Riverside is moving into the next phase of its search for the city's first inspector general, with candidate interviews expected to take place in July as officials work to fill the watchdog position.
A city spokesperson said Monday that the city is working with its executive recruiter to finalize interview dates.
"Once the interview dates are final, these will occur in closed session and it will be agendized as per city's sunshine ordinance," the spokesperson told the Gazette.
The update marks the latest step in a process that began after 64 percent of Riverside voters approved Measure L in November 2024.
The measure amended the city charter to create an Office of the Inspector General – charged with investigating fraud, waste, abuse and inefficiency within city government.
The City Council formally established the office in November 2025 on a 6-1 vote after months of debate over how to structure the position and ensure its independence.
Under the city charter, the inspector general will have access to city records, authority to review public complaints and the ability to place matters on council agendas and make recommendations for council action.
Recruitment for the position opened March 3 and closed April 5. The city sought candidates with significant executive, investigative, legal and/or administrative experience. The position's annual salary ranges from about $161,000 to $217,000.
The candidate will be selected by the mayor and city council, and report directly to those offices, but maintain its own independent operation, according to the city charter.
Implementation of the office has drawn both support and criticism since voters approved the measure.
Supporters, including Council member Steven Robillard – who led the council subcommittee overseeing its development– argue that the position will strengthen accountability and improve public trust in city government.
Others, however, have questioned whether an inspector general appointed by elected officials can remain fully independent from the officials it may be asked to investigate.
"...The same political body that may one day be scrutinized by the Inspector General also controls the appointment structure and much of the office's functional reach," Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D., who served on the Board of Ethics for eight years, wrote in a March 6 post. "You do not create independent oversight by placing it inside the chain of political influence. You create managed oversight. And managed oversight is how institutions protect themselves while claiming reform."
Council member Phillip Falcone – who wrote the ballot argument against Measure L and cast the only dissenting vote against creating the role – has criticized the role, calling it "expensive, untested, and unnecessary."
The city has not released the number of applicants or identified finalists. Once interview dates are finalized, the meetings will be publicly noticed on city council agendas, though candidate interviews themselves are expected to occur in closed session.
