Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino council unanimously authorizes code‑enforcement receivership litigation; names Talisha Lopez acting city clerk
Summary
At a March 19 meeting, the City Council, meeting in closed session, voted unanimously to initiate a code‑enforcement receivership action and appointed Talisha Lopez as acting city clerk effective April 5, 2025.
The San Bernardino City Council voted unanimously in closed session on March 19 to initiate litigation in the form of a code‑enforcement receivership action and to appoint Talisha Lopez as acting city clerk, the city attorney reported at the council's open session.
The city attorney said, “There was a motion by Councilman Charette, a second by Councilman Sanchez, and a unanimous vote to initiate litigation. It is a, code enforcement receivership action.” The attorney added that council also voted “to appoint as acting city clerk, Talisha Lopez, effective April 2025,” with Lopez set to begin on April 5, the day after the current city clerk’s last day on April 4.
Why it matters: initiating a receivership action in code enforcement is a formal legal step that can allow the city to seek court‑ordered intervention to remedy property or code violations. The new acting city clerk will assume administrative duties tied to elections, records and council processes during the interim period leading up to a permanent appointment.
Details and procedure: The city attorney’s statement named the motions and votes by mover and seconder. The motion to begin litigation was moved by Councilman Charette and seconded by Councilman Sanchez; the appointment of Lopez was moved by Councilman Charette and seconded by Councilwoman Knauss. Both motions were reported as passing unanimously by those present.
The actions were announced as part of the city attorney’s closed‑session report at the start of open session; no further public details about the subject of the receivership litigation were provided in open session.
Next steps: The city attorney indicated the council met in closed session on all listed items except two that will be taken up at a future meeting. Additional legal filings or public disclosures about the receivership will follow any required court filings or statutory notice obligations.
The report prompted no immediate public vote during the open session; the actions were reported out by the city attorney as the only reportable closed‑session actions.
