Attachment to Executive Summary (Pages from Report--Authorized for Release)

FACTUAL ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Item #1- Identification of suitable candidates for presentation to the City Council.

As reiterated throughout this report, [agency] were contracted by the San Bernardino City Council in
March/April 2023 to facilitate the City Manager recruitment process. Witness B, assigned as
[position] for the City Manager position, conducted individual meetings with all councilmembers,
excluding Kim Calvin, to gather their specific criteria and preferences for the next City Manager.

May, June, and July were dedicated to

sorting through applications and
reaching out to diverse City Manager
contacts with the aim of attracting the most qualified candidates for the position.

After going through the initial pool of 67 candidates, [position] Witness B presented a list of the top
ten candidates to the City Council.

The highlighted candidates, selected after City Council screening, were invited to participate in the
initial Zoom interview. However, another representative withdrew from the process due to a family
emergency, leaving four candidates to undergo the interview process.

Name Sex/Ethnicity Position Google Searches for

Derogatory Information
Witness D [identifying [position] [agency] [identifying information].
information]
Another M/White Not Working Resigned [identifying
representative [position] information]after a conflict
w/councilmember
Witness A [identifying [position] [agency] Terminated[identifying
information] information]
Another F/Black Not Working Terminated[identifying
representative information]
Another F/Hispanic [postion] Nothing derogatory noted.
representative
Witness BB M/Hispanic Not Working City Mgr. when terminated
from Avondale, Arizona
Another M/Black Working as Resigned [identifying
representative Consultant information]
Another M/Black [position] [identifying information]No
representative derogatory info noted.
Another M/Asian [position] Nothing derogatory noted.
representative
Another M/Black Not Working Terminated[identifying
representative information]
Witness B’s selections for the top ten candidates appeared to be ethnically and racially balanced and
mirrored the community and City Council demographics. As comparison chart is listed below.

CONFIDENTIAL – Attorney/Client Privileged

Attorney Work Product

Race/Ethnicity US Census Data for San Bernardino Top Ten City

San Bernardino City Council Manager
Members Candidates
White 13.8% 13% 20%
Black 12.3% 38% 50%
Hispanic 67.5% 38% 20%
Asian 4.2% 13% 10%
American Indian 1.3% -- --
Pacific Islander .3% -- --

In addition to the goal of sourcing a diverse pool of applicants, Witness B explained that he
crafted his presentation of the top ten candidates based on a combination of their
credentials, alignment with the San Bernardino Council's preferences, and insights gained
from pre-interviews. This comprehensive approach aimed to present candidates who not
only met the necessary qualifications but also resonated with the specific expectations and
priorities outlined by the San Bernardino Council.

The list of candidates appeared to be fair and balanced.

Item #2- The evaluation of the interview process and the selection of finalists.

After the initial Zoom interviews, the city council employed a scoring matrix to evaluate
the candidates. This first round of ratings was conducted without prior knowledge among
council members about the scoring process, reducing the potential for manipulation.

Following the Zoom interviews, Witness A, Witness BB, and Witness D emerged as finalists.
However, some council members expressed concerns that Witness D seemed “coached”
before his second interview, as he addressed previously mentioned shortcomings which were
only discussed in a closed session meeting after the initial Zoom interview on August 8, 2023.

During the second round of matrix ratings, suspicions arose among council members that some
were using the scoring system to create a distinct separation between Witness D and Witness
A. Notably, council members who ranked Witness D as their top choice tended to rank Witness
A the lowest, while those favoring Witness A as their first choice often placed Witness D as
their second. This pattern led to a one-point difference between Witness A and Witness D in
the final scoring.
Item #3: The examination of the contract negotiation phase, including subsequent
information leaks. The significant discord within the Council became pronounced when
Witness D and Witness A were chosen as the final two candidates.
Despite Witness D being the 5-3 favorite in the vote, Councilmember Reynoso sensed sabotage
when a list of "demands" presented by Witness B, including a surprisingly high financial figure,
raised concerns even amongst his supporters.

