CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

PRIVILEGE WAIVED BY CITY COUNCIL

INVESTIGATION REPORT OF FINDINGS – CLOSED SESSION MEETING LEAKS (2023)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of San Bernardino (“City”) contracted with the JL Group, LLC to conduct an
administrative investigation as requested by the City Council following two separate instances of
confidential information leaks from closed session meetings, resulting in the candidates removing
their names from consideration for the City Manager position.

Candidate #1 withdrew his name from consideration, alleging that his candidacy had been
leaked to a subordinate within his current organization. It was alleged that Candidate #1 removed
his name from consideration because his name had been leaked. The investigator contacted
Candidate #1 who did not wish to cooperate and no other witnesses independently made the same
allegation. As a result, the matter was not further investigated.

Following the withdrawal of Candidate #1’s candidacy, the City Council majority voted to
move forward with Candidate #2 as their next choice for City Manager. Candidate #2 was
employed as the City Manager for another city at the time of his application.

The City moved forward with an employment offer to Candidate #2 on August 22, 2023,
which was promptly accepted. However, within three days of his acceptance, an unflattering article
surfaced in the San Bernardino Sentinel. This article provided a detailed accounting of the closed-
session discussions about Candidate #2 and divulged the identities of the councilmembers who
voted for, and against, his hiring.

Four days after the newspaper article, a City resident (using an alias) sent an email to
Candidate #2’s current City Council, disparaging him and revealing the details of his San
Bernardino application. The following day, the same City resident posted disparaging information
about Candidate #2 on a Facebook page.

On August 28, 2023, another closed-session City Council meeting was held to finalize the
employment contract terms for Candidate #2. During public comment, there appeared to be an
organized effort from a segment of community to derail the hiring process for Candidate #2.

When public comment concluded, Councilmember Kim Calvin (“CM Calvin”) surprised
her colleagues by taking the floor without recognition and immediately calling for a suspension in
the City Manager recruitment process. However, her motion failed with a 5-3 vote.

The City Council adjourned into closed session, and Candidate #2 emerged as the final
candidate with another 5-3 vote in favor of his employment (with Councilmembers Calvin,
Reynoso, and Alexander in dissent).

As the month of September unfolded, public outcry (particularly from associates of CM

Calvin) intensified against Candidate #2. The San Bernardino Sentinel published additional
articles, and negative comments proliferated social media.
 On September 28, 2023, Candidate #2 withdrew his candidacy citing concerns about a
visibly divided council and perceived racial tensions. Shortly thereafter, his employment with his
current City Council was terminated. Candidate #2 has subsequently retained legal representation
and filed a claim against the City seeking more than $2 million in damages.

The weight of credible evidence unveiled during the investigation leads to the conclusion
that CM Calvin intentionally divulged closed-session information to numerous individuals who
she is known to associate with in public and at her place of work. The individuals did not
participate in the closed session meetings and had no right to obtain or distribute the information.

CM Calvin's disclosure of information about Candidate #2 strategically mobilized members

of the community against his potential employment. This same strategy, involving the unauthorized
release of confidential candidate information, was employed when Candidate #3 emerged as the
third finalist for the position. Candidate #3 faced public vilification before his official hiring and
defended his professional reputation himself uncomfortably in an open City Council meeting.

In the aftermath of the controversies surrounding Candidates #2 and #3, CM Calvin

exhibited less discretion in her comments about the City Manager recruitment process. During her
primary re-election campaign, she participated in community candidate forums. In these forums,
CM Calvin was more candid, offering opinions about fellow council members and closed-session
decisions related to the City Manager's employment. She has discussed challenges in working with
the City Council majority, expressing frustration with their decisions on various topics (including
the hiring of the City Manager).

During this inquiry, CM Calvin emerged as the singular councilmember who refrained from
participating in an interview with this investigator and according to witnesses has never outright
denied releasing confidential information to members of the public.

The synthesis of this information, combined with credible evidence from various sources,
establishes that the preponderance of credible evidence overwhelmingly points to CM Calvin as
the originator of the closed-session leaks.

On March 20, 2024, the City Council was briefed on Candidate #2’s claim and the findings
of the investigative report. At that meeting CM Calvin asserted that the investigation was not
thorough and failed to identify others who she alleges leaked confidential information. She made
allegations that specific police department officials, a City Commissioner, members of the City
Attorney’s Office and other individuals had leaked confidential information. She named three
individuals who she claimed would affirm her allegations. Notwithstanding the fact that CM
Calvin declined to meet with the investigator and provide her evidence of who leaked confidential
information, the City Council asked that the investigator contact the three people that CM Calvin
had named. The investigator contacted all of them and prepared an addendum to his report with
supplemental findings stating that all three denied having received any closed session information
and concluding that there is no evidence to support the claims made by CM Calvin.