The City Council voted 6-1 Tuesday to establish the Office of Inspector General, adopting a framework that allows the office to retain outside legal counsel independent of the City Attorney when investigating potential conflicts of interest.
Ward 1 Councilmember Philip Falcone cast the lone dissenting vote. Falcone co-authored the ballot argument against Measure L, which 65% of voters approved in November 2024 to create the independent oversight position.
Falcone did not explain his vote during Tuesday's meeting. In the November 2024 ballot argument against Measure L, Falcone and co-signers argued the position would create "expensive, untested, and unnecessary" bureaucracy, warning that Riverside would be the only California city with a council-manager government to employ an Inspector General.
The vote came after the council delayed approval in October over concerns about language governing when and how the Inspector General could retain outside legal counsel—a key concern about protecting the office's independence from council influence.
"I am very confident we have fulfilled that duty to make sure that this is an independent office and free to do what it needs to do," said Councilmember Steven Robillard, who chaired the subcommittee developing the framework.
Under the framework, the Inspector General can request outside legal counsel up to $25,000 with City Attorney approval. Higher amounts require City Council approval, which "cannot be withheld unless the proposed budget is excessive." If three or more councilmembers are under investigation, preventing a quorum, the City Manager can approve higher expenditures.
The new office will replace the existing Internal Audit Division within the City Manager's Office, transferring three full-time positions.
Beyond traditional auditing responsibilities, the Inspector General's duties include managing ethics complaints and conducting operational efficiency reviews across city departments.
"It's really up to the inspector general, whoever he or she is, once we hire them, that if they need a budget request, if they need more staff, if they have these issues, that's for them to determine," Robillard said.
Councilmember Sean Mill proposed dissolving the city's Board of Ethics once the Inspector General begins operations, saying the two bodies would duplicate work.
"Once the Office of Inspector General is in place, I think it's time to start looking at the dissolution of the ethics Board," Mill said.
Mill's suggestion came hours after the council's Governmental Processes Committee advanced ethics reforms prompted by cannabis businesses' withdrawn complaints against four councilmembers.
Mill, who opposed the October delay in establishing the Inspector General position, criticized the council's tendency to postpone decisions. "We constantly want to sacrifice the good for the perfect," Mill said. "We've talked the Inspector General to death, and it's time to move forward."
Voters approved the Inspector General position through Measure L in November 2024 with 65% support. A three-member subcommittee chaired by Robillard began implementation work in July 2025 and presented its framework in Augustbefore the council delayed approval in October over concerns about the outside counsel language.
Recruitment for the Inspector General position can now begin, though neither staff nor council provided a timeline for filling the position Tuesday.
