By Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D.
Riverside Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson has added another impressive-sounding title to her political résumé: Chair of California’s Big City Mayors coalition for 2025 and 2026.
Selected in October 2024, Lock Dawson leads an organization representing the mayors of California’s 13 largest cities. The coalition advocates in Sacramento on homelessness, housing, public safety, mental health programs, and other statewide policies.
The mayor’s leadership role has been promoted as an accomplishment for Riverside. But before taxpayers applaud another political appointment, we should ask a fundamental question:
What measurable value does this organization—and Mayor Lock Dawson’s leadership of it—actually deliver to Riverside residents?
Political titles, conferences, legislative advocacy, and meetings with influential politicians may enhance an elected official’s visibility. They do not necessarily improve the financial health, infrastructure, public safety, or economic opportunities of the city that elected that official.
And Riverside has far more pressing concerns than the expansion of anyone’s political résumé.
A Coalition of California’s Largest Cities—and Its Political Establishment
Big City Mayors represents California’s largest municipalities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, Oakland, Bakersfield, Anaheim, Stockton, Irvine, and Riverside.
These cities face many legitimate challenges. Yet the coalition’s public policy agenda deserves scrutiny, particularly when its advocacy aligns with the priorities of California’s dominant political establishment.
The organization promotes legislative initiatives and additional state funding for issues including homelessness, housing, and behavioral health.
But a political coalition representing large municipalities is not inherently a nonpartisan source of effective public policy.
Its proposals should be evaluated based on their cost, effectiveness, and measurable outcomes—not the political influence of the mayors supporting them.
California has spent enormous sums addressing homelessness, housing affordability, public safety, and mental health. Nevertheless, residents continue confronting serious problems in these areas.
That does not mean every government initiative has failed. It does mean taxpayers are justified in demanding evidence that particular programs work.
Does Big City Mayors challenge unsuccessful policies supported by Sacramento’s political leadership?
Does it advocate regulatory reform, private-sector investment, lower operating costs, and financial accountability?
Or does it primarily seek additional government appropriations to continue existing approaches?
These are important questions because advocating for more taxpayer spending is not the same as advocating for effective government.
Millions in Government Funding—But Where Are the Results?
Big City Mayors points to its success securing millions of dollars in funding for member cities.
That sounds impressive in a press release.
However, transferring taxpayer money from Sacramento to municipal governments does not automatically create economic value.
The money was already collected from taxpayers or obtained through government financing.
The important questions concern what happened after the money was distributed.
How much funding did Riverside receive that can be directly attributed to Big City Mayors’ advocacy?
What specific programs were funded?
What measurable results did those programs produce?
Were homelessness, crime, infrastructure deficiencies, or municipal operating costs actually reduced?
And how much did each successful outcome cost?
Government organizations frequently celebrate the amount of money they obtain rather than the results delivered with that money.
This is precisely backward.
A successful business measures results against investment. Government should be held to an equally rigorous standard.
Taxpayers deserve to know the return on their investment—not simply how much of their money government managed to spend.
A Political Networking Machine With Questionable Local Returns?
There are obvious political advantages to chairing an influential statewide organization.
The position provides access to elected officials, state legislators, administration officials, advocacy organizations, media opportunities, and political networks.
It also creates opportunities for conferences, photographs, public appearances, press releases, and social media promotion.
These activities can be valuable to an ambitious politician.
But are they equally valuable to Riverside taxpayers?
Mayor Lock Dawson also maintains leadership responsibilities in other prominent municipal organizations.
According to the reported organizational announcements, these include:
- Chairing the Legislative, Communications & Membership Committee for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
- Serving as Vice Chair of the Community and Economic Development Federal Advocacy Committee for the National League of Cities.
- Participating in organizations and regional bodies including the U.S. Conference of Mayors and air quality and conservation agencies.
There may be legitimate reasons for participating in these organizations, and collaboration among cities can produce worthwhile results.
Nevertheless, the accumulation of political appointments raises reasonable questions about time, priorities, expenses, and accountability.
How many hours are devoted to these outside organizations?
How much taxpayer-supported travel and staff time do they require?
What tangible benefits have resulted specifically for Riverside?
Most importantly, who is measuring the return on these commitments?
Political networking is not an achievement in itself. It is a tool that must ultimately serve the public.
Riverside Has Problems That Cannot Be Solved With Photo Opportunities
While Mayor Lock Dawson participates in statewide organizations and promotes her political relationships, Riverside faces significant challenges at home.
Our city must confront difficult financial decisions, infrastructure requirements, public utility costs, economic development performance, and the consequences of past municipal management decisions.
Residents and businesses face substantial financial pressures.
Meanwhile, city leadership continues emphasizing awards, appointments, organizational affiliations, and announcements that create an image of accomplishment.
