We are living through an epidemic of disastrous leadership among the most powerful officeholders on the planet. From the White House to the Kremlin, the world is being buffeted by self-interested autocrats who disguise themselves as public servants. One of the most dangerous results of an unrelenting barrage of immoral decay in judgment and decision-making is a gradual erosion of trust in institutions. Voters suffering whiplash from constant stories about venality and dishonesty often wearily surrender to the lowering of standards by the people we elect or appoint to watch over our welfare.
Closer to home, residents of Roxbury, Dorchester, South End and the Fenway recently elected a new District 7 Boston City Councilor to represent their voice on the city’s legislative body. Miniard Culpepper, a well-respected housing lawyer and pastor, won the seat after a vigorously contested campaign to replace Tania Fernandes Anderson, who resigned after pleading guilty of federal corruption charges.
The end of Anderson’s drawn-out legal saga signaled the opportunity to turn the page and usher in new leadership not only for the district but also for the City Council as a whole. But high hopes for better-functioning legislative leadership may be premature. The jockeying to choose a new Boston City Council president to replace the outgoing Ruthzee Louijeune, a competent at-large councilor who wielded the gavel for two years with dedication and dignity, has produced a self-proclaimed victor — Gabriela Coletta Zapata. The District 1 councilor, elected in a 2020 special election to represent East Boston, Charlestown and the North End, claims she has the seven votes needed to secure the presidency. Councilors Brian Worrell and Julia Mejia have both expressed interest in the post. Mejia has been outspoken about the back-room nature of lining up votes in advance rather than holding a more transparent debate over choosing the next council president.
When councilors gather in the new year for the first meeting of the 13-member body and choose their president, they should consider whether Coletta Zapata possesses the maturity needed to lead the sometimes-contentious council. In 2022, in the midst of her first campaign — a special election held in May — social media posts in which Coletta Zapata used racist language surfaced. Dating from her teenage years, the messages employed the n-word and produced a heartfelt apology from the candidate. “I am incredibly sorry for the ignorant and horrible things I said,” commented Coletta Zapata in a statement on Twitter. “There is no excuse. I am embarrassed and ashamed. I regret that I used such awful words and apologize for hurting anyone with those comments.”
Any electoral damage to her candidacy was undermined by the revelation that her opponent had also posted years-old racist messages. Racially insensitive attitudes coming from candidates seeking to represent East Boston, a neighborhood with one of the highest concentrations of people of color in the city, caused some consternation but were largely dismissed as the immature outbursts of young people not yet attuned to the impact of their language.
But Coletta Zapata was recently in the news once again for all the wrong reasons. During early voting prior to the September preliminary, she was caught on a police body-cam in an East Boston polling place interacting with a voter in what may have been a violation of election law. The police officer directed her to leave. The District 1 incumbent adopted a sharp tone with the cop, who was enforcing laws that prohibit electioneering and campaigning within 150 feet of a polling location.
“You’re the first time I’ve had a police officer come over to me,” said Coletta Zapata in the video. “I’m having a conversation with a constituent right now, and I’m not campaigning.”
“You cannot have it within the voting area,” the officer responded. Alright? I do have the paperwork and you can read it.”
The councilor, obviously annoyed, answers, “I’ve seen the paperwork, thank you. So, can I just finish my thought with him? We’re talking about policy. I’m not campaigning. I’m not asking for anybody’s vote here, so there’s a difference.”
The police officer’s concern was valid.
He saw an elected official whose name was on the ballot having a conversation with a voter in the heart of the voting location.
Coletta Zapata responded to his concern by asking how long he had been on the force. She left the location shortly after. The video surfaced in November, less than a week after she secured reelection and announced that she had the votes to win the council presidency. In a subsequent interview, she chalked up the exchange to a misunderstanding with the police officer and said discussing policy did not constitute campaigning.
Her statement ignored the point that discussing policy could in fact influence a citizen’s choice in the voting booth.
In the grand scheme of political and policy skullduggery, Coletta Zapata’s long-ago racist social media posts and her tense exchange with a Boston police officer do not represent an imminent threat to our social order. But they do raise questions about her judgment and maturity at a time when voters deserve more from their elected officials. We need adults in charge of the Boston City Council. We urge members of the body to throw open the process of choosing its next president to public debate and allow the citizens of Boston to observe democracy in action.
Ronald Mitchell
Editor and Publisher, Bay State Banner