[Position] Witness E rightly halted the discussion as it had not been agendized. It was then decided
to obtain the "demands" or "deal points" from Witness A so the Council could conduct a side-by-
side review of both candidate requests.

Three days later, the Council reconvened to compare both candidates' demands using a side-by-
side graph constructed by Witness E.

During this meeting, Council decided to extend offers to both candidates, with Witness A receiving
a lower salary offer.

Before the meeting concluded, Witness D withdrew, citing a leak of information regarding his
candidacy, though this couldn't be substantiated. This withdrawal upset Councilmembers Reynoso,
Calvin, and Alexander.

Councilmember Calvin conveyed to the group that she had spoken to Witness D and attributed his
withdrawal to a [position]-to-[position] contact, hinting at a possible leak. She, along with
Councilmember Alexander, advocated for an investigation, though this particular leak couldn't be
verified.

Following Witness D's withdrawal from consideration, the Council still extended a generous
contract offer to him, hoping to change his decision. However, Witness D, upon reviewing the
offer, reportedly became even more upset, expressing dissatisfaction that not all of his requests
were accommodated. He insisted that he would not accept a job in San Bernardino.

In contrast, Witness A viewed his offer as generous, leading the Council to vote 5-3 in favor of
proceeding with Witness A as their top alternative. The dissenting votes were cast by
Councilmembers Reynoso, Calvin, and Alexander.

Once Witness D was officially out of contention, and Witness A began moving forward in the
process, closed-session information began leaking. Councilmember Kim Calvin's proteges began
receiving and disseminating private information on social media platforms and news outlets.

Councilmember Reynoso began advocating for a new recruitment process, believing that Witness
B had undermined Witness D. He also believed the [agency] subverted Witness D's candidacy after
receiving information through Councilmember Sanchez or Figueroa.

At the conclusion of this investigation, the preponderance of the credible evidence indicates that
Councilmember Calvin seemingly funneled closed-session information to her close associates,
who initiated a social media campaign against Witness A.
Calvin's involvement in another investigation provided a motive for her to temporarily step back
from public scrutiny and use surrogates to conduct a smear campaign against Witness A and
eventually Witness BB.

Item #4: Investigation into the perceived organized effort to impede candidates during the open
session City Council meetings.

The first appearance of an organized effort to impede the selection of Witness A occurred shortly
after the [publication] published its unfavorable article on August 25, 2023.

On August 26th, a San Bernardino resident named Witness V (alias) sent a demeaning email to
the [agency] [position] and revealed Witness A as a candidate in San Bernardino.

On August 27th, the same mysterious resident named Witness V (alias) posted the following item
on the [social media page] Facebook Group which is moderated by three people associated with
Kim Calvin. Most notable being Witness Ortiz.

[removed to shield witness information]

The Facebook posting implored residents to show up at the August 28th closed session meeting to
demand action after the “most qualified candidate had been sabotaged.”
On August 28th, the closed session meeting took place. It was marked by the attendance of a
significant number of upset African-American residents expressing dissatisfaction with the
selection process.

During the meeting, Councilmember Calvin surprised colleagues by reading from a prepared
statement, visibly angry, and calling for an immediate halt to the recruitment process. However,
the Council voted 5-3 to proceed with Witness A.

September 6, 2023, Council Meeting:

Negative social media coverage persisted prior to the next City Council meeting on September 6,
2023, where another predominantly African American group of residents continued to voice
concerns about Witness A's potential hiring. Witness A faced disparagement without the
opportunity to defend his character, as no one else on the dais was allowed to speak on the topic.

[Identifying information], and very close personal friend of Kim Calvin, Witness Z, was notably
vocal during the meeting and made public comments about Witness A.

Unbeknownst to Witness Z, Councilmember Ibarra was closely observing him and watched him
submit a large stack of speaker cards. This prompted her to text a [position] and ask why he was
submitting all of the cards after the cutoff time. Each of the cards contained the names of people
wishing to speak about the city manager candidate.

