UPDATE: ITEM MOVED TO THE DISCUSSION CALENDAR

Update — July 28, 2026: After the agenda was published and concerns were raised regarding the placement of this consequential Charter Officer appointment on the Consent Calendar, Item 38 was moved to the Discussion Calendar.

That is the proper procedural correction. Hiring an Interim City Manager at a proposed rate of $195.05 per hour is not routine City business and should never be approved without separate discussion.

Moving the item, however, does not answer the underlying questions. Riverside residents still deserve to know why the City is replacing its existing interim leadership, why a retired official is necessary, how the proposed rate and employment terms were established, and what protections the agreement provides taxpayers.

Public scrutiny appears to have produced more transparent consideration of this item. That is precisely why residents must remain engaged—and why major Charter Officer appointments should be scheduled for public discussion from the beginning, rather than corrected only after concerns are raised.

“The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes while expecting different results.”

Just weeks after the Riverside City Council approved a highly lucrative employment agreement for its new City Attorney through a process that offered the public little meaningful opportunity to evaluate the agreement, the Council is preparing to make another consequential Charter Officer decision.

This time, the Council is considering the appointment of a retired official to serve as Interim City Manager beginning July 31, 2026, at an hourly rate of $195.05—despite the fact that Riverside already has interim leadership in place. The appointment appears as Item 38 on the July 28 Council agenda.  

The item was initially presented on the Consent Calendar, where matters deemed routine can be approved collectively without separate Council deliberation unless pulled for discussion.

Following public concern, Item 38 was moved to the Discussion Calendar.

That change is appropriate and should be acknowledged.

But it also raises an important question:

Why was the appointment of Riverside’s most powerful administrative officer ever treated as a routine consent matter in the first place?

Moving the item creates an opportunity for public discussion. It does not resolve the substantive concerns surrounding the appointment, compensation, necessity, recruitment process, or taxpayer protections.

Why is this being buried on the Consent Calendar?

Why Was This Initially Treated as Routine?

The Council’s decision to move the appointment to the Discussion Calendar is a positive and necessary correction.

The public should recognize the change—but should not ignore how the item was originally presented.

Consent calendars are intended to streamline routine administrative business. They allow numerous matters to be approved together in one motion, often without separate presentations, questions, or debate.

The appointment of an Interim City Manager is not routine.

The City Manager:

• oversees City departments and employees;
• implements Council policy;
• prepares and administers the municipal budget;
• directs major contracts and projects;
• influences workplace culture and executive accountability;
• manages hundreds of millions of dollars in public resources.

An appointment carrying that much authority and a proposed hourly rate of $195.05 should have been placed on the Discussion Calendar from the beginning.

The fact that it was ultimately moved demonstrates the value of public scrutiny.

It also demonstrates why Riverside needs consistent transparency standards rather than corrections made only after residents object.

Riverside Has Not Earned Blind Trust

Discussion Is an Improvement—But Trust Still Must Be Earned

Moving the item to public discussion is better than allowing it to pass as part of a single consent motion.

That does not mean residents should now simply accept the recommendation.

Trust is not restored merely by changing an agenda heading.

It is restored through complete disclosure, direct answers, careful deliberation, and employment agreements that protect the taxpayer.

This Council recently approved a new City Attorney contract following a process criticized for inadequate public involvement, unusually favorable contractual protections, and a substantial compensation increase.

Now it must demonstrate that it has learned from that experience.

The Council should publicly explain:

• why the current interim arrangement is ending;
• why a retired official is the preferred replacement;
• whether other qualified internal or external candidates were considered;
• how the $195.05 hourly rate was calculated;
• the maximum number of compensated hours;
• the projected total cost;
• the duration of the appointment;
• termination rights and taxpayer protections;
• whether the appointment affects the permanent recruitment process.

Without those answers, a Discussion Calendar designation becomes procedural transparency without substantive accountability.

Trust is earned through transparency.

Unfortunately, the City Council has spent years demonstrating exactly the opposite.

This is the same Council that recently:

• approved a lucrative employment agreement for a new City Attorney;
• waived procedural safeguards that were intended to increase public transparency;
• offered contractual terms that many taxpayers viewed as unusually generous;
• limited meaningful public discussion before approving the agreement.
  

