letter from his Attorney firm of Nielsen Merksamer Group. The letter details that we utilized a newspaper that does not qualify for publishing an Irvine City Initiative. The letter was intended to be sent to Mr. Peterson to disqualify the Initiative and all the signatures gathered to date. (see attached letter). I then placed a personal call to Mr. Peterson and spoke to him about his letter and the Irvine Company’s intent to disqualify our gathered signatures. He responded that he told us that he doesn’t give legal advice, ignoring that what was asked of him was directions to follow in choosing a newspaper to publish in. The City Clerk is required to give proper advice and not stifle citizens from filing a City Initiative. He said he would contact City Attorney Jeff Melching and get back with me. He never did.

Later, Mr. Melching in a series of emails between the two of us, would only comment that Mr. Peterson does not give legal advice and there was never any remedy involved except for us starting all over again.

It is now too late to start all over again, as our committee’s attorneys have told us that we only have until May 6th, 2026, to gather signatures to qualify for the November 2026 election because the City Clerk has procedures to follow in verifying signatures and presenting the Initiative to the City Council for review. We now believe that, based on the facts that I have explained above, the following serious issues face the City of Irvine:

1. The Clerk’s Legal Duties Are Mandatory and Ministerial

Under California law, the City Clerk is the elections official responsible for administering the initiative process. These duties are ministerial, not discretionary. They include:

• Providing accurate, complete, and non-misleading instructions to proponents.
• Accepting and processing initiative documents in strict compliance with Elections Code requirements.
• Ensuring that no action by the Clerk impedes, delays, or frustrates the public’s right to file an initiative.

The Irvine Municipal Code reinforces these obligations by designating the Clerk as the official custodian of city records, responsible for ensuring compliance with state law and maintaining transparency and accuracy in all official actions.

2. The Clerk Provided False or Misleading Instructions to Initiative Proponents

Multiple documented interactions show that the Clerk:

• Provided incorrect procedural instructions regarding the filing of the Notice of Intent and related documents.
• Issued contradictory or incomplete guidance that did not conform to Elections Code requirements.
• Failed to provide the mandatory written materials and statutory references required for initiative proponents.
• Took actions that delayed or obstructed the timely filing and processing of initiative documents.

These actions are not minor clerical errors. They constitute misfeasance because the Clerk performed required duties incorrectly, in a manner that materially affected the public’s ability to exercise a constitutional right.

Providing false directions can constitute:

• Interference with the initiative process (Elections Code §§ 9202–9207 for local initiatives),
• Failure to perform a mandatory duty, which is grounds for a writ of mandate compelling proper action.

Courts treat the initiative power as “jealously guarded” and strictly protected from administrative obstruction.

3. Legal Consequences of Misfeasance in the Initiative Process

California courts have repeatedly held that:

• Elections officials must strictly comply with ministerial duties.
• Providing incorrect instructions or failing to follow statutory procedures can invalidate administrative actions.
• Any conduct that interferes with the initiative process is subject to judicial remedy, including mandamus, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees under the private attorney general doctrine.

If the misinformation is intentional, it may violate:

• Gov. Code § 1222 (officer neglecting a duty),
• Gov. Code § 1090 or conflict-of-interest principles if the misinformation benefits a party with a financial interest (rare but possible).

The City Council has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that the Clerk’s office complies with state law and does not infringe upon the public’s constitutional rights.

4. Requested Action by the City Council

I respectfully request that the City Council:

1. Investigate the Clerk’s conduct regarding the administration of the initiative process.
2. Direct the Clerk to issue corrected written guidance consistent with the Elections Code.
3. Implement procedural safeguards to ensure that initiative proponents receive accurate, complete, and timely information.
4. Affirm the City’s commitment to protecting the public’s constitutional right to initiative and preventing administrative interference.
5. The Committee to Protect All Irvine Open Space respectfully requests that the City provide an immediate and effective remedy that restores our ability to place the Initiative to Protect All Irvine Open Space on the November 2026 ballot, or alternatively, the 2027 ballot, without further administrative obstruction. In addition, the City Council must cease taking any action to approve or advance development on any designated Irvine Protected Open Space—including Planning Area 12, Open Space O—unless and until such development is submitted to a vote of the citizens of Irvine, as required by Initiative 88-1. At a minimum, the Council should table all discussions, hearings, or votes concerning Open Space O until a new petition is afforded the full 180-day statutory period to gather signatures, free from the procedural errors that previously impaired the process. The suggestion that the Council possesses unilateral authority to override Initiative 88-1 and deny Irvine citizens their right to vote on development of protected open space is contrary to the plain language and legal effect of the initiative. The City Attorney’s position appears speculative at best, relying on the hope that his interpretation will withstand judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

The right of Irvine residents to propose and vote on local initiatives is fundamental. It must not be compromised by administrative misfeasance or the improper performance of ministerial duties. I urge the City Council to take corrective action to restore public confidence in the integrity of the initiative process.