During his interview, Witness Z became caught in a fabricated story about the speaker cards and
later claimed an African American activist group filled out cards for everyone in advance.
One of those speaker cards was in the name of Witness V (alias), who never appeared at the podium
to speak.

Aftermath:
Witness A withdrew from the process on September 28th, leading to Witness BB becoming the
leading candidate. Witness BB faced similar social media and press criticism, as well as verbal
attacks in council meetings from some individuals who had spoken against Witness A.

Witness BB was eventually hired and began his position on October 30th. There was no overlap
between [position] and Witness BB. Before departing, ______ sent a confidential email on October
28th to the City Council and [Witness F], calling for an investigation into Councilmember Damon
Alexander. This email was leaked within a couple of days and posted on the [social media page]
group.

Other Items Used for Information Purposes During this Investigation:

As part of this investigation, social media has continuously been monitored for information about
the City Manager process. Some of the following notes have been made from the listed broadcasts
or recent city council candidate forums.

Witness Ortiz “[publication]” podcast from August 27, 2023.

She makes the following statements:

“The number one candidate was sabotaged by a certain councilmember and the [agency].”

“I can confirm that Witness A is the candidate.”

“I can confirm there was a far better candidate that was pushed out. There was unethical
behavior against him, and he withdrew.”

“[Identifying information]” on January 29, 2024.

This was a radio program hosted by Robert Porter with guests Kim Calvin and Treasurer Ortiz.

Excerpts:
Councilmember Calvin talked about her close relationship with Witness Z and being able to call
him for guidance.
Calvin called the previous investigative report a witch hunt and said, “I’m not going to have
them attack me for asking questions.” “It’s not going to keep a good girl down.”

Calvin: “Things that go on behind the scenes are not positive. My colleagues just voted for this City
Manager with a reputation which you wouldn’t hire him for your business, and I wouldn’t hire him for
my business. Those are issues you might question. Nobody wants to hire him.”

Treasurer Ortiz: “The scariest question I ask myself is what would we do if we didn’t have Kim
Calvin? What would have been able to transpire and go on behind closed doors?” (The
insinuation is that Kim Calvin tells Treasurer Ortiz what is going on.)
 “[Identifying information]”
Moderated by Witness Z on Feb. 7. 2024
attended by: Kimberly Calvin, XXXXX and Treasurer Ortiz excerpts from the Forum included:
Calvin says that Witness BB has a “shady” background.

Treasurer Ortiz then talks at length about [position] being a “danger” to the community and we
need to get rid of him immediately.

While speaking about the City Manager’s process:

Calvin: it is difficult for her to collaborate with these people

(Council)

I’m going to be frank about this.

It is difficult for me to collaborate with people who see things

as black or white...as clear as clear can be...yet make a
decision that is not in the best interests of the City of San
Bernardino...and justify it...and justify it. I asked that we
step back and reevaluate at least four times, in closed session
and before the public...Because what we had was another
opportunity with [agency] to go back out. Our initial payment
allowed us two opportunities for a search... we also had another
opportunity...an opportunity to allow [position]to stay here
another three months at...while we did that...at 30 hours per
week. That was still a “no.” It is difficult for me to work
with people who intentionally do things...that I don’t think
they would do in their personal lives.

She then gives an analogy about hiring an electrician with poor reviews or someone who leads
their business into bankruptcy.

Calvin: They (the council) are making their wrong decisions for
their right reasons.

Would you hire someone for your finances if they went into
bankruptcy?

That is difficult for me. How would you expect me to

collaborate with people, who I believe, are making the wrong
decisions for their right reasons...and their right reasons,
I don’t know them to be exact, but typically, typically, if
you hire someone that had a bad reputation with handling
money, to handle some money, maybe there are some motives
there or something, Humm (then looks over at the two other
candidates).

Calvin is insinuating that Witness BB is a thief, or the councilmembers are being paid off.
 Treasurer Ortiz: Shady people meet shady people.

Calvin: (Points to Treasurer Ortiz) She said that.

Then both women start laughing.

