East Palo Alto City Council rejected proposal to give mayor final say over city council agenda
- Henrietta J Burroughs
- Apr 23
- 4 min read
A contentious proposal to give the mayor final authority over the setting of the East Palo Alto City Council’s agenda failed this week after a heated debate that exposed deep divisions among the city's council members and residents.
The amendment, which was to be added to the council’s Code of Ethics, was proposed by Webster Lincoln, the city’s mayor. According to Mayor Lincoln, the amendment would resolve disputes between the vice mayor and himself by granting him, as the mayor, the final say on which items move forward to public discussion.
“This is a more efficient way to resolve disputes before they come to the agenda,” Mayor Lincoln said during the council’s April 22 meeting. He argued that the council had spent wasted hours revisiting previously settled matters that had been added to the last agenda.
But critics, including fellow council members, sharply disagreed. They warned that the change the mayor was proposing would concentrate too much power in one office and undermine the model that council members have used for the past 30 years to set the agenda.
In making this point, Councilmember Carlos Romero said, “Let's not mince words here. This really is a power grab by a…council member, definitely serving as mayor, who wants to reduce openness on this body and the collaborative governance that we've had for decades and concentrate power within himself.”
For the residents attending the meeting, the timing of the proposed amendment was not coincidental, since it came exactly two weeks after Mayor Lincoln’s controversial decision to remove an item regarding the city’s Flock camera contract from the meeting's agenda. The item's removal drew strong objections, since it came after the agenda had been duly posted and after it had attracted residents to the council chambers, who came, specifically, to discuss it.
Several community members, who spoke at the current meeting said that the proposed amendment was a response to only one issue - the prior Flock camera discussion.
One resident, identified only as Donna asked, “Why would we change something that has been working for 30 years, because your feelings got hurt….because Ruben said he would add flock to the agenda and follow through with it? Is it because he wouldn't stand down to you?”
Several others, including a speaker named Manny, agreed with Romero's description of the proposal as a power grab. “I’m clear this is a fucking power grab. The only reason that you're doing this is because you want all the power for yourself,” Manny said
Mayor Lincoln defended the proposal as a practical fix to avoid repeated debates and reduce strain on city staff.
“We’ve spent hours revisiting issues that have already been decided,” Lincoln said, pointing to recent meetings where previously settled matters resurfaced. “This creates a clearer pathway to handle disagreements.”
But, Emily, another speaker, was not convinced by the mayor’s argument that his amendment would save time.
“Here you claim that…we wasted time and that's why we're having all of these changes. You were the one who took the item off the agenda. You're the one, who wasted everyone else's time. And just because the vote didn't pass in our favor doesn't mean that we wasted time. I think we did a very good job of showing the public that you don't care about what your constituents think, that you're lazy and that you have not been listening and taking into account what everyone else has to say.”
Approximately, thirty speakers spoke on the motion. In spite of the overwhelmingly negative comments shared, some of which turned into personal attacks, there were less than five residents at the meeting, who publicly supported the mayor's amendment.
Marianna, who was among them, was not impressed with the 30-year argument that had been put forth earlier. “Saying that this is how we've done it for 30 years," she said, "…[does] not necessarily mean that it has been the right approach. It's also important to look at the results... [The] same 30 years left our city and residents without sidewalks, without adequate lighting and with the budget, and I think the idea [of the]... Mayor having a deciding vote is ... reasonable.....
Mario, a frequent speaker during public comment sessions, said, “ Mr. Lincoln, you are favoring law and order because you truly are protecting the community. You are protecting the citizens. You are protecting the residents.”
Councilmember Mark Dinan said that he didn't have any real firm thoughts on it. But, he added that there needed to be a tiebreaker in case there was a difference of opinion between the mayor and the vice mayor. So, he said, "I'd be willing to support it, maybe as a pilot program for a year or so.”
Mayor Lincoln defended himself from being dictatorial by stating again that the proposal "creates a clearer pathway to handle disagreements."
"Under the proposal, councilmembers could still request agenda items," he said, "but if the mayor and vice mayor disagreed, the mayor’s decision would prevail. Disputed items could be rerouted through a secondary process—requiring additional steps before reaching full council consideration.
All of the arguments given in support of the amendment did little to sway the outcome.
In the end, the motion received two “yes” votes from Councilmembers Lincoln and Dinan; two “no” votes from Councilmembers Abrica and Romero and one abstention from Councilmember Martha Barragan. So, the motion failed to pass—falling short of the three votes needed for its approval.
While the failed vote leaves the city’s current agenda-setting process unchanged, the debate that occurred highlighted the community's concerns regarding the council's transparency, trustworthiness and regard for the interests of the residents.
As Liban Sheikh stated during the meeting, “I can't express the disappointment I feel towards this council, and how much it contrasts with the hope and excitement I felt when I first moved to this community.”
With that statement and other similar ones, which were expressed by the meeting's residents, it seems that the current council has a lot to do to rebuild the community's trust and repair some of the wounds it has opened.
****************
Please click on the box below and make a donation. Whatever amount you give will enable us to "Keep Community Media Alive!"
