The East Palo Alto City Council is facing a Brown Act complaint after it censured longtime City Council member Carlos Romero on Sept. 10, prompting concerns over “arbitrary” speaking procedures and predetermination of votes, according to a complaint submitted by Ravneel Chaudhary.
The Brown Act is California’s open meeting law that requires government agencies to meet in public, give proper notice of those meetings, refrain from discussing city-related matters in a majority outside of meetings and set “reasonable” public comment procedures, among many other limitations.
Boards or agencies that fail to uphold these standards may be required to recast votes, face legal action or other consequences.
Mayor Martha Barragan, Vice Mayor Mark Dinan and Council member Webster Lincoln voted to censure Romero and strip him of his regional board positions until the summer of 2026 after he made what they characterized as “disparaging” comments at June and September meetings. Romero and Council member Ruben Abrica voted against the motion, arguing that the punishment is excessive.
East Palo Alto resident Chaudhary believes the council should rescind its vote after Barragan set “inconsistent” public comment limits, capped Zoom participation and the majority of the council made up its mind prior to the meeting, according to a complaint he submitted on Sept. 16.
“You have a full packet with the views of three council members who have already made up their minds, so what’s the point of having this meeting?” Chaudhary said in an interview with this publication.
Prior to the meeting, Barragan, Lincoln and Dinan told city staff that they would like to see Romero censured for comments he made at the Sept. 2 meeting, when he said that Lincoln “may be deaf and dumb” during a discussion of whether Sand Hill Property Company should be subject to city’s affordable housing policies. Romero later apologized for the comments.
“Mayor Barragan and Vice Mayor Dinan believe that Councilmember Romero’s September 2 comments constitute a repeated violation of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials,” a report from city staff stated. “They recommend prohibiting him from representing the City of East Palo Alto in intergovernmental agencies.”
On the morning of the Sept. 10 meeting, Lincoln also submitted a letter in support of the motion to censure Romero.
City Attorney John Lê said the city could not “definitively” say whether a Brown Act violation had occurred because the council members reached out to city staff individually.
“The Ethics Resolution allows for informal resolution before the Council initiates a public-facing reprimand proceeding,” he wrote in a message to this publication.
Chaudhary and city officials have expressed ongoing concern over the process that the three council members to censure Romero, claiming public documents were missing from the agenda packet.
Specifically, the trio that voted in favor of the censure claimed on Sept. 10 that Barragan had formally warned Romero about his conduct in June and that further “misconduct would trigger a formal reprimand.” Romero says the warning never happened.
“We discussed several topics including civil discourse at council meetings,” he wrote in a message to this publication. “However, she did not specifically notify me that she would sanction me with a bar from participating on boards that she reappointed me to should she determine that I had transgressed again.”
City council member Abrica was also unaware of the warning, he wrote in a public statement on Monday, and requested that Barragan provide documentation regarding Romero’s first “warning,” and notes she was reading from at the Sept. 10 meeting.
“We are a public body and the public proceedings the other day should not rely on private meetings to build a case,” Abrica wrote in a message to this publication. “Either way, the Mayor needed to explain when, how and where this warning was done since it was used as a rationale in the trial.”
Barragan did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Chaudhary said he believes the meeting followed patterns of poor communication with the public.
“I have been trying to meet with Martha since March,” Chaudhary said. “So if you have people on council that refuse to meet with its constituents, you have to at least allow public comment.”
The special meeting, which also included an inclusionary housing ordinance discussion, was scheduled at 5:30 p.m. ahead of a 7 p.m. meeting of the Rent Stabilization Board. Due to the time crunch, Barragan limited public comment to 20 minutes and allowed five Zoom speakers to submit comments before the trial began.
Chaudhary believes the “arbitrary” process denied members of the public their right to comment, he said.
“I’m not an attorney but there indeed may be a due procedural process here where, if members want to speak on this issue – you decided to sandwich it between this other meeting,” Romero said at the meeting. “I do think the testimony is relevant. I understand that it looks like we know where this vote may be going.”
East Palo Alto officials have 30 days to respond to the Brown Act notice. Legal staff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Joan Lane, trailblazing volunteer and Stanford’s go-to for ‘sticky problems,' dies at 97March 25, 2026 3:23 pm