East Palo Alto councilmember stripped of board appointments over derogatory remark

EAST PALO ALTO City Councilmember Carlos Romero was reprimanded this week during a rushed special meeting that ended with him being removed from all boards and commissions he was appointed to.

Dozens of East Palo Alto community members filled the City Council chambers, with several speaking for or against an agenda item to “reprimand Councilmember Carlos Romero with sanctions” after he used derogatory language against colleague Webster Lincoln at a regular council meeting last week. 

Romero was given about 15 minutes total to defend himself. He apologized, asked for mercy, and believed that the proposed punishment was too harsh given that his conduct on other regional boards has not been raised as a concern.

“I would hope that this council would reconsider voting for that level of sanction. A reprimand, a censure, certainly is appropriate,” he said. “But that level of censure, that removal from bodies in which I’ve been highly effective and which I have built over the last 10 or 11 years, and the strong relationships that bring the benefit to this community, is too large of a sanction.”

One audience member, Gail Dixon, brought a large yellow poster that read “Carlos Romero must go.”

“One of our colleagues has directed personal, belligerent and derogatory remarks to other members, comments that question intelligence, competency and even personal circumstances,” said Mayor Martha Barragan at the meeting.

“For this reason, I hereby move to prohibit councilmember Romero from representing the city of East Palo Alto and in governmental agencies through November 2026. This action ensures that the behavior displayed in this in this chamber is not exported to our regional partners,” Barragan said. 

The proposed move sparked criticism from several members of the public and Councilmember Ruben Abrica, who called out Barragan for recommending the harshest sanction possible and not holding other council members to the same standard who have also used insulting language.

The decision to strip Romero of his board appointments centered around a Sept. 2 City Council meeting where a heated exchange led to Romero telling Lincoln that he “may be deaf and dumb.” 

The remark occurred after Lincoln tried to end the council discussion before a vote to allow a major housing project to bypass the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. 

A debate ensued in which Romero and Abrica argued that they had not had enough time to speak on the item, while councilmembers Mark Dinan and Lincoln tried to interrupt. 

Out of frustration, Romero uttered the derogatory phrase. Barragan demanded that Romero apologize, to which he said that no offense was meant. 

“You are going to have to face the consequences to our Code of Ethics,” Barragan told Romero at the Sept. 2 meeting. 

Apology fails to sway

At Wednesday’s meeting, Lincoln said that a reprimand was necessary given Romero’s comment toward him, which he found to be disrespectful toward disabled people.

“In this day and age, those kinds of derogatory remarks are highly inappropriate,” Lincoln said. “This is not personal. This is really about upholding the integrity of the council and making sure that as elected officials, we are conducting ourselves in the best manner.”

Romero made sure to communicate that he was sorry for his choice of words used. 

“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. 

Barragan also pointed out on Wednesday that Romero was previously warned to not use insulting language.

During a council meeting on June 3, Romero became upset when Dinan said that the city neglected supporting programs for recreation.

Romero responded saying that Dinan’s belief could have stemmed from his son potentially not wanting to participate in available recreational activities involving people of different races.

“Your child does not want to go to perhaps multiracial groups that are doing basketball and football and doing all this other stuff, that’s another issue,” Romero said.

‘Dinan should be too’

At Wednesday’s meeting, Dinan reminded the audience that this was the first instance of Romero being out of order. 

“To bring up my family and imply that I don’t want them to associate with, you know the multiracial kids in East Palo Alto, when my son’s Hispanic, his best friend’s Black, and we’re out in the community all the time, is deeply insulting,” Dinan said. “At that point, he was warned.”

But in the front row of the audience, an attendee held up a whiteboard that read “If Romero is reprimanded, Dinan should be too.”

Dinan has insulted other council members outside of formal City Council meetings. 

On April 16, Dinan made a post to a Facebook group, “East Palo Alto Neighbors,” which he moderates. 

In the post, Dinan recounted a City Council meeting where Abrica and Romero tried to debate Barragan on an item.

In referencing Abrica and Romero’s attempts to argue, Dinan wrote “Sometimes you just want to walk past snarling dogs instead of trying to play with them.”

Abrica perceived the “snarling dogs” comment as racist.

At Wednesday’s meeting, he argued that inappropriate insults against council members should be considered equally, regardless of where they occurred.

“Mr. Dinan in social media has made racist comments and nobody calls him on it,” he said. “The language that people use, public officials, whether they say it in this context or outside, matters.”

Dinan disagreed that the comment was racist, saying that it was an equivalent to the idiom “let sleeping dogs lie,” which means to ignore a problem or argument because interfering could cause further conflict. 

He also stated at the meeting that Abrica bringing up his comment was a way to distract from Romero’s actions.

“This isn’t about me, it’s not about my actions,” Dinan said. “It’s about the actions of Carlos Romero. Trying to shift the discussion as to what I’ve said or haven’t said on social media is not what this meeting is about.”

Abrica agreed to reprimand Romero, but not with the harshest punishment. 

“I support reprimanding  councilmember Romero, but at this point in time, I don’t think it’s really the best thing for the city and the work that we do to deprive him of representing the city and the bodies that he does,” Abrica said. 

Reprimand process draws fire

With 20 minutes given for public comment, some audience members felt that the move to reprimand Romero was hasty, unfair and that residents were not given enough notice. Not everyone who wanted to speak during public comment was given the chance, and those who did were given one minute.

The item was scheduled directly before a Rent Stabilization Committee meeting, thus public comment and discussion had to be limited. 

“All these people back here want to speak on behalf of Carlos,” said resident Chuy Leon during public comment. “You knew this would be the case, yet you forced this topic to happen today, squeezing it in.”

Regina Wallace-Jones, a former East Palo Alto city council member, believed that Romero should be reprimanded with censure. 

“I actually rise in support of the censure because I’ve been on the other side of this,” she said. “During my time serving on this council, I experienced firsthand the same pattern of disrespectful behavior. Like other colleagues, I was subjected to the same inappropriate comments.”

Barragan repeatedly reminded the dais and audience of the time limits.

“I know that we probably have a lot more to say, but unfortunately, we do have that time constraints,” she said after public comment ended. 

Barragan proposed a motion to reprimand Romero by stripping his appointed positions on regional boards. But she added that in June 2026, Romero’s behavior would be reviewed and that the next mayor could consider reinstating his roles or continue the sanctions to November 2026. 

The motion passed 3-2, with Romero and Abrica voting against it.