Public backs acting city manager as council debates whether closed-session item was properly agendized

Dozens of speakers at a special San Bernardino City Council meeting urged the council to make acting city manager Rochelle Clayton the permanent city manager and to avoid destabilizing the department.

The comment period, held before a contentious closed-session discussion about the item, included several residents who described Clayton’s responsiveness, local experience and role in allocating pandemic-era funds. “Rochelle Clayton is the only city manager who’s ever responded to emails,” said Treasure Ortiz, one of the public speakers. “Please…do not disrupt the management of the city of San Bernardino by doing anything other than supporting the person that you unanimously voted for, Rochelle Clayton.”

Why it matters: Councilmembers and the public debated whether the special meeting’s closed-session item — a public-employee appointment — had been properly agendized under the Ralph M. Brown Act. Council members asked whether the item had been placed by the mayor, the city manager, or by a majority of council members and whether the four-member request process had been properly followed. The city clerk and city attorney explained the municipality’s procedures for calling special meetings and said the Brown Act allows a special meeting when four council members independently contact the clerk to request it.

What happened: A councilmember moved to withdraw the item from closed session on procedural grounds. That motion was seconded but failed on a 4–2 vote after debate over whether the withdrawal motion itself was procedural and therefore legal to vote on. The council then went into closed session. After closed session the city attorney reported a unanimous, reportable action by the council present (with Councilmember Figueroa absent): Clayton announced her interest in the permanent post and will continue to serve as acting city manager while a recruitment process is launched. The council said it will work with newly elected council members to begin recruitment and to discuss appointment of an interim or acting city manager while the search proceeds.

Key lines from the meeting: Residents who spoke during public comment said Clayton helped produce allocations of COVID-era funds, built county relationships and showed consistent responsiveness. “She has been able to build a strong connection with the county, and they are happy to work with her,” Ortiz said. Other residents — business owners and outreach workers — gave examples of Clayton taking meetings and acting on priorities in the city.

Council debate and legal context: Council members focused on process and the Brown Act’s requirements for special meeting requests. The city clerk summarized the procedural memo circulated to council members, saying one valid way to call a special meeting is for four separate council members to contact the clerk requesting the meeting. The city attorney cautioned that conversation about personnel appointments should be in closed session and reminded the body that certain actions affecting appointees may require a larger voting threshold. Council members raised concerns about outside discussions and whether the four-request mechanism had been used correctly; other council members said staff followed the clerk’s memo explaining special-meeting procedures.

What’s next: The council said it would begin a recruitment process and work with incoming council members. Public speakers earlier in the meeting said they want stability in city management and urged the council to keep Clayton in place; the council’s post-closed-session action keeps Clayton as acting city manager while the recruitment proceeds.

Ending note: The item remained a live issue after the meeting: council members directed staff on next steps and discussed bringing third-party legal advice where city attorneys have conflicts. The public record shows strong neighborhood support for retaining Clayton while the formal recruitment is launched.