Riverside County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

2025-2026 Riverside County Civil Grand Jury Report: Code Enforcement - Not Living up to Code

Published: June 08, 2026 19 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 9 findings

Evidence suggests that there is a perception that the culture between employees and management in Code Enforcement has resulted in abusive and retaliatory practices by management. These practices have been allowed to go unchecked by TLMA and HR as a result of downplaying internal complaints about upper management.

The Code Enforcement Policy Manual has not been updated to reflect information on how the employee complaint process functions. The current version of the Policy and Procedures manual falls short of including critical Board of Supervisor policies C-25, C-27, and C-35 information.

Possible violations of FMLA occurred when an employee was removed from a supervisory position in the field, had their work schedule substantially changed, and was reassigned to an undesirable location while they were out on FMLA leave.

There exists a biased promotional process within Code Enforcement that has been driven by a select few individuals. This process has been given silent approval because of outside relationships that influence the prepping of candidates, selecting the interviewing panel, and guiding the grading processes involved in departmental promotions. Additionally, there have been external communication with HR to manipulate certified hiring lists.

There are many instances of selective enforcement standards that may reflect outside influence from governing bodies within Riverside County. This creates an unequal playing field for most constituents of Riverside County by giving specific entities a different set of guidelines or allowances contrary to county ordinances.

Although the guidelines and standards from BOS policies for filing complaints are made available to all employees, many of these complaints (C-25, C-27, etc.) are not heard or taken seriously. The concerns of the employees have not been recognized or addressed by management due to an incomplete understanding of the HR process.

Undefined management-employee dynamics have created an uncertain hierarchy of leadership. Overlapping control, rather than a clearly defined chain of command, has created an environment of micromanagement.

The turnover at the director position in Code Enforcement has resulted in a culture of confusion and inconsistent direction. Strong, consistent leadership with a clear mission has been missing in the department for the past several years.

Clear, concise, and thorough communication has been lacking in Code Enforcement. Providing consistent written direction will avoid confusion and promote an aligned mission. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations 8

R1

Code Enforcement must take steps to comply with all directives and provisions of Board Policies C-25 and C-27 by taking initial complaints seriously and ensuring that all managers and supervisors take action. Based on Finding: F-1 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None
R2

The management team must update the Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual in accordance with R-1. Based on Finding: F-2 Implementation: January 31, 2027 Fiscal Impact: None
R3

All managers must complete FMLA compliance training and certification to promote awareness of employment law. Based on Finding: F-3 Implementation: December 31, 2026 Fiscal Impact: Minimal
R4

In order to promote an unbiased and neutral interview panel, it is recommended that interview panel members are chosen from a rotating pool of supervisory personnel by the director of the department. These personnel should reflect a blend of TLMA supervisors. Based on Finding: F-4 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None
R5

Consistent code enforcement standards must be applied to all constituents in Riverside County, regardless of political or monetary influences, to ensure equal treatment of all residents. Document all communications from other departments or elected officials which may affect the outcome of Code Enforcement duties involving ordinance compliance. Based on Finding: F-5 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: Minimal
R6

Create an annual anonymous internal survey (Ex: Pulse Survey) to measure the employee experience and engagement within the Code Enforcement department. Actionable data can be shared at all levels to promote departmental growth, culture, and opportunities. Based on Finding: F-6 Implementation: June 30, 2027 Fiscal Impact: Moderate 17
R7

The director of Code Enforcement must establish a consistent schedule to visit district offices and meet with supervisors and employees to promote leadership, collaboration, and to reinforce the chain of command. Based on Findings: F-7 and F-8 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None
R8

In order to promote clear and consistent communication, any and all directives should be communicated, in writing, via e-mail or printed memo, and shared with employees at all levels, and in all district offices. In addition, all employees should be made aware of management schedules and availability. Based on Finding: F-9 Implementation: Immediately Fiscal Impact: None REQUIRED RESPONSES The governmental bodies are required to respond to the finding and recommendations listed below. According to California Penal Code §933, governing bodies have 90 days to respond, and agency heads have 60 days to respond. California Penal Code §933.05 specifies how responses should be structured. Governing Bodies Findings Recommendations County of Riverside Board of F-1––F-9 R-1––R-8 Supervisors INVITED RESPONSES The agency heads are invited, but not legally required, to respond to the findings and recommendations listed below. Agency Heads Findings Recommendations County of Riverside TLMA F-1––F-9 R-1––R-8 County of Riverside Code F-1––F-9 R-1––R-8 Enforcement 18 County of Riverside Human F-4, F-6 R-4, R-6 Resources Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Report Issued Date: 6-17-2026 Report Public Date: 6-24-2026 Response Due Date: 9-24-2026 19