Council reports settlement in Williams case; public speakers press for transparency in Ortiz lawsuit

The City Attorney told the council there was one reportable closed‑session action: the city will settle Jeffrey Lamont Williams v. City of San Bernardino for $199,999. The motion to settle was made by Councilmember Sanchez, seconded by Councilmember Flores, and approved unanimously.

Earlier in the meeting a series of public commenters used the closed‑session public‑comment period to press the council about Treasurer Tresha Ortiz’s claim that her CLETS (law‑enforcement database) records were illegally accessed. Speakers including Timothy Prince (attorney), John Schallenberger and others cited text messages they said came from Chief Darren Goodman referencing the alleged CLETS entry and a detective assigned to an apparent criminal matter. Commenters asked why the city had publicly characterized Ortiz’s complaint as frivolous while, they said, apparent admissions were contained in officials’ communications.

Councilmember Ortiz recused herself from two closed‑session items that she said pertain to her lawsuit. The City Attorney, responding to public comment, said in his legal view council members who received union contributions do not have a conflict of interest under the Levine Act for closed‑session discussion of litigation because the Levine Act applies to contracts, permits or entitlements, and because the city is not adverse to the union; he also said levy rules for union contributions differ.

Multiple audience members asked the city to release the independent investigator’s findings (identified in public comment as Stephen Larsen’s report) and other internal reports. Staff said written comments and materials submitted by the public would be made available on the city website with the agenda packet.

The settlement and the calls for disclosure mark the latest developments in a contentious set of claims and cross‑claims that several speakers said warrant independent, transparent review.