With the 2024 election concluded and three new members of the San Bernardino City Council scheduled to be seated next month, a move is on to elevate the county seat’s acting city manager, Rochelle Clayton, to full-fledged managerial status.
Leading the effort to lock Clayton into place for a likely duration of no less than three years and perhaps as many as five are Mayor Helen Tran and Sixth Ward Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin.
There is something of an imperative to move rapidly ahead with such a promotion – which has already been discussed in closed sessions of the council twice – prior to the departure of three of the current council members: Calvin, Fifth Ward Councilman Ben Reynoso and Seventh Ward Councilman Damon Alexander. This is because Tran and Calvin need to add three votes to their own to make the appointment and it is believed that the familiarity the existing members of the council have with Clayton based on her performance in the interim role she was appointed to in May boosts the prospect that the crucial three votes to permanentize her as the city’s top administrator can be harvested from the council as it is now composed.
If a vote on Clayton’s promotion is delayed or postponed until after Kim Knaus, Mario Flores and Treasure Ortiz, the three new council members who are to replace Reynoso, Calvin and Alexander, respectively, are sworn in, there is a chance, indeed a likelihood, that the vote on the appointment will be delayed further. At least two of those three council members-elect – Knaus and Flores – have little previous exposure and experience with Clayton, and would probably want and need several months of seeing her in action before being prepared to make a decision on whether the city should extend her a contract that would commit the city to keeping her for several years’ duration and require that she receive a substantial severance payout if the council were to terminate her prior to the contract’s expiration. Based upon statements she has made, Ortiz appears to be favorably disposed toward Clayton.
Ascertaining Clayton’s chances of coming away with the promotion is difficult, given the secrecy and confidentiality that attends governmental personnel decisions under California. The Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open public meeting law, was originally intended to keep the public abreast of the decision-making processes that take place on the boards of county and councils of municipal government in the state as well as on the governing boards of water, fire and school districts. Paradoxically, elements contained in the Brown Act and subsequent changes to how the government operates entitles public employees to an extraordinary degree of privacy when their performance in their public roles or their potential hiring or firing is being discussed by the boards or councils that head the entities for which they work.
The Brown Act prohibits a quorum of a governmental board or a city council from discussing any official action to be taken by the board or council of which they are members outside the forum of a public meeting. Accordingly, board members or council members often do not know how a majority of their colleagues stand with regard to the myriad issues they are to discuss and vote upon prior to the meetings where those discussion or votes are scheduled to take place.
The Brown Act and subsequent legislation and case which guarantees the “privacy” or “confidentiality” of the job performance evaluations and records of public employees and allows or even requires that when a board or council discusses a public employee’s performance that this take place in an “executive” or “closed” session of the board or council, one carried out behind closed doors and outside the scrutiny, sight or earshot of the public. Those participating in these closed sessions – board members or city/town council members or other governmental employees who are allowed into those restricted meetings – are prohibited from disclosing anything that was discussed. The only information that can be legally disclosed during an executive or closed session is a vote to take specific action. If no such action is voted upon, the closed session proceedings are deemed secret.
At this point, public knowledge of where the mayor and the seven-member council stand with regard to Clayton’s advancement is limited. It is clear Tran and Calvin are pushing for promoting her and that First Ward Councilman Ted Sanchez is opposed to it. A degree of mystery attends where Second Ward Councilwoman Sandra Ibarra, Third Ward Councilman Juan Figueroa, Fourth Ward Councilman Fred Shorett and councilmen Reynoso and Alexander come down on the issue.
Some information can be pieced together from what exists on the public record and various statements that have been made.
At its October 2 meeting, the city council adjourned into a closed session at which it discussed promoting Clayton to the city manager’s post, based upon a yet-to-be ratified employment agreement called for conferring upon her an annual base salary of $325,000, subject to an annual cost of living increase tied to the consumer price index and capped at 5 percent, another $11,619.95 in perks and pay add-ons and $115,693.41 in benefits, for an initial total annual compensation of $452,313.36. In addition, the contract called for providing her with a one-time relocation benefit of $10,000, if she were to move to a residence within the boundaries of the City of San Bernardino within two years.
The contract further specified that if her employment as city manager were to be terminated without cause, she would be entitled to a severance payout of six months of her base salary, initially $162,500. The employment agreement set no specific term for the contract, instead stating that the [a]greement will continue indefinitely until terminated. In practical terms, that meant that upon Clayton’s leaving or retirement, she would receive a $162,500 bonus.
