‘We warn the city’: Confidential letters reveal Port District efforts after Naranjo censure

Months before National City ousted Sandy Naranjo as its representative to the Port District of San Diego, lawyers for the port warned of “serious legal risk” and potential legal bills if the city allowed her to speak out about her conflict with the agency at council meetings. 

Two confidential letters that inewsource obtained appear to be part of a chain of communications between the port and the city in the aftermath of the Oct. 10 censure of Naranjo. 

Together, they show the Port District’s continuing concern about Naranjo’s public comments, even after the controversial censure, and the behind-the-scenes efforts it was making to limit those remarks. Both letters came after the council issued a news release supporting Naranjo and stating it was “deeply disappointed” with the censure. 

That unprecedented censure of Naranjo by her fellow commissioners stripped much of her authority at the port, and ultimately drove a decision by the City Council to remove her as its representative to the powerful agency in a 3-2 vote in May.

In one of the letters, Sonia Rubio Carvalho, a lawyer hired by the port, wrote that giving Naranjo time to speak during council meetings could be trouble for the city. 

“The City should not provide a public forum for Commissioner Naranjo, her attorney, or those acting on her behalf to further their retaliatory efforts, and make or repeat baseless accusations and innuendo,” she wrote. 

“Specifically, we warn the City that agenizing (sic) a specific item or allowing her time on other general agenda items, now or in the future, would likely lead to additional serious legal risk to the City for aiding the retaliatory actions of its appointed representative.”

She said Naranjo could speak during the public comment section of a meeting, and then warned that if the port were to somehow end up paying out money because of something Naranjo said, the district would go after the city.

“As previously conveyed to you, if claims are levied against the District as a result of Commissioner Naranjo’s actions, the District may have no choice but to seek reimbursement from the City for any resulting damages and expenses,” she wrote. “We want to continue to work with you to avoid liability.”

It is unclear what precisely Carvalho meant about the port district facing potential legal claims. She did not respond to phone and email requests for interviews.

Officials with the Port District also declined an interview request. “The Port has corresponded with National City in a confidential manner between legal counsel related to potential legal liabilities and cannot comment further,” Board of Port Commissioners Chairman Frank Urtasun said in a statement. 

Naranjo said that the letters are part of a concerted effort by the agency to get her removed, one that started after she raised questions about the port’s general counsel at a closed session performance review in December 2022. 

“It’s just a continuation of this obvious intent to push me off the commission,” she said. 

Naranjo was censured by the commissioners following a $150,000 investigation stemming from comments she made 10 months earlier during a closed session focusing on port general counsel Thomas Russell.

The investigative report released two days after the vote said that Naranjo quizzed Russell about potential conflicts of interest he may have had. 

That led some commissioners to conclude she had defamed Russell and was retaliating against him, for questions he had raised earlier about Naranjo’s own potential conflicts — none of which turned out to be conflicts.

Still, the district was concerned that Naranjo’s actions could be seen as retaliation against Russell, according to the report. Those concerns were echoed in one of the letters from Carvalho.

She wrote to Schultz that after being censured, Naranjo’s comments on the controversy amounted to a choice to “double down and exacerbate things by taking additional action in public that greatly compounded that liability risk.”

But one free speech lawyer was puzzled by the district’s concerns over what Naranjo might say in a particular forum — during a public meeting. 

State law generally shields comments made by anyone — elected officials, staff, a member of the public — in such meetings from being sued, said David Loy, the legal director for the advocacy group First Amendment Coalition.

“I don’t understand how the Port District thinks it can avoid California law that grants absolute protection to statements made in legislative proceedings, such as city council meetings, as long as those statements bear some relation to the work of the legislative body,” Loy said. 

That protection is known as “legislative privilege,” Loy said. 

“It’s an absolute immunity in California law from liability for statements made in, among other places, city council meetings, as long as the statements bear some relationship to the work of the city council.”

Naranjo said she announced at a council meeting in October that she wanted to make a presentation at the next meeting on Nov. 21 that would present her side of the censure controversy. 

That never happened, though. Carvalho in the confidential letter to Schultz sent four days before that meeting said the port was “pleased to see that your published agenda for your November 21 meeting does not include a specific agenda for the Commissioner and/or her attorney to lay out her case before the City Council as she previously announced.”

National City has a standing item on its agenda for reports from representatives to other agencies like the San Diego Association of Governments or the port. Naranjo regularly made reports to the council at that time since she was appointed in 2021. 

The letters from the port were addressed to City Attorney Barry Schultz, though it’s not clear how he responded. Schultz did not respond to inewsource’s requests for comment.

National City Mayor Ron Morrison said he had not seen the letters. He said he understood the correspondence not to be a veiled threat to sue but an advisory that the city could be pulled into a lawsuit or other legal actions.

Morrison voted to oust Naranjo, but said that was not because of any pressure from the port. Rather it was an outcome of the censure vote that kneecapped Naranjo’s standing and undercut her effectiveness.

“I think the issue came down to, we had a commissioner sitting on the commission, but we didn’t have a representative,” he said. 

Councilmember Luz Molina, who voted to keep Naranjo as the city’s port representative, said the council had indeed seen and discussed the letters — but in a closed session. Because of the confidentiality of such sessions she declined to comment on the letters specifically.

Molina said that the correspondence led to three meetings earlier this year with herself, Morrison, Naranjo, Schultz and City Manager Ben Martinez. She said they agreed that Naranjo had to focus her comments on representing the city and not “acting as your own platform and your own defense.”

And while Molina said she thought Naranjo did that, others apparently did not. “I think along the way that turned out to mean different things to different people,” she said. 

At the final meeting in May Naranjo was told to either resign or face a vote by the council to remove her, which eventually did just that. 

Without commenting directly on the letters Molina said they were part of a larger effort by the agency. “The port used all their bureaucracy to get the city to get rid of the commissioner,” she said. “That’s my feeling.”

Whatever the purposes of the letters were, Loy said they could be interpreted as an effort to muzzle Naranjo. 

“I certainly can’t speak to intent because I can’t read minds,” he said, “but it certainly could have that effect. It does appear to be an attempt to let the city know that it could face legal exposure for statements that the commissioner makes.”

Naranjo said that the letters were clearly intended to silence her so she could not speak out at council meetings — and take advantage of the legislative privilege — and should be concerning to the public.

“When you have your elected, appointed official being told that you are prohibited from using your voice, and if you try to use your voice we will go after you — it should really be a big concern to all of us,” she said. 

Councilmembers have not yet appointed someone to fill the remainder of Naranjo’s term, leaving National City’s lone port board seat vacant.