By Francine Maxwell
The San Diego Human Relations Commission is supposed to represent all of us. That’s what the municipal code says. That’s what the mission says. But that’s not what’s happening.
Under its current chair— nicknamed by some as the “unofficial mayor of Hillcrest”—the Commission is quickly becoming a personal political platform rather than a public service body. Week after week, meeting after meeting, the agenda points in one direction: advocacy that centers almost exclusively on Jewish and LGBTQIA+ issues. Important communities, no doubt— but they’re not the only ones in this city. Not by a long shot.
Where is the Commission’s voice when it comes to anti-Blackness, anti-immigrant rhetoric, Islamophobia, or the rise in violence against Asian Americans? Where is the engagement with working-class families, seniors, veterans, refugees? It’s hard to find, if it exists at all.
Meanwhile, commissioners who dare to ask questions— or suggest a broader, more inclusive focus— report feeling intimidated or iced out. Allegations are swirling about the chair using backdoor connections and political pressure to silence dissent and fast-track pet priorities. That’s not leadership. That’s gatekeeping.
There’s also a growing concern about ethics. The HRC has started weighing in on legislation— publicly backing or opposing bills, potentially jeopardizing the neutrality expected of a city commission. This blurs the line between community service and political advocacy, and it could put commissioners affiliated with nonprofits or federally funded agencies in a bind. Should unpaid volunteers be expected to risk their livelihoods just to serve on a board? Should taxpayer-supported commissions operate like private lobbying arms?
These questions deserve real answers. We need to know:
- How are agenda items selected?
- Who decides which bills get support?
- How is city staff time being used?
- And why are some communities consistently prioritized while others remain invisible?
The Human Relations Commission doesn’t belong to any one person, group, or agenda. It belongs to the people of San Diego. And right now, it’s being steered in a direction that’s exclusionary, politically lopsided, and ethically murky.The Ethics Commission needs to take a hard look. City Hall needs to pay attention. And San Diegans need to start asking who this commission really serves— because it’s looking less and less like all of us.
This article raises concerns worth discussing but the framing is deeply misleading.
It portrays the Commission’s attention to antisemitism and LGBTQIA+ issues as disproportionate, despite the documented rise in hate crimes targeting both communities in San Diego.
That’s not hijacking, that’s responsible, responsive leadership.
The current board isn’t a power grab. It’s a long-overdue course correction.
Most of these commissioners were appointed or reappointed within the last one to two years, and the result is a revitalized Commission that finally reflects the breadth of San Diego’s communities and concerns. What we’re seeing isn’t overreach it’s what happens when a board is no longer afraid to act.
This Commission includes:
• Dr. Sara Brown, a Jewish genocide scholar and President of AJC San Diego
• Rickie Brown, a housing justice veteran rooted in City Heights
• Tootie Thomas, a trans business owner and advocate for sobriety, youth, and LGBTQ+ inclusion
• Tyler Duncan, a mental health and neurodiversity advocate
• John Sequeira, a former State Department official with global human rights experience
• Elizabeth Fitzsimons, CEO of a nonprofit serving over 11,000 San Diegans annually
• Daneyel Walker, a small business leader focused on economic equity
• April Purcell, a science educator and health-access advocate
• Nicole Murray Ramirez, Chair, and a civil rights leader for over 45 years across LGBTQ+, Latino, veteran, and interfaith causes
To suggest this board is “hijacked” is to ignore the facts and the qualifications of those serving.
It erases the real work they’re doing, passing resolutions on hate crimes, supporting inclusive legislation, and working across communities.
Yes, it’s fair to ask how public bodies operate.
But when an article ignores the actual makeup and accomplishments of this Commission, leans on innuendo, and pits marginalized communities against each other without offering a single constructive solution, it stops being oversight and starts sounding like a political hit piece.
So the real question isn’t just what Francine Maxwell hopes to accomplish with this framing, it’s what the OB Rag hopes to stir up by running it.
It is rather sad. A long time close friend of my mine and my wife who is Jewish is being charged for a hate crime (punched a young 20 something in the face for wearing a t-shirt with the Palestinian colors). Definitely not ok to just assault someone like that and she should be held accountable but a hate crime? Antisemitism knows no bounds.
Chris – an adult punched another adult in the face because the colors on their shirt were affiliated with a specific ethnic group. Because the assaulter is Jewish, it is antisemitic to charge the assaulter with a hate crime? Whereas assaulting someone because of the aforementioned affiliation with an ethnic group should not be a hate crime? Curious about the principles underlying this framing.
