How should Riverside hold city leaders accountable — and how much independence should the people investigating them have?
For the second installment of its City Council election questionnaire series, the Gazette asked candidates in wards 2 and 4 how they would respond to misconduct by senior city staff, protect the inspector general's independence, strengthen ethics oversight and approach campaign donations.
The Gazette sent the questions to all four candidates on Oct. 7. Ward 2 candidate Aram Ayra and Ward 4 candidate Rich Vandenberg responded. Ward 2 candidate Gracie Torres and Ward 4 Councilmember Chuck Conder did not respond by press deadline.
The Gazette also asked Ayra two additional questions about allegations that he sought support from police and business groups despite earlier statements rejecting certain contributions and endorsements. Those questions and his responses follow the shared questionnaire.
The questions and candidates' full responses appear below. Answers are published verbatim, without edits to wording, spelling or capitalization.
1. Accountability for staff misconduct
When an investigation finds misconduct by senior city staff, what should the council do to ensure corrective action and keep residents informed?
Aram Ayra, Ward 2: If investigation finds misconduct or wrongdoing, the Council must ensure there are consequences, regardless of what someone's titles or connections are. That should include but not be limited to things like: appropriate disciplinary action, termination when warranted, and a corrective action plan with clear deadlines. Most importantly, Council needs to follow through to ensure changes happen and residents can actually point to what is being done differently.
The biggest complaint I hear from residents is that once an issue gets brought to light, there is usually very few updates on what is being done to fix something. I would push to release findings to the fullest extent legally permitted and provide clear public updates. Personnel privacy should not be used as a blanket excuse for secrecy and sweeping things under the rug.
Our City also needs stronger whistleblower protections so employees can report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation or losing their jobs. I am committed to ensuring the Inspector General has the full funding and staffing it needs to do its job. I would also fully support making the Inspector General an elected rather than appointed position, to secure its independence and oversight authority.
Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4: When an investigation confirms misconduct by senior city staff, the City Council must make sure appropriate action is taken, regardless of someone's position. Depending on the findings, that could mean disciplinary action, termination, or changes to city policies and procedures. I would expect clear deadlines for making those changes and follow-up reports to ensure they actually happen.
Residents deserve to know what went wrong, what is being done about it, and how the city plans to prevent it from happening again. There are legal limits to what can be shared about personnel matters, and those must be respected. But that shouldn't prevent the city from being as transparent as possible.
Accountability doesn't end when an investigation is completed. The Council has a responsibility to make sure the problems identified are actually fixed.
2. Independent oversight by the inspector general
What should the inspector general's top oversight priority be, and how would you ensure the office can investigate independently, given that the position is appointed by the council?
Aram Ayra, Ward 2: The Inspector General's top priority should be investigating misconduct and misuse of taxpayer dollars, especially when it involves senior City leadership or City contracts. The office should also be able to follow up and act on its findings, to ensure that problems are addressed and residents have the confidence that changes are being made.
For that oversight to work, the Inspector General must be able to investigate the same people responsible for appointing them. I would support clear authority to open investigations without Council approval, access necessary records, and release findings without political interference. The Inspector General's office also needs full funding and staffing, with protections against removal or budget cuts intended to slow or shut down an investigation.
I have stated in numerous public forums that I fully support making the Inspector General an elected position, accountable directly to residents and residents only. That change should include strong qualifications and local campaign finance safeguards to protect the office from the interests it may need to eventually investigate.
Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4: The inspector general's top priority should be making sure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and that allegations of misconduct or abuse of authority are properly investigated. I would focus on city spending, contracts, and ensuring city staff and leadership are following established policies.
For the office to be effective, the inspector general must have the independence to investigate anyone, including the people responsible for the appointment. I would support access to necessary records, protection from political interference, and public reporting of findings and recommendations, while respecting legal confidentiality requirements. I would also expect regular updates on whether recommended corrective actions have been completed.
The position only works if the inspector general has the authority and independence to do the job without fear of consequences.
3. Protecting the Board of Ethics
Would you support putting the Board of Ethics in the city charter so it could only be dissolved by voters? Would you also support transferring Board of Ethics appointments from the council to the inspector general? Explain your position on each.
Aram Ayra, Ward 2: Yes, I support enshrining the Board of Ethics in the City Charter so that only voters would have the power to dissolve it. I think most residents would say that they just want to feel confident that the Board cannot be eliminated by the same officials it is tasked with holding accountable.
I would also support transferring appointments to the Inspector General once that office is independently elected and has strong protections against political interference. I think moving appointment authority to an office that still depends on the Council for its leadership and funding would leave a lot of resident concerns unresolved.
If we are able to move it under the Inspector General's office, there should still be an open and well-marketed application process, clear qualifications, and opportunities for public input on appointments. Board members must also remain free to reach their own conclusions, even when disagreeing with the Inspector General.
An accessible complaint system, fair hearings, and clear public explanations of the board's decisions are all similarly important parts of that process. Any reforms we undertake should give residents the confidence that complaints will be taken seriously and addressed, regardless of who is involved.
Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4: I support making the Board of Ethics a permanent part of Riverside's City Charter. An independent ethics board should not be something a future City Council can eliminate simply because its decisions become uncomfortable.
