Riverside County Grand Jury
• 2025-2026
Riverside County Civil Grand Jury Uncapped Influence:
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
The Board proposed and adopted Ordinance 963 which significantly increases their campaign contribution limit from the $3,000 (set by AB 571) to $20,000 (set by Ordinance 963) adjusted by 3% per person every odd-numbered year per campaign.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board amend Ordinance 963 to eliminate the exception in section 4(f) that allows unlimited campaign contributions from single contributors. Based on Findings: F1-F3 Financial Impact: Minimal
F2
The Board created an exemption to the limit set in Ordinance 963 by adding section 4(f), which states “the beneficiary of an independent expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)” will allow “all other candidates running in the election for that same county elective office to be exempted from the campaign contribution limits of this section 4(f) for that election as well.” This nullifies the limit outlined in sections 4(a) and (b), which set the limits for campaign contributions. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board either impose reasonable, mandatory limits on campaign contributions by single contributors or accept the default limits proscribed by the PRA and FPPC regulations. Based on Findings: F1-F3 Financial Impact: Minimal
F3
The exception created in section 4(f) of Ordinance 963 undermines the stated purposes of AB 571 and Ordinance 963 by allowing unlimited contributions which this report tries to resolve.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board amend their policy A-2(7) from the statement “Robert’s Rule of Order may be used as a general guide for the conduct of the Board’s meetings” to “Robert’s Rule of Order shall be used for the conduct of the meeting.” This holds supervisors to account for actions during the general meeting and promotes 14 consistency for motions proposed and passed. Based on Findings: F4-F5 Financial Impact: Minimal
F4
The chairperson moved an agenda item to the end of the agenda without a motion. This is contrary to Board policy and procedure A-2(10). Afterward twenty-two people, who wanted to speak on the item, did not do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board adopt a policy that makes the Board’s general meeting a priority for scheduling and requires supervisors to defer any foreseeable conflicts. Based on Findings: F5 Financial Impact: Minimal
F5
The participation by one of the supervisors in a conflicting, external meeting during the Board’s general meeting removed the possibility of that supervisor to make, second, or vote on a motion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Grand Jury recommends that to the extent the Board believes it is reasonable to eliminate the exception in section 4(f) but maintain the $20,000 limit in section 4(a) of Ordinance 963 rather than the state’s limit, which is currently $5,900, the Board should explain its rationale to the voters.
F6
Given evidence of direct funding from a single contributor, who had a direct interest in the results of a controversial item, there was an appearance of influence on the Board when the item was addressed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Grand Jury recommends that in the event the Board does not remove section (4f) from Ordinance 963, that they adopt a policy requiring supervisors to disclose the contributor and the precise amount at the time of a vote on an item, where that supervisor has received more than $20,000 in cumulative campaign contributions from that person (as defined in the ordinance) since their last campaign cycle, and where the contributor (person) may have a vested interest in the item. Based on Findings: F1-F3, F6 Financial Impact: Minimal
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R7The Grand Jury recommends that the Board add a section to Ordinance 963 requiring a vote of the people regarding any campaign limit changes and campaign contribution changes for any elected county official. This shall be administered on the same ballot for any primary or general election as the vote that is held for the elected officials. Based on Findings: F6 Financial Impact: Minimal 15
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Based upon the lack of enforceable campaign contribution limits, acceptance of contributions from single contributors that make up large portions of an elected officials’ campaign, and violations of policy during Board meetings, it is plausible that an elected official could be 21 rivcocob.org/sites/g/files/aldnop311/files/migrated/wp-content-uploads-2021-04- 963.pdf-accessed September 18, 2025. 12 influenced in a way that does not represent the majority of their constituents. A solution to this would be the adoption of explicit campaign funding limits by removing section 4(f) from Ordinance 963. This would level the playing field between large and individual donors. In addition, the county should also be transparent and provide checks and balances to remedy this perception. In order to establish this, the county should adopt amendments to Ordinance 963 which requires supervisors to announce publicly how much they received from a vested interest before voting on an item in a public forum. This allows the public to better understand the influence organizations may have on their elected officials. Secondly, disclosure policies and procedures should be adopted that hold elected officials accountable to the public for the actions they take or do not take while in office, ensuring the continued standard of care and discretion for all items held to a vote. Finally, the ability for elected officials to propose and pass policy relating to their own campaign contributions is inherently self-serving. In order to resolve this, a vote of the people should be required to finalize any financial decision that directly affects the elected officials campaign finance. Establishment of these principles will increase public trust and provide another check and balance to protect Riverside County from outside businesses, committees, or any other entity that would seek their own personal gain over the benefit of the people.