Exercising its power to censure members, the East Palo Alto City Council voted 3-2 Wednesday to sanction Councilmember Carlos Romero and remove him from regional board seats after it was determined he insulted a colleague last week, allegedly violating the city’s code of ethics.
The disciplinary action, rarely used by the council, strips Romero of his seats on several boards until June 2026, including San Mateo County’s commute.org, Peninsula Clean Energy Joint Powers Committee, Re-Think Waste, and the San Mateo County Joint Powers Authority.
The last time the council censured a member was in 2017, Mayor Martha Barragan said during Wednesday’s meeting. She emphasized the need for professional conduct in regional representation.
“This ensures that the action in this chamber is not exported to regional partners,” Barragan said. “If I cannot rely on respectful conduct here, I cannot entrust representation elsewhere.”
Barragan, Vice Mayor Mark Dinan, and Councilmember Lincoln Webster voted in favor, while Councilmembers Ruben Abrica and Romero did not support the censure.
The emphasis on decorum came in the context of a heated debate earlier this month over a major housing project, which quickly escalated into personal conflict.
Related Articles
Redwood City considers 21-story tower to serve older residents
Judge orders partial release of spending records in Sheriff Corpus corruption probe
Two new housing projects break ground in San Mateo County
Sheriff Corpus takes stand as San Mateo County removal hearings close
Alef Aeronautics to begin flying car tests at Half Moon Bay, Hollister airports
Romero, who was first elected to the council in 2008 and served as mayor in 2011 and 2021, became visibly angry during discussions over Sand Hill Property Company’s proposed 250-unit Four Corners project at 1675 Bay Rd.
The developer requested permission to eliminate all city-mandated “very low-income” housing units at the site, replacing them with moderate- and low-income units – a measure the council ultimately approved despite a staff recommendation against it.
The insults that led to Romero’s censure came shortly after Webster moved to close debate and vote on the exemption.
During the Sept. 2 meeting, Webster moved to close debate on Sand Hill’s project before Romero and Abrica had spoken. Romero responded, “You may be deaf and dumb,” but later apologized, saying he did not intend to be insulting.
The confrontation unfolded against the backdrop of the region’s worsening housing affordability crisis.
With San Mateo County’s area median income at $130,600 for a single person, residents at the “very low income” level of $68,550 — who would have qualified for the units eliminated by the developer — earn less than half the median. Those earning under $109,700 are still considered “low income.”
According to Zillow, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in East Palo Alto is $2,188 a month.
Once dubbed the nation’s “murder capital,” the city recorded for the first time zero homicides in 2023, a milestone many saw as the start of a new chapter, with crime rates continuing to stay at very low levels. Previously known as Silicon Valley’s last affordable enclave, East Palo Alto now faces mounting pressure from rising housing costs that have displaced many longtime residents.
Romero offered a public apology to both the community and Webster, shaking his colleague’s hand afterward.
“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,” he said.
While Webster accepted the handshake, he still voted to censure the councilmember.
During the meeting, Romero proposed that he be censured but asked to keep his board seats — a request the council majority rejected.
The disciplinary action drew mixed reactions from a community already divided over housing policies.
The censure brought out both Romero supporters and those who backed the council’s action.
Abrica, who voted against the censure, argued in a statement that Barragan applied “double standards” by not sanctioning other council members who he says have made inappropriate comments in council chambers or on social media.
In a written statement, community organizer Ravneel Chaudhary echoed concerns about disproportionate punishment, calling Romero’s removal from regional boards “punitive, vindictive, and wildly disproportionate.” He argued the sanctions would “silence a duly elected representative and harm East Palo Alto residents, who lose a strong voice in agencies where Romero has been effective and trusted.”
Former Councilmember Regina Wallace-Jones defended the sanctions during public comment.
“Our residents deserve elected officials who treat one another with basic respect, integrity, and dignity,” she said. “They deserve a council that conducts itself with professionalism, even amidst disagreement. Most importantly, our community deserves leaders who model the inclusive values that make East Palo Alto strong.”
The council initially proposed removing Romero from regional committees until November 2026, but after discussion and public comment, Barragan moved the date to June 2026, allowing the next mayor to decide whether he should be reinstated to the boards.