March 4, 2022
Mayor and City Council
The Raincross Group is strongly opposed to the City Charter Review Committee proposal for an elected Inspector General. In brief, the proposal is a civic and political train wreckl The Raincross Group understands the need to monitor city finances closely and would support a serious discussion of a city auditor, appointed by the City Council.
Here are ten reasons why the elected Inspector General proposal should NOT be approved to amend the City Charter. 1 ) The City of Riverside has a council-manager form of government. The concept of an elected Inspector General stands in stark conflict with the premises and procedures of a council-manager government. See the National Civic League's Model City Charter.
2) The council manager form of government is widely recognized by academics and practitioners for fostering efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity. We need to reinforce this rather than create a structure built on the idea of confrontation. 3) To our understanding, no other council manager city in the country has an elected Inspector General. This is not an approach that has been adopted and vetted.
4) The likely costs for this proposal are over a million dollars-they include the 2023 election, Inspector General, his/her staff, and office operations. This money is better spent elsewhere. 5) The Inspector General is given both an expansive role and extraordinary powers, including the power of subpoena. Here is what the City Charter Committee's calls out: "There shall be an Office of Inspector General which shall have the power and duty to provide a full-time investigation, audits, inspections, and operational performance evaluations in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards to provide increased accountability and oversight of entities of city government, special districts and joint powers authorities that the City is a member of and entities receiving funds through the City, to assist in improving agency operations and deterring and identifying fraud, waste, abuse, and illegal acts." 6) There is a high potential for sustained conflict and tension with the mayor, city council, and city manager, complicating the policy making process at City Hall.
7) The Inspector General becomes, defacto, a parallel mayor-same salary, same staff, elected city wide, sits on the dais, wide ranging agenda, et cetera.
8) There is also a high potential for conflict and tension with "special districts and joint powers authorities that the City is a member of and entities receiving funds through the City." The Inspector General's role goes far beyond City Hall. As written, the Inspector General appears to take on many of the responsibilities of the District Attorney or the County Civil Grand Jury. 9) The question of who would be elected Inspector General deserves attention. Who would run-there are no listed qualifications? What would be the platform-attacks, issues? Who would contribute to these campaigns? It is highly likely that a campaign would focus on a range of aggressive attacks on City Hall. 10) The Charter Committee proposal is a "radical" proposal. There should be some demonstration of support that an elected Inspector General is an effective/realistic proposal. We cannot identify any articles, books, or reports nor any academics, electeds, or professional administrators that favor an elected Inspector General.
Sincerely
Ronald o. Loveridge
RAINCROSS GROUP PRESIDENT
FORMER MAYOR, CITY OF RIVERSIDE
cc Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
ACMs
CRC Members