But an impressive political résumé does not balance a municipal budget.
A conference photograph does not improve Riverside’s reserves.
An organizational leadership title does not repair aging infrastructure or attract productive private investment.
And another press release does not reduce the cost of government.
Riverside needs measurable business outcomes, not an endless marketing campaign promoting its elected officials.
We should be evaluating elected leadership using objective measures:
- Has Riverside improved its long-term financial position?
- Are operating expenses being controlled?
- Are infrastructure projects completed efficiently and within budget?
- Is economic development producing sustainable private-sector jobs and tax revenue?
- Are residents receiving improved services relative to what they pay?
- Are government programs evaluated against documented performance objectives?
These are the standards that matter to residents and taxpayers.
They should matter more than political recognition.
Is This Really Nonpartisan Advocacy?
Big City Mayors represents municipalities, but its organizational structure does not automatically make its policy recommendations politically neutral.
California’s largest municipalities operate within a political environment heavily influenced by Democratic leadership, organized labor, government advocacy organizations, and interest groups seeking public funding.
That political environment warrants examination.
Does the coalition welcome meaningful disagreement about government spending, regulation, housing policy, and homelessness?
Does it critically evaluate the effectiveness of its preferred legislation?
Does it support policies that reduce dependence on government funding and encourage private investment?
Or does it reinforce the same political consensus responsible for many of the state’s unresolved problems?
These questions are not attacks on cooperation among cities.
They are questions about whether the organization produces thoughtful, balanced policy or simply amplifies the priorities of an established political network.
The distinction matters.
Riverside residents have diverse political views. Their interests should not be subordinated to any statewide coalition’s ideological preferences.
Our mayor represents Riverside—not a political party, statewide advocacy organization, or collection of political allies.
It’s Time to Follow the Money
Rather than simply accepting the coalition’s publicity, Riverside residents should demand an accounting of the city’s participation.
Through the Riverside Accountability Project, I believe this subject warrants a public records investigation examining:
- Direct expenditures: Membership dues, conference registrations, travel, lodging, meals, and related costs associated with Big City Mayors and other municipal organizations.
- Staff resources: The amount of city employee time devoted to supporting the mayor’s external leadership responsibilities.
- Public communications: City-funded promotional materials, travel-related communications, and staff involvement in publicizing organizational activities.
- Direct financial benefits: Grants, appropriations, and other financial commitments Riverside received specifically because of the coalition’s advocacy.
- Program performance: Whether those funds produced documented improvements in homelessness, public safety, housing, infrastructure, or economic development.
- Policy advocacy: The legislation and regulatory positions supported by the coalition, including their financial implications for Riverside residents and businesses.
- Opportunity costs: Whether public resources devoted to these activities could have produced greater value through direct attention to Riverside’s local challenges.
The purpose should be straightforward: establish what the city spends, what the mayor and her office accomplish, and what residents receive in return.
If these affiliations produce substantial benefits, taxpayers should welcome that evidence.
If they do not, their continued prioritization deserves serious reconsideration.
Leadership Is About Results, Not Recognition
There is nothing inherently wrong with a mayor representing Riverside in statewide or national organizations.
In fact, well-managed relationships can create meaningful opportunities.
But participation must have a purpose beyond political visibility.
The public deserves more than a collection of titles, awards, publicity photographs, and announcements about obtaining additional government funding.
We need elected officials who understand that government resources are finite, taxpayer money is not free, and meaningful progress must be demonstrated through measurable outcomes.
Riverside’s financial health, infrastructure, public safety, economic development, and quality of life should remain the mayor’s priorities.
Not another conference.
Not another organizational title.
Not another carefully staged photograph.
And certainly not another political accomplishment that cannot be connected to meaningful improvements for the people paying the bills.
The Bottom Line
Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson’s chairmanship of Big City Mayors may be a meaningful professional accomplishment.
But professional recognition for an elected official is not automatically an accomplishment for the taxpayers who elected that official.
Riverside doesn’t need a mayor who measures success by the number of politicians she knows, organizations she chairs, conferences she attends, or photographs she posts.
Riverside needs a mayor who measures success by the financial health of our city, the quality of services delivered, the economic opportunities created, and the long-term well-being of residents.
Political recognition is not economic development.
Government appropriations are not automatically a return on investment.
And statewide influence means little unless it produces measurable local benefits.
The question isn’t what Patricia Lock Dawson has accomplished for Big City Mayors.
The question is what her leadership of Big City Mayors has accomplished for Riverside.
Until that question is answered with evidence instead of publicity, taxpayers have every reason to remain skeptical.
Keith J. Nelson, Ph.D., is a Riverside resident, business executive, and advocate for fiscal accountability, responsible economic development, and transparent local government.
