A torn Riverside City Council delayed a vote this week that would have formally established the office of inspector general, a government watchdog role approved nearly a year ago by two-thirds of the city’s voters.
With a 4-3 vote Tuesday, Oct. 21, the council postponed approval of the inspector general’s office to its Nov. 18 meeting.
“The one’s that look the worst in this situation right now,” Councilmember Philip Falcone said, “is the City Council not moving on this item.”
He was joined by Councilmembers Chuck Conder and Sean Mill in opposing the delay backed by Councilmembers Clarissa Cervantes, Steven Robillard, Jim Perry and Steve Hemenway.
Voters approved Measure L, which amended the city’s charter to include an appointed inspector general, in the November 2024 election. According to Falcone, with little movement on the matter since last fall, it’s now time to “move forward.”
A majority of the council, however, agreed with Robillard to delay the vote.
Robillard, chair of the ad hoc committee charged with developing the framework for the inspector general’s office, suggested continuing the matter to a later time in order to correct “a couple of the details in the language regarding outside legal counsel.”
According to Robillard, there are lingering questions about “retaining the independence of the office” of the inspector general and when it could use outside counsel. The questions are “minor in nature but important in intent,” he said.
“I think if we’re trying to capture the spirit of what was passed” by voters, Hemenway said of his decision to support the delay. “It’s not captured in the language now.”
Under Measure L, the city charter was amended to put the the inspector general in charge of investigating, auditing, inspecting and providing operational performance evaluations for city offices, special districts and joint powers authorities.
Former Charter Review Committee Chairperson Pete Benavidez, who helped develop and refine the proposal put before voters last year, supported postponing the vote to create the inspector general’s office.
“This is a historic event,” he said at the meeting. “Never had an inspector general in this town … in reading some of the staff report, there were some questions that I had that were not truly consistent with the Charter Review Committee.”
Jason Hunter, who has previously raised many concerns about city spending practices and has called for an elected inspector general, called into the meeting to say he didn’t think delaying the vote a couple of weeks would matter.
“I think it is important that we get the position done,” Hunter said. “It’s been, as many people have pointed out, it’s been a long time.”
A former chairperson of the city’s Board of Ethics, Keith Nelson, called in to urge the council to give the position more autonomy.
“Anything that is appointed or overseen by the City Council is a scam,” Nelson said. “You better go back to the drawing board and make this independent, because as it sits now — it’s just a puppet show.”
The City Council is expected to appoint the inspector general after it finalizes the framework for the office.
According to a report prepared by city staff ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, Robillard’s committee has suggested the city eliminate the internal audit division in the city manager’s office and replace it with the inspector general’s office. Doing so would mean a 20% net increase in operational costs, according to the city.
Under the proposal shared Tuesday, the maximum starting salary for the inspector general would be set at $217,213 a year. The total budget for the office would be set at about $785,000.
Source link