After the city council reconvened in public following its extended executive session on October 2, Deputy City Attorney Jason Baltimore said Mayor Tran and the entire council “discussed and agreed to extend an offer to Rochelle Clayton as permanent city manager pursuant to a contract that will come back at the next open session.”
That action included directing the city attorney to draft a finalized employment contract with the specified salary of $325,000, to be approved at the next scheduled meeting of the mayor and city council.
The October 16 meeting, however, was canceled because Tran and several of the council members were attending the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo in Long Beach that day. The council did hold a specially-scheduled meeting on October 24, but the agenda for that conclave specified only closed-door discussions with real estate property negotiators on two properties in the city and a public discussion with regard to the city’s plan in conjunction with North Hills-based Hope the Mission to construct a 224-bed so-called navigation center for the homeless, which is to involve converting the former School of Hope building at 796 6th Street and the surrounding property into a facility intended to provide interim housing and supportive services to homeless men and women.
The city council was thus purposed to discuss Clayton’s promotion at its November 6 meeting, both in closed and as an item on the public portion of the agenda. The public item relating to Clayton included a staff recommendation that “the mayor and city council… approve and authorize the mayor to execute an employment agreement for the position of city manager with Rochelle Clayton, with an effective date of October 2, 2024, as decided by the city council and reported in public on the same date.”
In the five weeks that intervened between October 2 and November 6, Councilman Sanchez intensified his scrutiny with regard to the joint City of San Bernardino/Hope the Mission plan to develop the navigation center for the homeless, making inquiries of Clayton. At the October 24 meeting, Clayton revealed, somewhat to the chagrin of some of the members of the council that Phase two was not officially approved the noncongregate housing model for the shelter had been altered to congregate housing. Councilman Shorett at one point asked Clayton about the available funding for the project.
“What is the bottom line of dollars we have?” Shorett asked.
Clayton, while referencing some federal American Rescue Act Plan money, made no reference to any grants from the State of California.
Councilman Sanchez, in particular, came away from the October 24 meeting unconvinced that city staff, in particular Clayton, was pursuing the navigation center project with either the intensity the council wanted nor along the lines it had earlier specified. Dissatisfied with some of the answers Clayton had provided him and inconsistencies he detected, he filed, under the California Public Records Act, a request with the city clerk for any information or documents relating to the navigation center project or communications about it that had passed between the city and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Sanchez knew that the city had filed an application with the California Department of Housing and Community Development for funding to assist with the project in 2023, but knew little more than that. Just two days before the November 6 meeting, Sanchez received a response to his California Public Records Act request. He was amazed to learn that in July of this year, in response to the City of San Bernardino’s application for a $26 million grant to cover the cost of constructing the comprehensive and full-service homeless shelter on the former School of Hope campus on Sixth Street, the State of California, through the Department of Housing and Community Development, came across with $17 million in the form of a Homekey Program grant. The sole requirement placed on the city’s reception of the grant was that the money be used to redress the city’s homelessness crisis by creating housing in which those without a place to live could be housed. Contained within the packet of documents Sanchez received was an even more stunning missive, one that had been authored by Clayton and sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Homekey Program manager, Connor Leahy, dated August 23. In that letter, Clayton wrote, “The City of San Bernardino and HOPE Mission would like to formally withdraw its request for Homekey Funds for the SB HOPE Campus project. The city has identified a path forward that would provide cost savings and the highest and best utilization of the site to maximize interim housing and services for the target population. The city is fortunate to have the necessary funding sources in place to complete the campus such as ARPA [American Rescue Plan Act], HOME ARPA [Home Investment American Rescue Plan Act] PLHA [Permanent Local Housing Act], county donations, private donations and CDBG [Community Development Block Grants].”

The incredulous Sanchez located within the sheaf of documents yet another communique, one which expressed his own sense of befuddlement. It was an email from Hope the Mission founder and CEO Ken Craft dated August 27, 2024.

