Port Panel Votes 6-0 to Censure Member Sandy Naranjo, to Release Secret Report

Sandy Naranjo, National City’s representative on the San Diego Port Commission, was formally censured Tuesday night by a 6-0 vote of her fellow board members.

Her alleged offenses, outlined in generalities, lacked specific details on a night when nearly 30 speakers praised Naranjo as a champion of environmental justice and her South Bay community.

“When National City is excluded from the table, she pulls up extra chairs,” one ally said.

No community member spoke against her in person, online or via voice mail.

But fellow commissioners said a confidential report prepared by an outside legal team compelled them to take action unprecedented in San Diego Unified Port District history.

Commissioner Dan Malcolm of Imperial Beach called the report “very troubling” and was “almost at a loss for words.”

He said this even after Imperial Beach Mayor Paloma Aguirre phoned into the meeting and urged the board to delay a vote — and first let National City officials review the report.

The board met in closed session for a half-hour before the censure vote, and announced the investigative report would be made public Wednesday — likely with redactions.

Commissioner Frank Urtasun of Coronado defended his vote to strip Naranjo of her vice chair title, committee assignments and shot at being board chair: “We have no choice in the matter.”

When an audience member shouted “yes, you did!” Urtasun responded: “Stop the catcalls. We have to act and do the right thing.” (He’d later be elected as the new vice chair.)

Board Chairman Rafael Castellanos of San Diego, like other members, said he admired Naranjo’s work and regretted having to vote for the reprimand. But he called Naranjo’s supposed behavior “distressing, troubling, alarming.”

“I do support the censure,” he said. “I don’t do that with any joy.”

But the board opted not to bar the 36-year-old mother of two from speaking alone with district staffers — as recommended by a law firm’s resolution seeking censure.

Attorney Cory Briggs, referring to Naranjo as his client, said she has not seen the supposedly damning investigative report. But he hailed the meeting’s outcome as a “huge victory for the public.”

The board “clearly recognized that they were being heavy-handed in trying to punish her,” Briggs told reporters after the vote just before 7 p.m.

As noted several times, only National City can remove Naranjo from the Port Commission.

And two National City council members joined community members and fellow activists in blasting the censure process.

Councilman Jose Rodriguez asked for a copy of the report “as soon as possible.”

“The city must have the facts,” he said, reading a statement from his phone, and added that the council planned a closed session Thursday on the matter.

Said fellow Councilman Marcus Bush, holding his 9-month-old son Amar at the lectern: “These last 24 hours (since getting news of the censure hearing) have been really hard on us — because we were … totally blindsided by this.”

Bush went on to say the issue felt like a cover-up, “like you guys are hiding something…. If you have a problem with Sandy, come talk to us.”

Attorney Briggs, a thorn in the side of local municipalities for years, was given time to speak.

He challenged the board’s authority to censure and said: “This is an obvious attempt to punish my client because she dared to speak out” against port general counsel Thomas Russell.

Almost immediately, outside attorney Sonia Carvalho objected to what she deemed the divulging of confidential info from a closed board session — the apparent identity of the district employee Naranjo is accused of retaliating against.

Briggs accused Russell of not giving the port his “undivided loyalty,” saying Naranjo was merely raising questions about Russell during his evaluation.

“Did you know that Mr. Russell is a prolific inventor of propellers for boats” with multiple patents? Briggs said, citing public records and suggesting Russell was doing business in California “without paying his taxes” and having a “law practice on the side.”

Russell, who like Naranjo left his usual dais seat during certain discussions, would later address the board from the public-comment lectern denying any conflict of interest and saying he didn’t make money from his inventions.

The 12-year district veteran said Briggs’ claims were slanderous.

Briggs also read a letter to the board from Naranjo’s recently divorced husband, Andrew McKercher.

McKercher’s note began by saying his ex-wife hadn’t asked him to write the letter.

“One of the first things she began to suspect [soon after she joined the board in 2021] was that the port’s top attorney, Tom Russell, was acting unethically and possibly illegally,” his letter said.

McKercher went on to say that Russell’s assistant, Rebecca Harrington, was a good friend of McKercher’s brother.

“After learning this, Ms. Harrington approached me to tell me how much she hates Sandy and how terrible she thought Sandy was,” the letter said.

• Listen: Portion of community comments at censure hearing
• Listen: Cory Briggs addresses Port Commission on Naranjo behalf
• Listen: Port Commission discussion before closed session
• Listen: Portion Commission discussion before censure vote

On a second occasion, he said, Harrington “told me that … the Port Commissioners all hate Sandy and that ‘Sandy is going down.'”

McKercher said this sounded like the censure was more of a “political take-down than a legitimate concern about Sandy.”

An angry Harrington later called the McKercher statements “completely false,” saying she was “shocked and distressed” by his allegations.

Members of several activist groups including the National City-based Environmental Health Coalition ripped the board for moving to censure with only a day’s notice.

Julie Corrales referred to the panel as a “historically racist board,” saying “this reeks of dirty political maneuvering.” Maritza Garcia said: “Essentially you’re putting a dunce cap” on Naranjo.

Environmental Health Coalition Executive Director José Franco García labeled the censure move “unfounded, unprecedented and discriminatory.” San Diego 350’s Bee Mittermiller said the censure process “literally poisoned the well.”

And Coronado’s Laura Wilkinson Sinton, co-founder of stopthesewage.org, said the board violated the Brown Act by failing to post notice of the special session on the port’s home page. (Instead, it was on an inside agenda page.)

She recalled the movie “Animal House.”

Sinton said censuring Naranjo would be “an imperious, hasty decision” — like placing a student on “double secret probation.”

“Your public deserves better,” she said. “This is wrong.”