I also support reviewing how board members are appointed. The process should be fair, transparent, and designed to limit political influence. Moving appointment authority away from the Council may help, but only if the replacement process provides greater independence rather than creating a different set of conflicts.
I would support clear qualifications for board members, a transparent selection process, and protections that allow the board to carry out its responsibilities without interference. The goal should be an ethics board that residents can trust to hold city leadership accountable.
4. Campaign contributions and endorsements
Would you support local limits on campaign contributions? What donations or endorsements would you refuse, and why?
Aram Ayra, Ward 2: Yes. I support local campaign contribution limits. Riverside is behind the rest of California on this issue. California Common Cause's 2024 review identified Riverside as one of just 14 cities statewide without contribution limits. Residents should not have to compete with unlimited political contributions to have their voices heard at City Hall.
I have personally refused contributions and support from corporate PACs, warehouse developers, and AI data center companies because I believe Riverside deserves better. Decisions about our neighborhoods, public resources, and economic future should be driven by residents' needs. I would also refuse any donation or endorsement that is conditioned on preferential treatment, special access, or a promise to vote a certain way.
Contribution limits should come with clear disclosure requirements and legitimate enforcement so residents can easily see who is funding local campaigns. My commitment is to keep residents in the driver's seat and ensure that earning their trust matters more than securing the biggest check.
Rich Vandenberg, Ward 4: I support establishing campaign contribution limits in Riverside. Large donations can come with expectations, whether those expectations are stated or not. When one candidate is willing to accept those contributions and another isn't, it creates a financial advantage that can make it tempting to compromise one's principles.
I believe reasonable limits would help level the playing field and encourage more residents to consider running for office, not just those with access to wealthy donors or special interests.
I don't expect everyone who supports my campaign to agree with me on every issue, and accepting a contribution doesn't mean I share all of a donor's views. But I would refuse any contribution offered with an expectation of special treatment, political favors, or influence over my decisions. No amount of money should change how I represent Riverside residents.
Additional questions for Ayra
Throughout this series, the Gazette will ask candidates additional questions about their individual records and statements. The following questions give Ayra an opportunity to address allegations about requests for campaign support.
Police association support
How do you respond to allegations that you sought an endorsement and campaign funding from the Riverside Police Officers Association this year, despite a 2021 pledge attributed to you rejecting contributions and endorsements from police or correctional officer unions or associations? Is this claim accurate – and if your position has changed, what changed and why?
Aram Ayra, Ward 2: Yes, I sat down and interviewed with the Riverside Police Officers Association this election cycle, as any serious candidate for City Council would. I went into that conversation with the knowledge that my public and well-documented positions would likely prevent any kind of endorsement or financial support. I have been outspoken about oversight and accountability, raised concerns about Flock cameras, and opposed the Measure Z tax increase and expansion on the June ballot.
If I had declined to meet with the police association, my critics would paint me as too radical or unwilling to work with law enforcement. When I met with them and stood by my positions, my critics questioned my principles. I believe residents expect their Councilmember to have these kinds of conversations without compromising their values or what they stand for.
I'm running a serious campaign for City Council and have made a point of meeting with any potential stakeholders I would work with while in office. Representing Riverside means serving everyone and keeping communication open, including with people who may disagree with me. Since 2021, I have had productive conversations with RPD and supported National Night Out events as President of the Riverside Neighborhood Partnership. I see opportunities to build on that work through priorities like restoring the University Neighborhood Engagement Team (UNET) program and strengthening truck traffic enforcement to keep our roads safe and reduce cut-through traffic in Ward 2.
My goal in participating in their process was to explain my positions and hear their concerns as public employees. I have not received any contributions, endorsement, or other forms of support from RPOA. I remain independent in my decisions and committed to listening to residents, protecting our taxpayer dollars, and doing what is best for the City. That is the standard I will bring to every relationship and every vote on the Council.
Business group support
How do you respond to allegations that you sought Inland Empire BizPAC's endorsement despite your earlier statements rejecting corporate PAC and special-interest donations? Is this claim accurate? If such is true, what support did you request, and would you have accepted its endorsement or funding?
Aram Ayra, Ward 2: Yes, I sat down with Inland Empire BizPAC, just as I met with the Riverside Chamber of Commerce and participated in its Ward 2 candidate forum. I support the development of our local economy and responsible growth. Meeting with business organizations is part of understanding their concerns and explaining my priorities as a potential Councilmember.
I went into that meeting with a public record of community organizing and advocacy that made clear where I stand and whose interests I have consistently fought for. Throughout my involvement in Ward 2 and Riverside, I have advocated for rent stabilization caps for mobile home tenants, opposed warehouse expansion and AI data centers, and prioritized growing our local small businesses over recruiting foreign companies. Those positions shaped our discussion and made clear where our priorities differed.
Since our priorities for the City were not in alignment, I received no endorsement or support from IE BizPAC. They have since contributed $7,500 to my opponent's campaign. They are entitled to back the candidate they believe will best represent their interests, and residents are entitled to ask what that investment means when mobile home protections, warehouse expansion, and energy projects come before the Council for a vote.
This questionnaire is part of the Raincross Gazette's ongoing series with City Council candidates in wards 2 and 4. Read the first installment on housing and homelessness. More questions and candidate responses on issues in Riverside will follow.