Craft wrote, “As your partner and co-applicant in the Homekey 3.0 submission, it would have been nice for you to have notified us before sending the email to HCD [the California Department of Housing and Community Development]. Our team spent countless hours preparing the application, initial site plans and fostering our relationship with HCD to be in a position to be awarded the grant. I am sure you thought through your decision but, in light of the current court case against the City of San Bernardino, I cannot understand why you would walk away from $17 million. That is now $17 million you will not have to fight homelessness in the city. That $17 million could have been used to house and care for a lot of people in need. Most cities are fighting to obtain funding and you just said no to $17 million and you have a homeless crisis in your city.”
The lawsuit Craft reference was one lodged by the American Civil Liberties Union in U.S. District Court in 2023 on behalf of several homeless individuals who had been living in San Bernardino’s Meadowbrook Park and Perris Hill Park and were forcibly removed by the city. The suit alleged the city violated the constitutional rights of the homeless plaintiffs when it and its employees destroyed or jettisoned their personal property, including medicine, vital documents medical equipment and tents in closing down the parks and forcing them to leave. In January of this year, Federal Judge Terry Hatter Jr. issued a preliminary injunction preventing the City of San Bernardino from removing unsheltered people living in its parks and on the city’s sidewalks and public areas.
Craft’s letter continued, “I intentionally did not send this email to anyone but you and [San Bernardino Housing and Homeless Services Director] Cassandra [Searcy], as I think it could be PR [public relations] nightmare if the courts and community understand what you just walked away from. As your partner and co-applicant of these awarded funds, now rejected, funds, a courtesy explanation would really be appreciated.”
Neither Sanchez nor Ibarra, Figueroa, Shorett, Reynoso, Calvin nor Alexander knew that the state had awarded San Bernardino the grant and they were equally unaware that Clayton had, on behalf of the city, turned it down. Mayor Tran, who had sojourned to Sacramento in September, heard during an exchange with a state official that the city had received the grant but had chosen to reject. While she was initially as taken aback to learn about what Clayton had done as was Sanchez when learned about, she had conferred with Clayton and accepted from the acting city manager her rationale for having the city decline the grant. Tran did not inform the city council of what she had learned.
Sanchez prepared seven folders containing the documents and information he had received in response to his California Public Records Act request and presented them to the mayor and his six council colleagues when the adjourned into closed session on November 6. As it turned out, Reynoso was absent from the meeting.
The revelation that the city had been selected to receive the grant, that Clayton had withheld from the council any mention of the grant and that she had unilaterally, without consulting the mayor and council, forwent the grant award gave the council, collectively if not in each individual case, sufficient pause that they held off on voting in the closed session to reconfirm offering Clayton the contract. Later that evening, during the public session when the item relating to voting on approving the contract with Clayton, Mayor Tran, putting the best face on the situation that she could, said, “This item we are going to pull, as we do need a little more time to negotiate.” The mayor left the impression that the city is yet on track to hire Clayton as its top administrator on a lasting basis. “It will come back in the future,” Tran said of the consideration on whether to promote Clayton.
The mayor and Calvin, as well as Clayton and her support network, have not given up on the effort to install Clayton as city manager for the next several years. They are also hopeful that it can be done in short order, that is, before the next city council – which will retain four of the current council members, lose three of its current members and add three more – is in place.
Quietly, Clayton and her supporters are propounding a defense of her decisions with regard to the navigation center.
With regard to the switch she made from the noncongregate housing model the council had previously envisaged and approved, she has made the point that she was not with the city when that action was take and that phase two of the project, which entailed the noncongregate units, was never officially approved by the council.
As to her decision to unilaterally rejected the $27 million Homekey Grant, Clayton’s surrogates have asserted that her position as acting city manager provided her with the discretion to act in the city’s best interest as she saw it. In this light, they say, Clayton had exercised reasonable judgment in rescinding the Homekey grant application on three grounds. One of those was that San Bernardino was going to need something on the order of $23 million to complete the homeless facility and the grant fell $7 million short of that.
In this way, San Bernardino would need to apply for other funding, in particular money from the federal government. This presented an intractable problem, it was explained to the Sentinel, because the federal government requires that cities undertake an open bid process on the contractor that is to do the construction work on the project for which the federal money is to be applied and Hope the Mission is a sole-source vendor.
Additionally, it was pointed out, the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s requirement for the co-applicants who are seeking a Homekey grant jointly with a municipality is that they have five years’ experience in carrying out homeless assistance program. The applicant in this case, Hope the Mission, has only two years’ such experience.
The Sentinel’s efforts since last week to engage with Clayton directly on the issue of her decision to withdraw the city’s application for the Homekey Grant have not yielded a response from her.
