Inspector General Approval Delayed Nearly Year After Voter Mandate, Council Cites Independence Language

The City Council postponed approving the Inspector General position Tuesday in a 4-3 vote, nearly a year after voters overwhelmingly supported creating the independent watchdog, with officials citing the need to clarify language protecting the office's independence from council influence.

The vote pushes the decision to November 18. Councilmember Steven Robillard, who chairs the subcommittee developing the framework, said the continuance addresses "minor in nature, but important in intent" concerns about when the Inspector General can and when they can't retain outside legal counsel independent of the City Attorney's office.

The delay drew criticism from council members who argued the item should move forward immediately.

Councilmember Philip Falcone called the continuance "very disingenuous," adding, "If there's any issue with the language we need to have the discussion here today. It's time to move forward and stop kicking the can down the road."

"The voters of the city voted for this to move forward," Councilmember Sean Mill said. "We have a history of the voters voting on things, and then the council kicking the can down the road before implementing it. I hear from a lot of people that want us to move forward with this."

The dispute centers on which entity controls the selection and contracting of outside legal counsel for the Inspector General. The proposed ordinance, drafted by the City Attorney's Office, gives that office authority to contract with outside counsel on the Inspector General's behalf while stating that such use "shall be at the discretion of the City Council" if the Inspector General determines the City Attorney's office cannot adequately serve the office's needs. Critics worry this structure undermines the watchdog's independence.

Resident and attorney Malissa McKeith has repeatedly urged the council to ensure the Inspector General has independent legal resources, warning in August that the office must be "shielded from conflicts of interest" to be effective. McKeith stressed that how the council structures the office will determine whether it delivers genuine independent oversight.

Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes, who supported the continuance, said the delay would allow staff to refine language ensuring the office functions as voters intended.

"The intent of this office is to be independent, for folks to be able to have that confidence in this position," Cervantes said. "I want to make sure we get it right and that we honor the will of what the voters did."

Pete Benavidez, who served on the Charter Review Committee that initially proposed the Inspector General concept, called the Inspector General creation "a historic event" and supported taking additional time to ensure the office is properly structured.

However, resident Keith Nelson, former chair of the city's ethics board, warned the current structure gives too much control to the council that will be subject to oversight. "You better go back to the drawing board and make this independent, because as it sits now, it's just a puppet show."

When the item returns November 18, the council will consider creating the Inspector General classification with an annual salary range of $161,000 to $217,000, adopting an ordinance establishing the office as an administrative department, and transferring the entire Internal Audit Division budget along with three full-time positions.

The proposed office would replace the existing Internal Audit Division within the City Manager's Office, expanding the mandate beyond traditional auditing to include ethics complaint management and operational efficiency reviews.

Voting to continue the item were Councilmembers Clarissa Cervantes, Steven Robillard, Jim Perry, and Steve Hemenway. Voting against the delay were Councilmembers Philip Falcone, Chuck Conder, and Sean Mill.