SAN DIEGO — A day after San Diego Port Commissioners censured one of its own, Port staff released its investigation into Commissioner Sandy Naranjo by outlining its claims that Naranjo retaliated against staff and the port's lead counsel after they raised concerns that Naranjo was involved in a pay-to-play scheme involving the port's massive Bayfront Project.
And while the allegations against Naranjo were unfounded, the 23-page investigation report says Naranjo refused to cooperate with investigators who were looking into a potential conflict of interest between Naranjo's consulting firm and local unions.
The investigation into Naranjo found that not only did she refuse to cooperate, but the National City Councilmember also launched her own personal attack on port attorney Thomas Russell, accusing the former Los Angeles Port Attorney of pushing through a contract with a former Los Angeles Port Commissioner.
In addition, the Port's investigation alleges that Naranjo blatantly violated the state's open meeting laws while lobbing baseless accusations against Russell and some Port Commissioners and staff of racism and discrimination.
For those reasons, on October 10 the six remaining port commissioners publicly reprimanded Naranjo and removed her from her post as Vice Chair.
“The Board of Port Commissioners of the Port of San Diego, by a unanimous vote, has approved a resolution of censure that serves as a formal admonishment of Commissioner Sandy Naranjo’s conduct.," reads a statement from Sonia Carvalho, an outside attorney representing the Port in the matter.
"This resolution addresses, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties along with violations of State law. The published staff report contains a summary of findings that are based on an exhaustive, attorney-client confidential personnel investigation conducted by an independent attorney outside of the County of San Diego...The Board’s action is intended to uphold the integrity and public trust of the Port, protect its employees, preserve the integrity of Port contracts and commitments, protect against interference with the agency simultaneously the ability to conduct the public’s business, and limit legal liability created by Commissioner Naranjo’s actions.”
Meanwhile, Naranjo says it is the port that is retaliating against her for raising the alleged conflicts of interest concerns involving the port's lead attorney, Tom Russell.
In documents obtained by CBS 8, Naranjo points the finger back at the port, accusing leadership of targeting her after raising concerns about mistreatment of staff, conflicts of interest, and other issues.
Included in the exhibit, is Naranjo's timeline of events, which claims that in November 2022 she learned of the potential conflict of interest between attorney Russell, who was formerly head counsel for the Los Angeles Port and a former commissioner there.
Naranjo says that in December 2022, during Russell's job evaluation, she asked Russell about a port contract that Russell helped facilitate. It was then, according to Naranjo's timeline when the rift between her, executive leadership at the port and some port commissioners began.
According to the documents, Naranjo says Port Chair Rafael Castellanos started going to Naranjo's fellow councilmembers in National City to try and remove her from the port commission.
Wrote Naranjo, "Councilmember Yamane notified me that now Chair Rafael Castellanos spoke to Brad Raulston, the former City Manager of National City, about me. During their conversation, Chairman Castellanos stated that I would never be chair and should be immediately removed from my position...Council member Yamane refused and chose to personally speak with Chairman Castellanos. In their conversation, Chairman Castellanos asserted that I am a 'terrible Port Commissioner' and accused me of causing the City of National City to lose $2.5 million. These claims regarding my performance and alleged financial losses are false, defamatory, and raise false questions about my competence as a commissioner. They appear corruptly intentioned to protect misconduct and defeat transparency."
But that wasn't all, says Naranjo.
The attempt at removal was, according to Naranjo, followed by decisions to "interfere with" Naranjo's emails without her permission. Naranjo was then removed from port-sponsored tours, told she needed a "public makeover" and was frequently referred to by Commissioner Castellanos and others as "troublesome."
The port's investigation, says Naranjo, intensified after she raised concerns that port leadership was trying to silence staff who found more than $63 million was spent without any explanation.
On July 5, 2023, Naranjo said that a "port Staffer shares with me how he is concerned for the Port of San Diego because Executive Leadership has made statements to staff on removing controls and oversight of millions of dollars from port commissioners. Specifically [he] shares with me that the Equipment Outlay and Other Capital Projects went from $4.5 million to $68 million and leadership is hushing staff to not let commissioners know about details of the monies. [He] told me that port staff are afraid to speak out about unethical behavior because retaliation is real—of course I know this is true and am being made an example to the rest of the port. In addition to his concerns, [he] has informed me that has already disclosed all information regarding unethical behavior and misconduct to the Port of San Diego."
In a statement, Chair Rafael Castellanos told CBS 8, "No one disputes that Commissioner Naranjo is a vigorous advocate for her community. What’s at issue here is her conduct toward the Port’s Ethics Officer – who was just doing his job. Her subsequent behavior toward the Ethics Officer was clearly retaliation. Unfortunately, Commissioner Naranjo would rather change the subject than take responsibility for her egregious retaliation against the Ethics Officer. Let’s look at the facts. The Board voted unanimously to censure her – a serious consequence for her retaliatory behavior toward the Port’s Ethics Officer as determined by an independent investigation. The claims she makes in this report against the employee, myself, and others are just another example of her personal attacks against those who she perceives are raising concerns about her conduct.”