Another representative then speaks about getting the best candidate for the job and Treasurer Ortiz
comments:

Treasurer Ortiz: Well, let’s not forget that there was a good
candidate. There was a good candidate. The was a number
one candidate was above and beyond everybody...

Witness Z: Preach!

Treasurer Ortiz: He was sabotaged. They went to his job and told him he was an
applicant...and through other channels and resources, he was
never even told that he was going to be a candidate. He had
a lot of connections down here. People were like, “hey yeah,
the City is moving forward with you.” He was never told that.
So, I think what we need to understand is that there was
someone pretty amazing, that was a caliber we have not seen
before, and they were not allowed to be brought here and
Witness BB’s resume was brought here by Witness C.
[identifying information] he got a job...

Witness Z: Huh!

Treasurer Ortiz: To quote the famous Witness Z, Danger, Danger, Will

Robinson.

Treasurer Ortiz then spends the next couple of minutes talking about _____ and saying that he met
with [position] and is under investigation by the Arizona Attorney General.

Treasurer Ortiz: We don’t know if he is even fully cognizant in his

job. (Possibly referring to medical or substance issues.)
This is the guy holding the keys to the City.

Kim Calvin then discusses that the councilmembers were not following the direction of the
community and were not listening to community members.

The next several minutes were spent bashing Witness BB and Mayor Tran. Kim Calvin said that

Tran is not a unifier and should be held accountable by the community.

She claimed that she has become the target and the “one they are willing to get rid of at any
expense.”
94
 CONFIDENTIAL – Attorney/Client Privileged
Attorney Work Product

“[Identifying information]”
Hosted by Witness Z on February 12, 2024, at 7PM- 1 hr. 3 min.

Present: Treasurer Ortiz, Another representative, Kimberly Calvin

[removed to shield witness information]

While on the topic of Downtown Redevelopment:

Calvin: I am drained from talking about this for the last three
years. I am very drained. It is very frustrating when you
continue to share, and speak out, on items you know are
not going the correct way. It is very difficult when you
speak out on items, even in closed session, and your
colleagues fail to listen to you...it became clear to me
that the plan I thought we voted on, was never going to
happen, because I am not part of the club.

She continued speaking about this topic for the next several minutes and said that City staff lied to
her and that a staff member was out in the community and telling “lies” about the Downtown
construction.

Calvin: ...So when you are lied to by staff...When you are lied to...Here
I am trusting the information that staff, and needing to trust
the information that is brought to me, and that does not happen,
what else am I to think and do and believe?

She continued by calling the project insanity and repeating claims that staff lied about the project
and that she was receiving emails from many other community members.

Calvin: Why are you lying to us? I’m not going to let the community
think I’m lying to them when I am not. So, I go seeking
the answers which is partially why you got that report
that was put out (visually using air quotes)
...Councilmember Calvin was circumventing the City
Manager. There was no circumventing, the City Manager was
right there when I asked those questions.

Calvin ended the discussion on the topic by accusing a Council colleague of telling her to “dance
around the topic” when she asked how they were going to tell the community about the downtown
plan falling apart. She said she was not going to skirt around the topic and was going to tell them
the truth.

During the Wrap Up, the three candidates gave closing statements and were prompted to discuss
their individual endorsements from the San Bernardino Sun Newspaper.

Treasurer Ortiz: ...When I [identifying

information], I was given the
nickname of [identifying information].” ...Being someone who
is continually out here looking out for the best interests

95
 CONFIDENTIAL – Attorney/Client Privileged
Attorney Work Product

of the community and that evolution, to now be known as

the truthteller, is, it’s a validation that I didn’t even
know I was looking for in a way...

Calvin: Hmm... (In the affirmative)

Treasurer Ortiz: ...There is some negative that comes in, from being
the truthteller, there is a very strong sense in this
community of shooting the messenger. Now as being known,
especially from the Sun, in our own conversations, and
being the source for the newspapers some of the times,
that pulls out the public records, and I think that the
community has responded really well to that knowing that
they have somebody they can trust...we are going to tell
it like it is, regardless if you like it or not...

