The Board of Ethics is considering a series of changes that could reshape how the city investigates ethics complaints against elected officials. The proposals include making the board a permanent part of the city charter, giving the future inspector general a greater role in investigations and appointments, and shielding preliminary complaint reviews from public view.
The proposals, discussed during the board's July 2 meeting, are intended to strengthen the board's independence while improving public confidence in the city's ethics process. Board members stressed that the ideas remain in the discussion stage and no formal action was taken.
The concepts were developed by an ad hoc committee after members reviewed ethics systems in other cities and reflected on Riverside's own complaint process. According to the committee's report, the proposals focus on strengthening the city's ethics framework while preserving fairness and due process rather than changing how complaints, hearings or appeals are handled.
Among the proposals is placing the Board of Ethics in the City Charter rather than leaving it established through the municipal code. Supporters said doing so would make the board more independent because it could only be eliminated by voters instead of by the City Council.
"Having the Board of Ethics on the city charter would basically cement the Board of Ethics as part of the city of Riverside," Vice Chair Luis Hernandez said.
Hernandez said the change would reassure residents that the board can independently review complaints involving elected officials.
"For the City Council to appoint members and then for them to vote on what the penalties should be based on the violation of the prohibited conduct just doesn't really inspire confidence in the residents that we truly are a body that holds the City Council accountable for their actions," he said.
The ad hoc committee also proposed allowing the future inspector general to appoint Board of Ethics members instead of the City Council. Supporters argued the change could reduce perceptions of political influence, lessen the need for recusals and create a more standardized appointment process.
City Clerk Donesia Gause said the board's workload has largely involved complaints against elected officials.
"I can say that the majority of the claims filed since 2021 have been directed toward the City Council," Gause said. "I believe one or two were directed at board members or commissioners."
Board members questioned whether shifting appointment authority to the inspector general would simply replace one potential conflict with another.
"Why wouldn't we be beholden?" board member Kathleen Fanning asked during the discussion. "Right now one of the concerns is that we are potentially beholden to whomever appointed us."
Hernandez acknowledged the concern but said he believes relying on a single independent inspector general presents fewer potential conflicts than the current system, under which ethics complaints frequently involve council members who appoint the board.
Several of the proposed reforms would expand the inspector general's role once the office is filled.
Under the concepts presented, the inspector general could investigate evidence and use subpoena authority with approval from a majority of the Board of Ethics. Members said those changes could help the board make more informed decisions before determining whether a complaint should proceed to a formal hearing.
Another proposal would allow preliminary pre-hearing proceedings to occur in private before a complaint advances to a public hearing.
Supporters argued the change could reduce reputational harm caused by complaints that ultimately lack merit and discourage the ethics process from being used for political purposes.
"It eliminates the possibilities of politicizing and weaponizing any information," board member Gil Vega said.
However, city staff cautioned that the proposal may conflict with California's Brown Act, which generally requires meetings of local legislative bodies to be held publicly.
The final proposal would allow the board to extend its pre-hearing timeline when additional investigation is needed, giving the inspector general time to gather evidence before members decide whether a formal hearing is warranted.
City staff explained that the proposals would face several layers of review before reaching voters. If ultimately endorsed by the Board of Ethics, they would first go to the Charter Review Committee, which is expected to be appointed next year.
The committee would determine whether to recommend the changes to the City Council, which would then decide whether to place any charter amendments on a future ballot.
The discussion also marked Hernandez's final meeting on the board after his election to represent Ward 6 on the City Council. Chair Newman has also resigned, leaving the board to elect new leadership at a future meeting.
Before discussing the proposed reforms, the board received a training presentation from the City Attorney's Office on Riverside's ethics code, including rules prohibiting elected officials and appointed commissioners from advocating on behalf of the private interests of third parties before their own governing bodies.
Staff also reviewed who may file ethics complaints and outlined exceptions that allow officials to advocate on broader public policy issues or perform routine constituent services without violating the city's ethics code.
