Riverside Residents Must Speak Today: City Council Must Protect Employees, the Public Trust, and the City’s Best Interest
Riverside residents should call in today and speak during public comment regarding the City Manager’s closed-session performance evaluation.
This is not a normal personnel review. This is not a political disagreement. This is not about personalities.
This is a governance crisis.
Public records now show a troubling pattern involving the City Manager’s office, the City Manager’s spouse, City employees, workplace pressure, business-related communications, and the City’s own formal warning letter. The Council is now being asked to address this issue in closed session. Residents must make clear that the Council cannot delay, minimize, or hide behind contract excuses.
The Council must act today.
The City Manager should be relieved of duty and access immediately, and the Council should move toward termination for cause based on the documented evidence and the best interests of the City.
How to Call In Today
To comment on closed-session items and matters within the jurisdiction of the City Council, the City’s agenda instructions state that residents may participate in person or call (951) 826-8686, follow the prompts, press 9 to enter the speaker queue, and press 6 when prompted to unmute. Public comments are generally limited to 3 minutes.
Call-in number: (951) 826-8686
Press: *9 to be placed in the speaker queue
Press: *6 to unmute when called
Tell them: “I want to comment on the closed-session City Manager performance evaluation.”
Residents should call early and be ready when public comment opens.
The City’s Own Records Show This Is Bigger Than Pasadena
Much of the public attention has focused on Mike Futrell accepting the Pasadena City Manager position and then reversing course. That alone raises serious unanswered questions:
- Did he submit a written resignation?
- Was the resignation accepted?
- Did the City act in reliance on it?
- Was there a formal rescission or withdrawal?
- Was any closed-session action taken?
- Was any action properly reported to the public?
- Why should Riverside retain a City Manager who publicly accepted another city’s top job and then reversed course without full public explanation?
But the public records now show the Pasadena issue is not the whole story. It appears to be the final straw in a much larger governance problem.
The City Council Already Warned the City Manager’s Wife
On December 11, 2025, the City of Riverside sent Susan Freeman, the City Manager’s wife, a certified letter signed by Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Conder on behalf of the City Council. The letter was copied to Mike Futrell, the Mayor, and the City Council.
That letter states that Freeman had contacted City employees through:
“unwanted and harassing calls, text messages, emails, comments, social media posts, and other communications.”
The letter further states that communications about confidential personnel or disciplinary issues were intrusive and violated employee privacy. It also states that comments suggesting Freeman was part of the City’s decision-making team were inappropriate because she was not a City employee and not a consultant hired by the City.
That should alarm every Riverside resident.
The City Manager’s spouse is not elected. She is not appointed. She is not a City employee. She is not a City consultant. Yet the City’s own letter states that her communications had crossed boundaries serious enough for the Council to formally intervene.⸻
City Employees Felt Pressure Because of Her Relationship With the City Manager
The same certified letter states that Freeman’s relationship with the City Manager created a feeling of pressure for City staff when she solicited employees to participate in paid services or asked City staff for donations. The City further stated that staff could fear negative career consequences if they opted out.
That is not a minor issue.
City employees should never feel pressured to participate in services, respond to solicitations, tolerate intrusive communications, or worry about career consequences because the person contacting them is married to the City Manager.
The City’s own letter also states:
“Your pattern of communication has been disruptive at the workplace, caused significant distress to City staff, and serves no legitimate purpose.”
This is not gossip. This is not rumor. This is a City Council letter.
The Records Also Show Business-Related Access to City Staff
Other public records show Freeman communicating with City staff using business email accounts and sending training or curriculum-related materials.
On November 6, 2024, Freeman emailed City staff from susan@consciousinclusioncompany.com with an attached presentation titled “RENEE_Language of Inclusive Leadership_FINAL.pptx.” Her signature identified her as CEO and Founder of Conscious Inclusion Company, LLC and described the company as providing DEI customized solutions.
On November 13, 2024, Freeman sent additional training/curriculum material. City staff then forwarded it internally, writing:
“From Mike’s wife, I thought you would like to review.”
In the same chain, a City employee told Freeman:
“I am happy to accept any material you have that will help team riverside. I have an excellent training and organizational development team and we are always looking for new curriculum and to refresh existing curriculum.”
Freeman had stated that she had a collaborative communication class she had done for another city and asked whether the City employee wanted her to send it.
These records raise fair and necessary questions:
- Were these materials reviewed on City time?