When it was Calvin’s turn to provide a closing statement, she started off by stating that she
originally didn’t want to apply for the Sun’s endorsement because she was “p----d off” that the
“report we mentioned” had come out and she didn’t have an opportunity to respond to it before it
“went to press.”

Calvin: I did get a call about 30 minutes after they went to wire
but I did not appreciate that one bit.

She continued to say that they pursued her, and she reconsidered putting in for the endorsement.

As part of this investigation, a request for all City Council emails pertaining to the City Manager
recruitment between August and September 2023 were requested. The City provided:

Item Number of Emails

Emails Tagged as Attorney/Client Privileged 277
Emails which were non-responsive to 3,033
the request
Emails which were responsive to the request 15
TOTAL EMAILS reviewed by the City 3,325

This investigator reviewed all of the received emails, and none were found to contain information
which would assist in this investigation.

Findings
At the conclusion of this investigation, the preponderance of credible evidence strongly indicates
that Councilmember Kim Calvin actively participated in releasing closed-session information
related to the hiring processes of Witness D, Witness A, and Witness BB. Calvin directly shared
information with surrogates who subsequently initiated a campaign through both printed and social
media to undermine the candidacies of Witness A and later Witness BB. These same organizers
then mobilized a group of citizens during the Council Meeting's public comment period, making
derogatory remarks about the candidates, the process, and expressing a desire either to retain
[position] or initiate another search.

The expeditious and accurate dissemination of this information was traced back to City
Councilmember Kim Calvin through investigative interviews and her comments in public
forums afterwards.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICIES & CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE
The following San Bernardino Municipal Codes and California Government Code were reviewed
for investigative purposes before an
investigative conclusion was formulated:

SBMC 2.58.030: City Council Conduct2

As provided in Section 302 of the Charter, the City Council and Mayor are required to
implement a Code of Conduct to guide their interactions and create accountability. In accordance
with Section 302, the members of the City Council shall conform their conduct to the following
rules:

A. The role of the City Council is legislative in character, which includes the power to set
policy, approve contracts and agreements not within the authority of the City Manager or
his subordinates, and undertake other obligations consistent with the Charter and Code,
while deferring to the discretion of management and staff to choose the appropriate means
to achieve the Council's goals.

B. The City Council, as the elected body serving all of the residents of the City, shall perform
its duties and exercise its powers in a manner that serves the best interests of the entire City,
rather than any particular geographic area or special interest.

SBMC 2.58.050: Conduct at Meetings and Relating to City Business3

The residents and businesses of the City of San Bernardino are entitled to have fair, ethical and
accountable local government which has earned the public's full confidence for integrity. The
City will operate in an open, honest and transparent manner. To this end, the Mayor and City
Council of the City of San Bernardino will adhere to the following Code of Conduct to assure
public confidence in the integrity of local government, its effective operations, and fair treatment
of people.

A. The professional and personal conduct of the Mayor and City Council must be above
reproach and avoid the appearance of impropriety. The Mayor and members of the City
Council shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal or verbal attacks upon the
character or motives of each other, the staff or the public.

B. The Mayor and members of the City Council shall perform their duties in accordance with
the procedural rules for meetings, established by them, in governing the deliberation of
public policy issues, involvement of the public and the implementation of policy decisions
of the Mayor and City Council by City staff.

C. The Mayor and City Council shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously
and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand.
 They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not
germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct
of meetings.

D. The Mayor and City Council shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of
the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations.

E. The Mayor and City Council shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant
to the matter under their consideration, which they may have received from sources
outside of the public decision-making process.

F. In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, the
Mayor and City Council shall not use their official positions to influence government
decisions in which they have a material financial interest; or where they have an
organizational responsibility or personal relationship which may give the appearance of a
conflict of interest.

G. The Mayor and City Council shall not take any special advantage of services or
opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office that is not available to the
public in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future
benefits which might compromise their independence of judgment or action, or give the
appearance of being compromised.

