South Gate council declines to ratify Robert Montalvo appointment after public testimony and council objections

The South Gate City Council on Sept. 9 rejected the ratification of Council member Maria del Pilar Avalos’s appointment of Robert (R.J.) Montalvo to the Parks and Recreation Commission after extensive public comment and debate among council members.

Residents and community leaders delivered extended testimony opposing the appointment, accusing Montalvo of repeated public harassment of volunteers and council members, spreading misinformation and creating hostility toward partner organizations that run youth programs. Multiple speakers — including Myra Castaneda, Liz Ruiz (Ruiz on Kauffman), Candace Solace and others — said they had been targeted by Montalvo online or in person and urged the council to reject the nomination. The city clerk’s office also compiled three emailed public comments opposing the appointment.

Council discussion turned on two strands: whether a council member’s individual appointment authority should be upheld and whether the nominee’s prior conduct made him unsuitable to advise staff and shape volunteer‑run programs. Council member Avalos defended the appointment as an exercise of her council discretion and stressed second‑chance principles; other council members said the volume and nature of complaints and documented social‑media posts made the nominee an unsuitable choice.

Mayor Maria Davila moved to oppose ratification of the appointment; that motion was seconded and carried by roll call. The recorded roll call showed Council member Avalos voting to approve her nominee, Council member Hurtado voting to oppose, Vice Mayor Baron and Mayor Davila voting to oppose, and Council member Rios recorded as abstaining. The motion to oppose ratification therefore passed and the appointment was not ratified.

Council members and several speakers urged civility in public discourse and cautioned against using commission posts for political retaliation; others urged adherence to municipal appointment procedures if a council member’s choice were to be removed in the future. The council did not create any new policy change at the meeting; members asked staff to ensure commission roles and conflict‑of‑interest or recusal rules are clear to appointees.