After conducting interview sessions last week, the City Council is currently deliberating between two candidates for the new inspector general—a position intended to hold the city government accountable.
The City Council met in two special closed sessions last week on Monday and Tuesday morning to interview the candidates.
"At this point, the Council is deliberating and considering the candidates," Councilmember Steven Robillard told the Gazette in an email Friday.
Robillard said the council has not yet made a final decision, but will share additional information when the process is complete.
The council is set to discuss the matter again in closed session during its Tuesday, July 28 meeting, according to the council agenda.
The role was created 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.
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 role is being selected by the mayor and city council, and will 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 Councilmember Steven Robillard—who led the council subcommittee overseeing its development—argue that the position will strengthen accountability and improve public trust in city government.
However, some have questioned whether an inspector general appointed by elected officials can remain fully independent from the officials it may be asked to investigate.
"Riverside does not need another employee who answers to the very people that they're supposed to oversee," said resident Keith Nelson during last Monday's meeting. "That is not independent oversight. It's simply another layer of bureaucracy dressed up to look like accountability."
Councilmember Philip 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."