H. The Mayor and City Council shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning
the property, personnel or affairs of the City. They shall neither disclose confidential
information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their
personal, financial or other private interest.

I. The Mayor and City Council shall not use public resources that are not available to the
public in general, such as City staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities for private
gain or personal purposes.

J. The Mayor and City Council shall refrain from using their position to unduly influence the
deliberations or outcomes of commission proceedings.

K. The Mayor and City Council will not divert management from the approved priorities with
issues of personal interest or requests for information that may require significant staff
resources without the active approval of the majority of the Mayor and City Council. The
Council will come to consensus regarding major issues that need further exploration and
analysis so as to judiciously give direction to the City Manager and his staff. This language
does not prohibit the Mayor, Council Members, City Attorney, or City Clerk, from bringing
information forward and discussing it with the City Manager and/or staff.

L. When the Mayor and City Council have not taken a position on an issue, neither the Mayor
nor any Council Member should speak on behalf of the Mayor and City Council. When
presenting their individual opinions and positions, Council Members should explicitly
 state that they do not represent their body, the City of San Bernardino, nor should they
encourage the inference that they do. After a decision is made, the Mayor serves as the
spokesperson for the City's view on policy matters; the City Council should speak with
"one voice."

M. The Mayor and City Council shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive
work place environment for City employees and for residents and businesses dealing with
the City. The Mayor and City Council shall recognize their special role in dealings with
City employees and in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

N. With respect to communications with the City Manager and staff:

1. Unless it is a simple inquiry, the Mayor or members of the City Council

will contact the City Manager before going to Department Heads.

2. When contacting Department Directors through e-mail, the Mayor and

Council Members will copy the City Manager as a courtesy.

3. The City Manager will ensure that the Mayor and City Council are
proactively informed on major policy issues or issues that may attract media
or public attention; likewise, the Mayor and City Council members will give
the City Manager notice if he or she learns of issues of concern.

4. The Mayor, City Council, City Manager and staff will not blindside each other
in public.

5. Council members are encouraged to submit questions on agenda items to the

City Manager as far in advance of the meeting as possible so that staff can
be prepared to respond at the meeting.

6. The Mayor and City Council will refer citizen complaints to staff and give them adequate
time to respond. Staff will report back to the Council through the City Manager on the
resolutions of these complaints.

7. The Mayor and Councilmembers will be provided with information from staff and other
members on an equal basis so that they are equally prepared to make good decisions.

California Government Code 54963: The Brown Act4

54963. (a)- A person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired
by being present in a closed session authorized by Section 54956.7, 54956.8,
54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.6, 54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not
entitled to receive it, unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that
confidential information.
(b) For purposes of this section, "confidential information" means a communication made in a closed session
that is specifically related to the basis for the legislative body of a local agency to meet lawfully in closed
session under this chapter.

(c) Violation of this section may be addressed by the use of such remedies as are currently available by
law, including, but not limited to:

(1) Injunctive relief to prevent the disclosure of confidential information prohibited by this section.

(2) Disciplinary action against an employee who has willfully disclosed confidential information in
violation of this section.

(3) Referral of a member of a legislative body who has willfully disclosed confidential information in
violation of this section to the grand jury.

(d) Disciplinary action pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) shall require that the employee in
question has either received training as to the requirements of this section or otherwise has been given
notice of the requirements of this section.
(e) A local agency may not take any action authorized by subdivision (c) against a person, nor shall it be
deemed a violation of this section, for doing any of the following:

(1) Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived
violation of law, including disclosing facts to a district attorney or grand jury that are necessary to
establish the illegality of an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency or the potential illegality
of an action that has been the subject of deliberation at a closed session if that action were to be taken
by a legislative body of a local agency.

(2) Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken by a legislative body of
a local agency in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal or
potentially illegal action. (3) Disclosing information acquired by being present in a closed session
under this chapter that is not confidential information. (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed
to prohibit disclosures under the whistleblower statutes contained in Section 1102.5 of the Labor
Code or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53296) of Chapter 2 of this code.