Councilmember Elo-Rivera Leaves the Dias while Resident Speaks at City Council Meeting

By Paul Krueger

If you’re motivated enough to share a concern with our elected city officials be prepared for some disrespect.

As a rule, only two council members — Steve Whitburn and Joe LaCava — will even acknowledge your presence during non-agenda public comment. They’ll make eye contact with you, and at least give the appearance of listening.

The other seven council members might be listening but they don’t show it. They usually won’t even glance up from their phones or laptops when you start speaking, and rarely give the slightest indication of any interest in what you’re saying.

There have been some recent displays of more blatant disrespect by council members.

On November 19, Vivian Moreno and Sean Elo-Rivera abruptly walked out of a council Rules Committee meeting — with no explanation — depriving the Committee of a quorum and ending discussion of a citizen-proposed ballot measure to reinstate free parking on Sundays in Balboa Parking.

But on December 8th, Sean Elo-Rivera raised the bar for discourtesy.

During non-agenda public comment three speakers criticized the San Diego Police Department for cooperating with ICE to detain alleged undocumented immigrants and harass and disrupt anti-ICE demonstrations.

Many of us share those concerns, and agree that we should scrutinize the extent of  SDPD’s involvement with ICE and any possible violation of state law that prohibits local law enforcement from certain kinds of inter-agency cooperation.

Elo-Rivera has made this issue a cornerstone of his political agenda and is a featured speaker at many anti-ICE, pro-immigrant demonstrations.

I think an overwhelming number of San Diegans agree with those speakers and oppose ICE’s tactics and do not want SDPD to help the agency detain, arrest, and deport suspects without due process.

And it was certainly Elo-Rivera’s prerogative to reach out to those three anti-ICE/SDPD speakers for more information about the allegedly unlawful conduct they witnessed.

But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do that.

The right way is to have his staff contact them directly and set up a meeting.

The wrong way is to abruptly walk out of the council meeting before the remaining residents have their opportunity to speak about an issue of importance to themselves and (and perhaps others who don’t have the time to travel downtown).

The wrong way is to motion to those three speakers you agree with, to follow you as you leave the council chambers.

The wrong way is to lead them to a side room for a private conversation, while the council is still in session.

It’s hard to imagine a more blatant and gratuitous show of disrespect for the public — and your council colleagues — than to literally turn your back on them and walk out.
And it doesn’t matter who those remaining speakers are, or what they have to say.

I also think it’s no coincidence that Elo Rivera ditched the meeting just as my neighbor and colleague Geoff Hueter began his allotted two-minute presentation about the city Planning Department’s failure to property evaluate and mitigate the consequences of its aggressive support for high-density, multi-story development (with no parking and inadequate public transit) in our residential neighborhoods.

But it’s also no surprise, because Elo-Rivera has consistently ignored the legitimate, well-researched concerns about hyper-development voiced by thousands of residents in his district, and throughout the city.

His office routinely refuses to even acknowledge emails and messages from those critics, because he disagrees with their position on those issues or just doesn’t like the resident.

He makes no effort to understand why they oppose these infrastructure-busting developments, refuses to intervene on their behalf when construction companies violate building codes, and makes no effort to broker compromises on density and project design.

Worse, Elo-Rivera constantly tries to politicize and weaponize these policy issues with false and stereotypical attacks on constituents who disagree with his policies and performance.

I live in his district. I closely follow city planning and politics. And I’ve been on the receiving end of his increasing vitriol for five years.

I know his game. It’s classic divide and (try to) conquer. And he’s got a predictable algorithm for who’s worthy — and more importantly, unworthy — of his time, attention, and respect.

• If you live north of El Cajon Blvd, you’re suspect.
• If you live in Kensington or Talmadge, you’re probably unworthy
• If you own your home, especially for more than ten years, you’re assumed unworthy.
• If you’re over 50, you’re clearly unworthy.
• If you’re “wealthy” (parameters undefined) you move up a notch on the unworthy scale.
• If you’re “white” (parameters undefined), you’re a standard bearer for unworthiness.
• If you voted for his opponent in last year’s election, you deserve an extra measure of disrespect.

Most of us — myself included — who’ve been subject to Elo-Rivera’s biases don’t like it, but know he’ll be gone in three years. We’ll have the opportunity to help elect a new Councilmember who treats all their constituents with fairness and respect, regardless of their politics or station in life.

After all, that’s actually what accepted ethical practice — and the law — require.

“Public officials have a duty to represent all of their constituents fairly,” writes Hana Callagan, a government ethics expert at Santa Clara University.

“(They) cannot favor those of his or her own party over other constituents, or let the fact that someone voted against him or her impact the ability to act fairly. They must overcome any inherent bias that they possess, and should avoid targeting particular constituencies for favor or for punishment. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution is in essence a codification of the duty of impartiality.”