Redlands’ former deputy police chief became California’s highest-paid city employee in 2025, but the headline figure hides a whistleblower settlement that followed months of paid leave and a forced retirement.
Quick Take
- The city approved a $871,956 settlement for Travis Martinez in closed session.
- State payroll records show Martinez received $1.2 million in total 2025 compensation.
- Martinez had been on paid administrative leave for about 18 months before retiring.
- The case sits inside a wider Redlands police scandal that has already cost the city millions.
How the Deal Was Approved
The Redlands City Council voted 3-2 in closed session on April 15, 2025, to settle Martinez’s whistleblower claim. The city attorney said the deal required Martinez to retire within 10 days, withdraw his government claim, and accept $871,956, plus accrued leave and other payouts. The agreement also gave him a retiree badge, the return of personal items from city phones, and a chance to review his personnel file.
Martinez, a 30-year department veteran, said in a redacted claim that he was pushed aside after he raised concerns about unethical conduct by top officials. The published report says he was passed over for promotion, stripped of duties, and publicly undermined after he spoke up. That is the core allegation behind the payout, even though the public record available here does not include the full complaint or the city’s internal files.
The Payroll Number That Drew Attention
Public payroll data from the State Controller’s Office made Martinez stand out. The records show $81,804 in regular pay, $890,467 in other pay, and $231,099 in lump-sum compensation, for about $1.2 million in total 2025 earnings. That is why some headlines called him California’s top city earner even though he did not work a full year. The larger number reflects payroll records, not the settlement alone.
That distinction matters. The settlement itself was about $871,956, while the larger total includes other compensation tied to retirement and leave. Online posts and headlines have blurred those figures, which creates confusion for readers trying to separate a legal settlement from total pay. On a story like this, the difference is not a minor detail. It changes what the public thinks the city actually paid for the claim versus earned benefits.
Why the Case Hit a Nerve
Martinez’s payout landed in a city that has already paid heavily over related police claims. One report says Redlands has spent $3.7 million on claims tied to former Deputy Chief Michael Reiss, including harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment allegations. Another later report put the total closer to $4.25 million after additional settlements. Whatever total is used, the pattern is the same: taxpayers keep covering the cost of a troubled department.
Redlands PD Deputy Chief Travis Martinez got put on 18 months *paid* leave after he supposedly raised concerns about cover-ups & sexual misconduct among his fellow cops. It looks like city leaders & cops are basically giving him a big payout in exchange for him shutting up. https://t.co/EBD4TaO2jH
— Ash J (@AshAgony) July 9, 2026
The closed-door vote also added to public distrust. Because the council approved the deal in closed session, voters did not get a public debate over the evidence or the city’s legal reasoning. That does not prove wrongdoing by itself. It does, however, leave a major gap between the city’s final action and the public’s ability to judge whether the settlement was fair, necessary, or simply the cheapest way to make the problem go away.
What the Record Does and Does Not Show
The available sources support two facts at once. First, Martinez received a large amount of public money in 2025 while on leave and then retiring. Second, the city resolved a whistleblower retaliation claim, which means the payout was tied to a legal dispute, not a random bonus. What is missing in the public material is the full set of sworn statements, internal reports, and detailed evidence behind Martinez’s allegations. Without that, the public only sees the bill, not the full record.
That missing record helps explain why this case has been framed in such different ways. Supporters of Martinez can point to a whistleblower settlement and a city pattern of costly police claims. Critics can point to the $1.2 million total and say a former official was paid handsomely while not working. Both points are rooted in the record available here, but only the first one explains why the city approved the settlement in the first place.
Sources:
zerohedge.com, communityforwardredlands.com