Antisemitism knows no bounds. The first place I would look at is the prosecutor’s office, which is likely not the city attorney. San Diego district attorney has a history of taking things at face value, and drawing her own conclusions – often dangerously incorrect – take the Stephanie Crowe case for example. She didn’t like that her traumatized brother, who just lost his little sister, was playing a video game while being interviewed, so she charged him, a child, and his friend with murder. While a transient down the street had her blood on his clothes. She also has a long history of antisemitism allegations – very public ones. There’s no changing what’s already out there. And the injustices so many San Diegans have faced at her hands
How many Human Relations Commissioners make less than $50K? Does the Human Relations Commission pass resolutions opposing the financial redlining housing policies that have tripled rents in a couple of short decades? Margaret could you elaborate just a little on the accomplishments of the Human Relations Commission please? How does the Human Relations Commission rationalize the sheer volume of evictions of San Diego seniors living on fixed incomes being forced out of their homes to die on the streets?
Although the use of the term “hijacking” is admittedly antagonistic and at the very least hyperbolic on the surface; however, there really is no other term in modern english that is applicable. Regardless, Francine Maxwell has thoughtfully introduced and presented a case for discussion surrounding genuine questions of selective marginalization and they are palpable, very much real and far from imaginary. Ms Maxwell didn’t cut and paste Commission bios from the City’s website; she is speaking from the heart, based on her own experiences and ones that many of us can see for ourselves everyday.
Margaret, your comment raises valid points about the rise in hate crimes and the qualifications of current commissioners. No one is denying that the Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities are facing real threats, or that the individuals serving on the Commission bring important experiences to the table.
But let’s be clear: that’s not the issue Francine was raising.
Francine’s critique isn’t about whether the Commission is doing some good work. It’s about whether it’s doing balanced work. The Human Relations Commission was founded to serve all San Diegans. Yet, the meeting agendas, statements, and public priorities overwhelmingly reflect a narrow scope of advocacy—and that’s a problem.
Pointing this out doesn’t “pit marginalized communities against each other.” It holds a city board accountable to the full range of people it’s supposed to represent—Black San Diegans, immigrants, Muslims, seniors, low-income families, refugees, and others who are often conspicuously absent from the Commission’s visible priorities.
What you call a “course correction” increasingly looks like a political consolidation of influence. And when commissioners reportedly feel silenced, when questions about transparency and overreach are brushed off as innuendo, that’s a red flag—not a smear campaign.
You ask what Francine hopes to accomplish. It’s simple: equity with integrity. Not selective representation. Not silence when people raise concerns. And certainly not a Commission so insulated from critique that any questioning is labeled a threat.
If the HRC’s work is as inclusive and community-centered as you claim, then it should welcome scrutiny—not run from it. That’s how public trust is earned.
Susan, scrutiny is important but calling the HRC “hijacked” isn’t the vocabulary of constructive criticism.
The Commission’s record shows it isn’t narrowly focused: alongside addressing antisemitism and LGBTQ+ hate, it has passed resolutions on hate crimes more broadly, engaged on housing and economic equity through commissioners like Rickie Brown and Daneyel Walker, and supported access in health and education.
Which word will you permit Francine Maxwell to use to make her point, Margaret?
Hijack: take over (something) and use it for a different purpose: the organization had been hijacked by extremists.
Commandeer: take possession of (something) without authority: he hoisted himself onto a table, commandeering it as a speaker’s platform.
Annex : informal take for oneself; appropriate: my girlfriend has been annexing my hoodies over the past year.
Seize: take hold of suddenly and forcibly: she jumped up and seized his arm | he seized hold of the door handle.
Appropriate: take (something) for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission: his images have been appropriated by advertisers.
Francine has thoughtfully introduced and presented a case for discussion surrounding genuine questions of selective marginalization and they are palpable, very much real and far from imaginary. Objectively, hijack is the most appropriate and accurately descriptive term for her opinion and the use of the word is justified.
How about joining the chorus in condemning all forms of discrimination instead of prioritizing victimization that best suit your needs by denegrating her opinions and further marginalizing everyone else in the process?
Mic Drop!
The HRC’s purpose is to advise and report to the mayor and city council.
Sounds like they’re way out of their lane if they’re out lobbying on legislation or preaching to the masses.