Riverside city manager’s wife files claim alleging retaliation

Susan Freeman, wife of Riverside City Manager Mike Futrell, filed a legal claim against the city, saying she was investigated without due process after she criticized city officials. The dispute unfolds alongside public scrutiny of how Riverside handled intern

When Susan Freeman says her name started getting treated like a problem for Riverside City Hall, she points to a shift that came with a letter and an investigation—one she now says was carried out without due process and in retaliation for criticism.

Freeman. the wife of Riverside’s top municipal executive. City Manager Mike Futrell. filed a legal claim against the city on Wednesday. The claim is a precursor to a lawsuit. Freeman alleges Riverside violated her rights by investigating her without due process. and that the action was retaliation tied to her criticism of public officials.

The situation traces back to a letter sent to Freeman by the Riverside City Council alleging she harassed municipal employees. Freeman denies the allegation.

In a videotaped statement she posted on YouTube, Freeman said her claim raises “serious questions” about whether she became the victim of retaliatory conduct, and whether official power was allegedly used to distract from or avoid accountability for “serious issues inside City Hall.”

City officials confirmed they received the claim and said it will be handled through the city’s normal review process. Mayor pro tem Steven Robillard said the city takes its obligation to protect constitutional rights seriously. while also saying claims against the city should be evaluated based on facts and the law through the established process.

The dispute lands as Riverside faces sustained public criticism about its handling of internal investigations tied to code enforcement. Members of several social justice organizations spoke at a City Council meeting this week. demanding a moratorium on code enforcement operations and restitution for vendors whose property was seized. Their message was that enforcement actions and internal handling have consequences for people who live and work in the city.

Daniela Ramos, an organizer with the Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Collective, told the council that organizers are “taking notes on what the city does,” and that they will not stand behind a city that does not value “the hardworking people that live here.”

At that same meeting, Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson urged city management to hire an independent consultant to review the Community and Economic Development Department, which includes code enforcement. Lock Dawson said two directors in that department have been terminated over the span of five years.

Lock Dawson said, “Two terminated within five years, multiple other terminations, recurring anonymous complaints and letters, employees out on stress leave, long-running conflict, documented malfeasance that’s resulted in dismissals: These all point to a very dysfunctional department.”

Freeman’s legal fight intersects with that broader turmoil through another figure in the city’s internal orbit: Jennifer Lilley. a former director of the Community and Economic Development Department. Freeman describes Lilley as a friend. An anonymous email sent to the City Council in 2024 complained that Lilley and Freeman’s socializing “could be perceived as exerting undue influence or favoritism.” Both women have denied that allegation.

Freeman declined to discuss the claim beyond her videotaped statement.

The City Council letter that set off Freeman’s latest dispute became public in April. after Freeman got into a Facebook dispute with local resident and frequent City Council commenter Jason Hunter over a proposed sales tax increase. Someone then tipped Hunter off to a public records request Freeman had filed with the city. In that request. Freeman sought evidence backing up allegations in the letter to her. as well as anonymous correspondence mentioning both Freeman and Lilley.

Hunter filed his own public records request to obtain the letter and posted it on a popular community Facebook group.

The letter from the City Council demanded Freeman “cease all harassing telephone calls. emails. text messages. social media posts. or any other form of harassing communication to any City employee that lacks a legitimate purpose.” It also said that while Freeman’s right to express political opinions is protected speech. speech that harasses city employees and disrupts their ability to perform their duties is not protected.

In addition, the letter said Freeman has the right to promote business endeavors, but that “your relationship with the City Manager creates a feeling of pressure for City staff when you solicit City employees to participate in services they have to pay for or ask City staff for donations.”

Freeman, in previous comments, said she contacted city employees to invite them to events, provide them with advice, and in one case solicit donations for a tool lending library. She denied that her communications were unwanted or harassing.

In her statement. Freeman said she arrived in Riverside as an accomplished professional. but has since been reduced to one role: “the city manager’s wife.” She called that framing “misogynistic. ” and said. “That framing was not by accident. It was used to diminish me. silence me. isolate me and cast me and my independent thoughts. words and deeds as suspicious.”.

She said her “protected speech, civic engagement, public records activity and advocacy” was recast as misconduct.

Freeman described her claim as a question of whether government can use official authority to stigmatize a private citizen “without facts, without process, without fairness, accountability, investigation or even an interview — not even a phone call.”

Her profile has also brought public attention beyond this dispute. Freeman is described as a longtime communications specialist and a prolific Facebook poster who often criticizes President Trump. In earlier interviews. she said she learned late last year that a city official gave a presentation to council members depicting her online activity as problematic. Freeman said she then sent the City Council and Lock Dawson a five-page PDF defending her social media use.

Freeman is seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged violations of her constitutional rights, damage to her reputation, and pain and suffering, according to her claim.

The Freeman case is not happening in isolation. It is one of several active legal matters involving Riverside employees or their relatives. The city is continuing to defend itself from a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed last year by Phaedra Norton. the former city attorney. Norton alleges she was terminated after she reported that a City Council member leaked confidential information to a friend who was suing the city over a lease dispute.

In another part of that legal fight, the city also has sued City Councilmember Chuck Conder and former Councilmember Steven Adams, alleging they leaked the information.

The Freeman dispute also includes a separate thread involving leadership and public scrutiny. Both Freeman and Futrell. her husband. suggested that the publication of the City Council letter cost Futrell the chance to lead another city. Futrell recently announced he was leaving to become city manager of Pasadena, but soon walked back the statement. Both have suggested that the letter’s publication was tied to his job outcome.

For now, Riverside will begin reviewing Freeman’s claim through its normal process, as the city and Freeman continue to clash over what happened, what was justified, and what due process should have looked like.

Riverside Susan Freeman Mike Futrell City Council legal claim retaliation due process code enforcement whistleblower