- Were they considered for City training or curriculum?
- Was any procurement review performed?
- Was any conflict-of-interest review performed?
- Did staff feel free to reject or ignore the City Manager’s spouse?
- Did the City Manager know his spouse was sending business-related training materials into City channels?
- Did any employee feel pressured because of the City Manager relationship?
These questions go directly to public trust and the City Manager’s performance.
The Contract Excuse Is Not Enough
Some will say the City must be careful because of contract clauses, severance provisions, or legal risk.
Of course the City must follow the law. But contract clauses cannot become an excuse for ignoring misconduct, workplace disruption, conflicts of interest, employee pressure, or a loss of public trust.
Based on the records released so far, the Council has more than enough reason to determine that the City Manager has violated the spirit — and potentially the terms — of his employment responsibilities. A City Manager is expected to protect the organization, safeguard employees, preserve public trust, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain professional boundaries around City operations.
When the City’s own letter says the City Manager’s spouse caused workplace disruption, significant distress, employee pressure, privacy concerns, and fear of career consequences, the Council cannot pretend this is isolated from the City Manager’s performance.
If the City Manager knew or should have known this was happening and failed to stop it, that is a management failure. If City employees were placed in a position where they felt pressure because of the City Manager’s household relationship, that is a leadership failure. If business-related materials were introduced through informal access connected to the City Manager’s spouse, that is a governance failure.
The Council should not use contract language as a shield against accountability.
The City Manager should be relieved of duty and access today while the City completes the necessary legal steps for termination for cause.
The Council cannot credibly claim surprise. The December 11, 2025 certified letter was sent on behalf of the City Council and copied to Mike Futrell, the Mayor, and the Council.
The Council Is Late to the Game
That means the Council already had notice.
City employees deserved protection earlier. Riverside residents deserved transparency earlier. The City deserved decisive leadership earlier.
Now that these records are public, delay is no longer acceptable.
Closed session cannot become a place where accountability goes to die. It must be the place where the Council finally does its job.
What Residents Should Demand Today
Residents should call in and respectfully but firmly demand that the Council:
- Relieve the City Manager of duty and access immediately.
- Preserve all records involving the City Manager, Susan Freeman, City staff complaints, Pasadena, resignation issues, and contract matters.
- Determine that the documented pattern constitutes grounds for termination for cause.
- Begin a transparent recruitment process for new City Manager leadership.
- Publicly report any legally reportable action taken in closed session.
- Protect City employees from retaliation.
- Release all non-exempt records so residents can understand what happened.
This is about protecting employees. It is about protecting taxpayers. It is about protecting the integrity of City Hall.
Riverside deserves a City Manager who is fully committed to Riverside, free from conflicts, free from insider pressure, and capable of restoring public trust.
Suggested Public Comment
Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am commenting on the closed-session performance evaluation of the City Manager.
I urge the Council to relieve Mike Futrell of duty and access today and move toward termination for cause.
This is not personal. This is about City employees, public trust, and the City’s best interest.
Public records show that on December 11, 2025, the City Council sent a certified letter to Susan Freeman, the City Manager’s wife, warning her to stop harassing communications toward City employees. The letter stated that she had contacted employees through unwanted and harassing calls, texts, emails, comments, social media posts, and other communications.
The letter also stated that communications involving confidential personnel and disciplinary issues were intrusive and violated employee privacy. It stated that comments implying she was part of the City’s decision-making team were inappropriate because she was not a City employee and not a City consultant.
Most troubling, the City stated that her relationship with the City Manager created pressure on staff when she solicited employees to participate in paid services or asked for donations, and that employees could fear negative career consequences if they opted out.
The City’s own letter said her pattern of communication disrupted the workplace, caused significant distress to City staff, and served no legitimate purpose.
The Council had notice. The City Manager was copied. The Mayor and Council were copied.
Now we are also dealing with the Pasadena resignation reversal. Residents still do not know whether Mr. Futrell resigned, whether the resignation was accepted, whether it was rescinded, or whether the City acted in reliance on it.
Please do not hide behind contract clauses or severance excuses. Based on the evidence released so far, the City Manager has violated the trust and responsibilities required by his position. At minimum, he should be relieved of duty and access immediately while the City proceeds with termination for cause.
City employees deserved protection earlier. The Council is late to the game, but it can still act today.
Please act in the best interest of Riverside.
