|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In a rare move that underscored its deepening divisions, East Palo Alto City Council voted 3-2 to censure longstanding Council member Carlos Romero, stripping him of his regional board positions at a special meeting Wednesday night.
The council’s action came a week after Romero made what the council majority characterized as a “disparaging” comment to Council member Webster Lincoln. Mayor Martha Barragan, Vice Mayor Mark Dinan and Lincoln voted to remove Romero, who serves on the majority of regional agencies, including Commute.org, Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Authority and Re-Think Waste. Romero and Council member Ruben Abrica rejected the decision, which will be reevaluated in June 2026.
During a Sept. 2 City Council meeting, Romero said Lincoln “may be deaf and dumb” during a debate to allow major developer Sand Hill Property Company alternative compliance to the city’s affordable housing policies.
“This was not, as he later claimed, merely a ‘misuse of metaphor,’” Lincoln wrote in a letter of support for the censure prior to the meeting. “It was the use of outdated, derogatory language that has historically been used to marginalize and demean people with disabilities.”
Barragan, who submitted the proposal to censure Romero, said recent council debates have not been collaborative nor respectful and thereon set a two-minute speaking limit for each council member.
Romero directly apologized Wednesday evening to the public and to Lincoln, whose hand he later shook.
“I want to extend my deepest apologies to the mayor, to my council members and the community for the use of that term and express sincere regret for that comment that I made,” he said. “Moving forward, I will do my best to ensure that the language and the ways I interact with my fellow council members do not distract from the policies and issues at hand.”
Romero’s comment, which came after Lincoln and Mayor Barragan tried to move to a vote before Romero or Abrica had a chance to speak, follows various contentious meetings where newer council members and more longstanding ones have disagreed on topics like affordable housing and how to spend city funds.
At another particularly factious meeting in June, Romero made personal comments about Dinan’s family during a budget discussion.
“That your child doesn’t want to go to multi-racial groups that are doing basketball and football and all this other stuff, that’s another issue, that you think they should only go to the YMCA,” Romero said at the meeting.
Vice Mayor Dinan fired back at Romero, claiming he couldn’t relate to local families because he doesn’t have children of his own.
Council member Abrica said he believes the mayor has subjected the council to “double standards” by allowing Dinan to participate in the June exchange without apology and call Abrica a “snarling dog” in a Facebook post, according to a written statement from Abrica.
“We need to start healing,” Romero said. “And I believe that the sanction itself will cleave into that community rift and perhaps create greater enmity.”
Instead of stripping him of his regional duties, Romero instead asked that he be subjected to a lower-level of censure like a formal writeup. The three council members rejected that suggestion.
“Time for Carlos to take a timeout,” Dinan said. “I support this. I think a timeout on these regional bodies sends a message of accountability. I think the mayor stated it perfectly and this isn’t about vengeance.”
The outcome of the meeting was not surprising as all three council members who voted for the sanctions communicated to city staff that they would like to see Romero punished for his conduct. According to city legal staff, the separate communications did not appear to violate the Brown Act, a state law that ensures that government agencies refrain from gathering as a majority outside of meetings to discuss city-related topics.
Citing the council’s June and Sept. 2 meetings, both Barragan and Dinan contacted the city manager and expressed that Romero should be “held accountable,” according to city documents.
Barragan and Dinan later made the claim that Romero was formally warned about his comments and that further “misconduct would trigger a formal reprimand,” Barragan said Wednesday. Lincoln also wrote a letter to city staff prior to the Wednesday meeting, noting that Romero was “explicitly warned” by the Mayor that further misconduct “would result in formal sanctions.”
“That simply is not true,” Romero said about the three claims. “This happens to be the highest punishment that is available that was discussed by the mayor and vice mayor.”
Even though the three council members have all expressed their views on the sanction before the Wednesday meeting, City Attorney John Lê told this publication that he does not believe that they have violated the Brown Act because the views of Barragan and Dinan were included in a staff report that was issued in accordance with the law, while Lincoln was the only council member who communicated with staff on the issue.
Lê also said city laws allow for “informal resolution” prior to a public-facing meeting and that he believes each council member contacted the city individually about their concerns.
“We cannot state definitively, without more, whether a Brown Act violation has occurred,” Lê wrote in a message to this publication.
Community members also raised concerns about a separate possible Brown Act violation after the council planned to host the meeting on Monday without posting on the city’s bulletin board. This prompted the city to push back the meeting by two days after giving proper public notice.
“The mayor and vice mayor placed the item on the agenda for a special meeting scheduled just before a Planning Commission meeting,” a group of residents wrote in a press release. “This gave the public very limited time to review the matter or provide meaningful input.”
During public comment, which was limited to approximately 30 minutes, the majority of speakers voiced disapproval for the sanction that would cut Romero off from more public-facing roles.
San Mateo Deputy Mayor Adam Loraine, who spoke in an individual capacity but has served on a regional board with Romero for over two years, said Romero provides valuable personal experience to public discussions and maintains the “utmost respect,” going out of his way to volunteer extra hours. Another speaker, an East Palo Alto resident, accused the council majority of acting “in a capricious manner” and said removing Romero could “diminish the city’s regional influence.
But former City Council member Regina Wallace Jones said she felt the censure was appropriate due to past “disrespectful” comments that Romero has made.
“Our residents deserve elected officials who treat one another with basic respect and integrity and dignity,” she said. “They deserve a council that conducts itself with professionalism even amidst disagreement. That’s for all of you.”
–
Thank you council for taking a step to censure a member who was following the standard “this is EPA” attitude during his time representing East Palo Alto.
For those living outside of East Palo Alto “this is EPA” is the standard response when you ask neighbors to turn down loud music at 2am, stop shooting of fireworks from the intersection next to your house, parking in a way were access to your driveway is blocked, or please deal with the rats created by the 12-14 people living in tents in your backyard.
The fact that the council is censuring a council member who has spent years on the council supporting such things in the community is a good thing