Now the Council appears prepared to repeat that pattern.

Major decisions involving Charter Officers—the very people responsible for managing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars—should never become routine consent calendar items.

These positions deserve:

• independent discussion;
• public questioning;
• complete disclosure;
• thoughtful deliberation.
  

Instead, Riverside continues moving significant executive employment matters through processes that minimize public scrutiny.

Didn’t We Already Have an Interim?

One of the most puzzling aspects of this proposal is that Riverside already has an Interim City Manager.

If that individual is no longer suitable, taxpayers deserve an explanation.

If there is an operational emergency, taxpayers deserve an explanation.

If a retired executive brings unique qualifications, taxpayers deserve an explanation.

Instead, the agenda simply asks residents to approve another expensive interim appointment.

Transparency requires more than saying “trust us.”

Unfortunately, Riverside’s recent history gives taxpayers very little reason to do so.

Riverside’s Charter Officer Record Speaks for Itself

The Council’s recent record managing Charter Officers has been deeply troubling.

Over the past several years, Riverside has experienced:

• repeated executive turnover;
• extensive employee complaints;
• management instability;
• investigations involving senior leadership;
• significant legal exposure;
• declining employee morale;
• continuing organizational dysfunction.
  

The independent investigation concerning the prior City Manager documented extensive concerns regarding workplace management and organizational culture.

Regardless of where individual blame ultimately lies, one conclusion is difficult to escape:

The Council’s oversight of executive leadership has failed.

When the same governing body repeatedly hires executives who later become the subject of controversy, taxpayers have every right to ask whether the hiring process—not just the individual—is fundamentally broken.

---

Expensive Contracts Have Become the Norm

One of the more troubling trends is Riverside’s willingness to negotiate executive compensation packages that bear little resemblance to the financial realities facing the average resident.

While many Riverside families struggle with:

• rising utility costs,
• inflation,
• increasing housing expenses,
• higher sales taxes,
• Measure Z taxes,
• and escalating city fees,

Executive compensation continues climbing.

According to the City’s publicly available compensation records, numerous executive employees receive total compensation well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, with some positions exceeding $300,000, $400,000, and even $500,000 in total compensation when salary and benefits are combined.

Meanwhile, the median household income in Riverside is roughly in the mid-$80,000 range (based on recent U.S. Census estimates), illustrating a substantial gap between executive compensation and the financial circumstances of the residents who ultimately fund those positions.

Although public-sector compensation is not directly comparable to private-sector compensation because of differences in pension and benefit structures, critics have argued that Riverside’s executive contracts frequently provide compensation and long-term employment protections that many private-sector executives do not receive.

The issue isn’t simply salary.

It is accountability.

Revised compensation section

A Rate Requiring Serious Public Examination

The proposed rate of $195.05 per hour annualizes to approximately $405,704 if multiplied by a conventional 2,080-hour full-time work year.

That does not mean the retiree will necessarily earn that amount. California retired-annuitant restrictions, the proposed agreement, and the actual number of hours authorized may significantly limit total compensation.

But that is precisely why the Council must disclose the full calculation publicly.

Residents deserve to know:

• the maximum permitted hours;
• the maximum possible compensation;
• whether benefits, reimbursements, vehicle allowances, or other payments are included;
• whether the City compared the rate with similar interim appointments;
• whether using the current acting executive would cost less;
• what unique value justifies the additional expense.

Riverside’s median household income is only a fraction of the compensation routinely provided to its highest-paid executives. Comparing a household’s income with executive compensation is not a perfect labor-market comparison, but it demonstrates the scale of the public obligation and the need for exceptional transparency.

Taxpayers earning ordinary Riverside incomes are entitled to know why City Hall believes another premium executive arrangement is necessary.

Taxpayers Deserve Better Contracts

Every Charter Officer agreement should include strong protections for taxpayers.

Instead, Riverside repeatedly negotiates contracts that appear heavily weighted toward the employee.

