NBT | University Neighborhood

The united voices of neighborhood groups across the city NBT, Neighbors Better Together wrote a rebuttal to the current ballot language.

The reason this is even on a ballot is because several Charter Review committees have advocated for this over the years. Council adopted the Review Committee’s recommendation, but not as they recommended.

The Charter Review Committee recommended the position be an elected one instead of appointed. The reasons for that are obvious.

Here is what you won’t see on the ballot:

Vote “No” on Measure L.

After years of discussing and researching the subject, and at the demands of longtime City watchdogs for greater accountability and transparency, in 2022 Riverside’s appointed Charter Review Committee recommended the creation of an elected (by the public) Inspector General position, with almost exactly the same powers to investigate fraud, waste and abuse as the appointed (by our City Council) position before you today.

Sadly the 2022 City Council, who had made the appointments to the Committee, instead chose to bring before the electorate an appointed position; not unlike Measure E in 2012, which was to create an appointed City Auditor position with once again, almost identical powers. Measure E was soundly defeated by voters then, like Measure L should be now.

Why? An appointed Inspector General is not as independent nor directly accountable to the people, rendering their function not just useless, but dangerous in our opinion. It would provide the illusion of legitimacy, scarcely more effective than the current, and often criticized, practice of having internal auditors that work for our City Manager. The temptation to whitewash embarrassing, and potentially politically damaging audit findings, would be overwhelming. Current personalities aside, the fox would be in essence guarding the henhouse. We deserve better.

Voting “No” on Measure L will allow time for the advocates of an elected Inspector General position to work with the new Council members, installed this year (Falcone, Robillard, Mill), who we think better understand the importance of independent investigation, to bring you a much better ballot measure in early 2026. We believe they are not afraid of oversight, see the benefits of the public’s ongoing faith in efficient and honest City government, and know that an elected position will ultimately provide a better return on investment for taxpayers.

Please vote “No”.

IAP2 – the International Association for Public Participation – is the preeminent international organization advancing the practice of public participation.

So what do the residents of Riverside have to say about public participation? Read on and find out.

‘Public participation’ means to involve those who are affected by a decision in the decision-making process. It promotes sustainable decisions by providing participants with the information they need to be involved in a meaningful way, and it communicates to participants how their input affects the decision.

The practice of public participation might involve public meetings, surveys, open houses, workshops, polling, citizen’s advisory committees and other forms of direct involvement with the public.

IAP2’s mission is to advance and extend the practice of public participation.

IAP2 advocates on behalf of members and is building an international reputation for the public participation practice and profession. It supports international research and offers professional development training and services.

IAP2 members work in industry, civil society organizations, universities, government and more. They are involved in the public participation process by supporting clients, colleagues and citizens for improved decision-making.

See IAP2 Core Values Award Winners for successful examples of public participation in the decision-making process.

A number of Riverside neighborhood leaders have been meeting to discuss this. This group is called: NBT – Neighborhood Brain Trust or, No Big Thing. Here is a draft of what we think the public engagement process should include.

Proposed Community Outreach Concept

for the City of Riverside Overview

Community stakeholders have identified a need for the City of Riverside to develop / enhance / clarify the procedure for Community outreach and engagement on projects and policies that impact City residents. The proposed concept outlined below is consistent with our Seizing our Destiny pillars, and the Riverside 2.0 Strategic Plan.

This concept advocates for an open, transparent outreach process focused on providing the highest level of customer service to all residents. This proposed policy outline is aligned with the Core Values for Public Participation developed by the International Association for Public Participation (www.iap2.org).

Concept Goals:

Thinking Ahead:

No Surprises:

All On Board:

Facilitate robust, timely communications between city and community

Enhance trust between government and residents

Fully engage community in city decision-making

Concept Principle

There tends to be 3 different modes of engagement to choose from by local government. Here they are in progression. We hope that we would aspire as a city/community to practice the most evolved of these three approaches

Active Participation.

We would like the opportunity to work with City Staff to develop an official process/policy that integrates active participation into the community development process and general mode of operation for the city

Information

• Provide timely and broad-based notifications of city plans for upcoming projects, using existing government and community communication networks

• Engage the community through direct communications, public meetings, social media, local print media (Press Enterprise), online surveys and portals (e.g., Engage Riverside, Survey Monkey, etc)

• Keep the community informed of all projects from beginning to end – from concept and design through all stages of implementation and post-completion evaluation

• For every project, follow up with the community on what worked and what didn’t

Consultation

• Engage the community prior to finalization of a project’s concept, design, and scope to ensure consistency with the community’s vision and self-identity

• Ensure consultation with all community stakeholders, including neighborhood groups, the business community, and special interest and civic groups

• Acknowledge that agreement / consensus of community members is not required for projects to move forward, but all views must be heard, understood, documented, and responded to by the City

• Consult with all appropriate city and community organizations and groups, including city boards/commissions, neighborhood and civic groups, churches, HOAs, schools, PTAs, etc.

Active Participation

• Facilitate ongoing community participation through all stages of project implementation, including regular updates and check-ins

• Provide for an annual review of the implementation of this concept

• Seek constructive feedback and criticism, and be willing to change direction when needed

• Challenge community groups to accept responsibility for participation and assisting in facilitation of public meetings.

• Support a civil and constructive process for community participation to insure all sides of the issue or a project are heard, debated, documented and communicated to all stakeholders

• Encourage and empower residents to collaborate and participate in all aspects of city decision-making

• Dedicate city resources to support the development of an informed, engaged, and participatory citizenry

University Neighborhood

Tag Archives: NBT

A Neighborhood Of Our Dreams