3 2
8 2
PUBLIC HEARING
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: April 1, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Outside Special Legal Counsel - Larson LLP
Department: Council Office
Subject: Censure of Councilmember Treasure Ortiz by City Council Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council decide whether to adopt a Resolution of Censure.
City Manager's Comments
N/A
Executive Summary
Resolution of Censure for the City Council’s consideration at this Council meeting of April 1, 2026.
Background
At the City Council meeting on March 18, 2026, the City Council by a unanimous vote directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Censure for the City Council’s consideration at this Council meeting of April 1, 2026.
Discussion
A censure is generally understood to be “an official reprimand or condemnation; an authoritative expression of disapproval or blame." (Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014).) The City Council has authority to censure an individual Councilmember. (Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332, 347-348.) A censure is generally adopted by resolution and represents the opinion of a city council or other public body, but does not levy a fine, suspension, or other penalty. While there is no statute directly addressing censure, many local legislative bodies have adopted resolutions condemning inappropriate behavior and violations of policies and laws. A censure is one way of distancing the public agency from bad behaviors that interfere with the agency’s ability to conduct the public’s business.
3 2
8 2
While censure does not remove an elected official from office, it may serve an important purpose by stating to the public that certain behavior is unacceptable to the other council members. It is a form of self-policing for elected officials.
The following process is the recommended process:
A censure discussion should be placed on the agenda for a City Council meeting. This was done on March 18, 2026, authorizing that this censure hearing be conducted on April 1, 2026.
The affected member should receive individualized notice. This was done on March 24, 2026.
The censure should be scheduled for deliberation in open session, and not in closed session. (61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 10 (1978).) This report is to facilitate an open session discussion and was properly noticed under the Brown Act. Councilmember Ortiz will be afforded an opportunity to be heard. However, formal rules of evidence do not apply, including the right to cross examination. (Binkley v. City of Long Beach (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1795, 1809.) Like resolutions generally, the censure resolution must be adopted by a majority vote of the City Council.
Following tort claims filed by Councilmember Ortiz, the City engaged outside Special Counsel to represent the City, Larson LLP and the City requested Larson LLP’s assistance with this censure process.
Based upon the following findings demonstrated in this written staff report as well as the verbal testimony provided during this hearing, the City Council finds it necessary to demonstrate to the public that improper behavior and misconduct by any Councilmember will be addressed in an open and transparent manner in order to preserve public trust in the community and investment in the City.
The impetus for the Resolution to censure Councilmember Ortiz includes, but is not limited to:
Councilmember Ortiz abrogated her duty of care as an elected official by levying serious allegations against a City employee that, upon prudent inquiry, would have readily been discredited. Such conduct critically undermines the confidence of the City's staff, and the public, in the City’s leadership, and has the potential to compromise the operational integrity of the San Bernardino Police Department and the City generally. Her conduct violates Section
2.58.050(B) of the City of San Bernardino Municipal Code. In her capacity as a candidate for office, Councilmember Ortiz acted with an absence of transparency by failing to disclose two previous arrests involving her 3 2
8 2
physical assault of private individuals. After assuming elected office and to-date, she has not corrected the record.
Acted in furtherance of her own self-interests by filing a false tort claim and later filing a lawsuit against the City in violation of her fiduciary duty of loyalty as a Councilmember to the City.
Failed to fully investigate her accusations against a City employee, which would have revealed them to be false or unfounded, in violation of her duty of care as a Councilmember.
Councilmember Ortiz violated conflict of interest laws and misused public resources by using City property, her office at City Hall, to host meetings to discuss with a news reporter her personal claims for $2,000,000 against the City.
Councilmember Ortiz has created due process violations of the employment rights of City employees.
Councilmember Ortiz has participated in a pattern of retaliatory actions against City appointees and employees. Such retaliation not only violates employment law but also leads to decreased productivity and morale and potential attrition, which, in turn, affects the City’s public safety and operational capabilities. Councilmember Ortiz has engaged in slanderous commentary targeting City employees. This action exposes the City to potential liability and further tarnishes its public image, thereby impairing the City’s credibility with external stakeholders.
Councilmember Ortiz has disseminated illegally recorded confidential communications with City officials and is using those recordings to advance her person and political interests, has made repeated false and defamatory claims about other City officials and the City itself, and has used her official title and City insignias to advance and amplify those false claims. Councilmember Ortiz, while a political candidate, has falsely represented herself as a San Bernardino Police Department employee when she contacted the California Department of Justice to obtain information about a California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (“CLETS”) inquiry.
In addition to admonishing Councilmember Ortiz for her inappropriate behavior, the Resolution also proposes to:
Remove Councilmember Ortiz from any appointed City offices, committee positions and assignments;
Make Councilmember Ortiz ineligible for the same committee positions for a 3 2
8 2
period of ___ years;
Remove Councilmember Ortiz’s privilege of using a dedicated office in City Hall for a period of years; and
Ask Councilmember Ortiz to resign immediately from her elected office 2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
N/A
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to the city at this time.
Conclusion
It is recommended that the City Council decide whether to adopt a Resolution of Censure.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2026-035 Censure of Council Member Treasure Ortiz Attachment 2 – Notice of Censure
Ward:
7