Questions taxpayers should expect answered include:

• What measurable performance expectations exist?
• What happens if objectives are not met?
• What severance protections exist?
• What financial risks remain if the relationship fails?
• How is the public protected from another costly executive turnover?
  

These questions should be answered before approval—not years later.

Consent Calendar Is Not the Place

Consent calendars serve an important purpose.

They allow routine administrative items to be approved efficiently.

Hiring a City Manager—even an interim City Manager—is not routine.

It affects:

• every City department;
• every employee;
• every taxpayer;
• every major financial decision made during the coming months.
  

This deserves a full public hearing.

Not a procedural shortcut.

Leadership Means More Than Photo Opportunities

Over the past several years, Riverside has devoted enormous energy to announcements, ribbon cuttings, press releases, and social media campaigns.

Meanwhile, taxpayers continue watching:

• executive turnover;
• employee controversies;
• ethics concerns;
• repeated governance failures;
• expensive outside investigations;
• weakening public confidence.

Real leadership is not measured by Facebook posts.

It is measured by sound judgment.

It is measured by transparency.

It is measured by fiscal stewardship.

Most importantly—

It is measured by whether government earns the public’s trust.

The Bottom Line

Moving Item 38 from the Consent Calendar to the Discussion Calendar was the correct decision.

The Council should receive credit for making—or accepting—that correction.

But the change is only the beginning of the public process, not the end.

The Council must now explain:

1. Why Riverside needs a different interim leader when interim leadership already exists.
2. Why the proposed appointee’s identity and complete qualifications were not clearly presented when the agenda materials were first released.
3. How the $195.05 hourly rate was determined.
4. What the maximum taxpayer cost will be.
5. What contractual provisions protect Riverside if the appointment does not succeed.
6. Why the City’s permanent recruitment cannot proceed without another costly interim appointment.
7. What lessons the Council learned from the investigation, departure, and employment controversies involving the prior City Manager.
8. What lessons it learned from the recent City Attorney hiring and contract process.

The public asked for discussion—and discussion is now scheduled.

The Council must use that opportunity to provide genuine answers, not merely conduct a presentation before approving a predetermined result.

Transparency is not accomplished by moving an item from one part of the agenda to another.

Transparency requires the City to explain the need, disclose the cost, defend the contract, consider alternatives, and demonstrate that the agreement protects the people paying for it.

---

Suggested Public Comment (3 Minutes)

Mayor and Council Members:

I want to begin by acknowledging that Item 38 has been moved from the Consent Calendar to the Discussion Calendar.

That was the correct decision.

The appointment of an Interim City Manager at $195.05 per hour is not routine administrative business. It deserves separate discussion, public questions, and a recorded vote.

But moving the item does not answer the underlying questions.

Riverside already has interim leadership. The public deserves to know why that arrangement is ending, what operational problem this appointment is intended to solve, and why another retired interim executive is necessary while the City conducts its permanent recruitment.

The Council should disclose the proposed appointee’s qualifications, the maximum number of compensated hours, the maximum total cost, any additional benefits or reimbursements, and the provisions that protect taxpayers if the appointment does not work.

This Council’s record on Charter Officer hiring requires caution—not haste.

We recently watched the Council approve a highly favorable City Attorney employment agreement through a process that provided too little meaningful public review. Before that, residents repeatedly raised concerns about the management and oversight of the prior City Manager. Those concerns were followed by extensive employment controversy, an independent investigation, organizational instability, and the City Manager’s departure.

The Mayor and Council cannot treat those events as isolated personnel problems. They reflect the Council’s responsibility to select, supervise, evaluate, and hold Charter Officers accountable.

Riverside residents fund executive compensation packages that far exceed the income of the typical household. With that compensation must come exceptional performance, transparency, and accountability.

I appreciate that this item will now be discussed publicly. I ask the Council not to treat that discussion as a procedural formality.

Explain why this appointment is necessary. Explain the complete cost. Explain the alternatives considered. Explain how the contract protects taxpayers. And explain what this Council has learned from its prior Charter Officer hiring and oversight failures.

Public scrutiny helped move this item to the Discussion Calendar.

Now the Council must demonstrate that public discussion can actually influence the decision.

Thank you.