San Bernardino City Council Censures Treasure Ortiz After Explosive Hearing Over Recordings and CLETS Claims

San Bernardino city leaders on April 1 unanimously voted to censure Councilwoman Treasure Ortiz after a bitter and emotionally charged hearing over her claims that police improperly accessed her criminal history and the city’s assertion that she secretly recorded confidential conversations and used them to support false allegations.

The roughly three-hour hearing drew about 40 public comments, with speakers nearly split between those backing Ortiz and those defending Police Chief Darren Goodman. The audience included residents, on- and off-duty officers, and visiting law enforcement officials (including County Sheriff Shannon Dicus and Colton PD Chief Anthony Vega), underscoring how deeply the dispute has divided City Hall and the broader community.

It appeared that both parties invited their friends and supporters to speak on their behalf.

The censure stems from Ortiz’s $2 million claim against the city, in which she alleges the San Bernardino Police Department illegally accessed her criminal history through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, or CLETS, during her 2019/2020 campaign. At the same time, the city has pursued misdemeanor charges against Ortiz for allegedly recording conversations without consent involving Goodman and San Bernardino Police Officers Association President Jose Loera.

During the meeting, Stephen Larson, the city’s outside legal counsel with Larson LLP, argued that the matter before the council was not about “political disagreement” or protected speech, but about unlawful recordings and the continued use of those recordings to support claims that multiple investigations had rejected.

According to Larson’s presentation, reviews by the Police Department, outside legal counsel, a retained investigator and the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office all found Ortiz’s allegations of an improper CLETS inquiry to be unsupported. Larson said the evidence showed only one CLETS inquiry, in March 2020, and that it was lawful and connected to a reported threat involving former Mayor John Valdivia.

Larson also alleged that Ortiz secretly recorded Loera on Aug. 15, 2024, and Goodman on Aug. 29, 2024, without their consent, in violation of California’s two-party consent law. He said those recordings were later used publicly to damage reputations and reinforce a narrative that investigators determined was false.

Larson further pointed to two past arrests that became central to the dispute. According to his presentation, Ortiz was arrested in Big Bear on June 22, 2006, transported to a police station and cited on suspicion of domestic battery under Penal Code 243(e)(1). He also said Ortiz was arrested in Los Angeles on March 7, 2015, after a dispute over seating at the Pantages Theatre and cited on suspicion of battery under Penal Code 243(a).

Larson said Ortiz later made repeated public statements denying she had ever been arrested and falsely suggested the records tied to those cases were fabricated or unavailable. He argued that the pattern undermined her credibility and exposed the city to legal and financial risk.

Ortiz forcefully rejected the city’s case at the meeting, describing the process as unfair, retaliatory and one-sided. She told the council that no attorney hired by the city had interviewed her, spoken with her witnesses or reviewed the evidence she says supports her claims.

“This isn’t happening to you. This is happening to me,” Ortiz said. “That’s the problem with a one-sided investigation and a one-sided narrative. And so we must go to court.”

Ortiz maintained that she believed she had been illegally run through CLETS and said she was given documents, emails, text messages and witness accounts that led her to file her claim.

“I’m here because I was illegally run. I was told I was illegally run. I was given documentation and sat with witnesses,” Ortiz said. “I’m not going anywhere. I’m not resigning.”

She also pushed back on how her past was raised during the controversy, arguing that one moment in a person’s life should not define them and urging victims of domestic violence to seek help.

Supporters of Ortiz echoed her argument that the process lacked fairness and due process. Resident Victor Suarez warned that the hearing risked sending a message that residents who challenge those in power could face retaliation. Former Councilwoman Kimberly Calvin, who said she attended a breakfast meeting involving Ortiz and Loera, also questioned the city’s version of events and argued that council members were not being given the full picture.

Supporters of the censure, however, said the city had an obligation to stand behind Goodman and reject what they described as unfounded attacks on law enforcement. SBPD Sgt. Nick Oldendorf praised Goodman’s leadership and urged council members to “decide based on facts and put the safety of this community first.”

Former City Attorney James Penman also defended the chief and rejected accusations that he used improperly obtained police information during his campaign against Ortiz. Penman said the arrest information he referenced was public and not provided by any officer.

Former Mayor John Valdivia likewise supported the censure and said Ortiz had threatened him and his family, which he said prompted the original police inquiry.

At times, the hearing turned chaotic. Calvin escorted herself out (as she was on the verge of being escorted out) after interrupting Valdivia’s public comment from the audience…shouting “sexual assaulter,” and several residents pressed Mayor Helen Tran to publicly state her position during the debate, including Valdivia. 

By the end of the night, the council had formally censured Ortiz, but the broader conflict remained unresolved, with Ortiz standing by her claims and city officials insisting that multiple investigations had already disproved them.