Sanchez, based in large measure on the way Clayton is managing the navigation center project, most particularly her surrendering of the $17 million that was available to the city to defray a major portion its costs, is now highly skeptical about whether Clayton is the right person to guide San Bernardino. Thus, at least three of the remaining five members of the council who are not solidly in Clayton’s camp – Ibarra, Figueroa, Shorett, Reynoso or Alexander – must vote to entrust Clayton with the administrative oversight of San Bernardino County’s largest city if she is to obtain the promotion the city council on October 2 was ready to offer her.
One factor in Clayton’s favor is that Scott Beard, a real estate mogul and developer who has proven to be the most prolific donor to the political war chests of San Bernardino’s elected officials over the past quarter of a century, wants her in place as city manager. He has provided substantial monetary backing to four of the current council members and he has not been coy about telling the others that if they cross him and fail to support elevating Clayton to the city manager post, he will commit tens of thousands of dollars to prevent them from succeeding the next time they stand for reelection or run for election again, either to the city council or another office.
At the same time, there are factors militating against Clayton. San Bernardino has not fared particularly well with city managers of late. Over the last decade, it has seen city managers the city council once enthusiastically embraced and rushed to hire leave, in many cases rather rapidly and usually on poor terms that cost the city money. Alan Parker, who was hired by the city in 2013, left in 2015, with the city conferring upon him what was then a year’s salary, $221,976, to go without acrimony. Andrea Travis-Miller, who was hired as city manager in 2017, was terminated by the city council in 2019, while she yet had 18 months to go on her three year contract, for which she was due $439,145.45. Because Travis-Miller contested the legitimacy of her firing, the city settled the matter for $750,000, which was $310,854.55 more than she was due under contract. In December 2022, just a month after Tran was elected, then City manager Bob Field resigned. It is not clear how much Field’s early departure, prior to the elapsing of his employment contract cost the city. Fields departure, however complicated matters for San Bernardino in terms of its managerial picture. With its former city manager, Charles McNeeley acting as an interim city manager beginning in January 2023 while the city was looking for Field’s replacement, the city settled upon Steven Carrigan, the city manager of Salinas. After offering Carrigan the position, the city delayed in putting him into the position, during which time Carrigan reneged on his offer to go to work for San Bernardino, opting to stay in Salinas. By that point, however, the city council in Salinas had learned that Carrigan had planned to leave that city in the lurch, and he was terminated. Carrigan then sued San Bernardino, blaming the city council’s delay and hesitancy in hiring him for his loss of the Salinas managerial post. To settle the suit, San Bernardino paid Carrigan $800,000. Barely two weeks after Carrigan in late 2023 spurned San Bernardino’s offer of a job, San Bernardino hired Charles Montoya to serve as city manager, bestowing upon him a $325,000 salary and roughly another $127,000 in perks and benefits, for a total annual compensation of $452,000. Montoya lasted from the end of October 2023 until May of 2024, during which time the city paid him right around $254,250 in salary, perquisites and benefits. Upon firing him without cause in May, the city provided him with a severance payment equal to his annual salary, $325,000.
An illustration of the hazard the current city council – with three lame ducks among it – faces in making a managerial appointment that will saddle the soon incoming city council with top administrator whom they will not have an opportunity to approve is what occurred following the 2018 municipal election in Upland. In that case, two council members – Gino Filippi and Carol Timm – had been voted out of office in that year’s November 6 election and another Sid Robinson, who had been appointed in 2016 to fill a two-year term vacancy on the council, was due to leave office in Decmeber 2018 as well. On November 26, 2018, at the city council’s last meeting before its first meeting in December when the ceremonial exit of the three departing members and the swearing-in of the new members was to take place, the council considered elevating Jeannette Vagnozzi, the deputy city manager who had been serving in the capacity of acting city manager for three months, to the official position of city manager. After the public weighed in with arguments for and against promoting Vagnozzi and after a letter from the outgoing Councilwoman Timm, who was vacationing with her parents in North Carolina over the Thanksgiving holiday, endorsing Vagnozzi was read into the record, the council voted 3-to-1 to make her the city manager.
Six months later, in May 2019, the newly composed city council voted unanimously to let Vagnozzi go as city manager, conferring upon her the $155,000 severance guaranteed in her contract.