Intimidation, Bullying and Undermining in the Workplace

The evidence establishes a clear and consistent pattern ofconduct that undermines the Sheriff's credibility. These facts are corroborated across official reports (DOJ, ARB, POST), documentary evidence (e mails, press releases, policy excerpts), and consistent testimony from current and former law enforcement, current and former county administration, and elected officials. The Sheriff's repeated denials, selective recollection, and attempts to reframe documented events create a clear pattern that undermines his credibility and that ofthe leadership culture within the Tehama County Sheriff's Office.

The PW managers withholding of information from the County Administrator and administrative staff, then presenting testimony contrary to that presented in the staff report at the April 22, 2025, Board ofSupervisors meeting, clearly undermined the County Administrator and administrative staff and was disingenuous, unprofessional and insubordinate.

The Grand Jury found no conclusive direct evidence that Public Works managers were coerced to reverse their position at the April 22, 2025, Board ofSupervisors meeting. However, the timing and circumstances are noteworthy. After the managers' sudden change in position, and immediately after the BoS meeting, they were observed meeting with the Sheriff outside the County Administrative Building. In the context ofthe broader pattern ofconduct documented elsewhere in this report, these circumstances raise questions ofpossible involvement or influence.

The ongoing dispute between the Sheriff and the CA could have been largely avoided had the Tehama County Sheriff's Office worked with County Administration and the Board of 23 Supervisors to discuss budgetary limits and identify solutions to what was a short-term staffing shortage that occurred in 2022 under the direction ofthe prior Sheriff. FS. Poor communications between the CA and the then Sheriff-elect regarding the Board of Supervisor's "Elimination ofDay Patrol" Press Release has contributed to the distrust and animosity between the ChiefAdministrator and the Sheriff.

The Sheriff often attempts to use his position to intimidate and/or influence County elected officials and staff members.

The conflicts between the Sheriff and county administration continue to plague Tehama County government. The dysfunction has damaged employee morale, increased turnover, deterred recruitment, and impaired county government operations.

In the course ofour investigation, we found department heads were generally quite supportive ofthe Chief Administrator.

The RBPD, who was the investigating agency on the possible DUI call, stated there was legitimate concern and rejected the claim ofa false police report. The Tehama County District Attorney was ofthe same opinion. Despite those conclusions, the Tehama County Sheriff's Office opted to conduct their own investigation ofthe matter.

Continuing to investigate the District 3 Supervisor "false" police report matter, even after her resignation waived all criminal and civil complaints, appears to be in retaliation toward County employees and officers.

Utilizing a Tehama County Sheriff's Office detective and the Undersheriff to investigate the false police report regarding the tumbler incident was a significant waste ofemployee time and public resources. Fl2. The Sheriff has purposefully intimidated, harassed, bullied, or retaliated against multiple elected or appointed County employees.

The Sheriff has contributed to a toxic work environment in county government and administration through retaliation and intimidation against those who challenge him. This pattern is corroborated across departments and time. f 14. The Sheriff actively befriends, supports and defends those he believes will help accomplish his political objectives. FIS. The Sheriff rejects and opposes those he views as adversaries, including targeting them for retribution, retaliation or termination. F 16. The Sheriff often weighs in on the affairs and actions ofother county administrators and departments. Fl7. Criticism of government is every American's right in accordance with the First Amendment. However, concerted efforts that target or threaten staff or that cross the line of common decency are negatively affecting morale and staff efficiency within county government.

The Sheriff actively befriends, supports and defends those he believes will help accomplish his political objectives. FIS. The Sheriff rejects and opposes those he views as adversaries, including targeting them for retribution, retaliation or termination.

The Sheriff often weighs in on the affairs and actions ofother county administrators and departments. Fl7. Criticism of government is every American's right in accordance with the First Amendment. However, concerted efforts that target or threaten staff or that cross the line of common decency are negatively affecting morale and staff efficiency within county government. F18. All members ofthe public should comply with the Public Code ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025. RECOMMENDATIONS Rl. The Grand Jury recommends the Tehama County Board ofSupervisors order structured, mandatory mediation between the Sheriff and the ChiefAdministrator with a neutral external mediator, accountability measures, and follow-up reporting. R2. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff and Chief Administrator participate in structured, mandatory mediation with a neutral external mediator, accountability measures, and follow-up reporting by November 2, 2026. R3. The Tehama County Board ofSupervisors mandate annual conflict-resolution and anti­ retaliation training for both elected and appointed department heads. We further recommend that the BoS monitor compliance with this recommendation by November 2, 2026, R4. The ChiefAdministrator and Personnel Director create, and the Board ofSupervisors adopt an ombudsman, or third-party process, to respond to complaints filed between employees, whether elected or appointed by November 2, 2026, R5. The Sheriff focus less on the actions ofother departments and more on administering the Sheriff's Office; the job for which he was elected. R6. The Public Code ofCode ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025, should be projected on the video screen just prior to and during the public comment period at the commencement ofeach Board ofSupervisors meeting on or before November 2, 2026, REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the following responses are required: Tehama County Board ofSupervisors respond to Rl, R4, R6. Tehama County Sheriff respond to F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F9, Fll, F12, F13, F15, R2 and RS. INVITED RESPONSES The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: The ChiefAdministrator and Personnel Director respond to R3. In accordance with California Penal Code §933.06, one member ofthe Tehama County Grand Jury has recused themselves from participation in the investigation, deliberation, and preparation ofthis section ofthe report due to a potential conflict ofinterest or other qualifying circumstance. NEPOTISM SUMMARY The Tehama County Grand Jury received citizen complaints ofpossible nepotism at the Sheriffs office. The Tehama County Grand Jury was also investigating complaints of intimidation and bullying and the potential link that nepotism could have in the overall investigation. This prompted the decision to conduct this investigation into the inconsistent application ofanti­ nepotism rules throughout county departments. The concern that nepotism creates the perception ofunfair treatment for employees ofthe Tehama County Sheriffs Office and that it impacts morale, safety, security and public trust, is ofthe utmost concern. During the investigation the Grand Jury found that all county departments apply Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM except TC Sheriffs Office when addressing the employment and supervision offamily members within the department. The Grand Jury determined that no other elected or appointed county department head employed immediate family members within their own department at the time ofthe investigation. Only three other departments employed family members, totaling 22 individuals. The TC Sheriffs Office, at the time ofthe investigation, had 26 family members, including 2 members ofthe Sheriffs immediate family. The Grand Jury determined that the TC Sheriffs Office applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest rather than Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM when addressing the employment and supervision of family members within the department. The Grand Jury learned that Lexipol is a company that, among other things, provides legally vetted policies for public safety agencies that can be used directly as written, or as a basis to create a policy that fits an agency's needs. Within the Tehama County(TC) government, a Lexipol policy manual is posted on the website for each ofthree law enforcement agencies; TC Sheriffs Office, TC Probation Department, and TC District Attorney Bureau of Investigation. In regard to nepotism, TC Probation Department and TC District Attorney Bureau oflnvestigation both apply Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM. Only the TC Sheriffs Office applies the Lexip ol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest. The nature ofnepotism makes it difficult to measure the impact as employees are often concerned about a negative response ifthey report issues related to family members in the same department. Sev.eral interviewees expressed concerns regarding perceived conflicts ofinterest associated with the employment offamily members within the TC Sheriff's Office. Such a perception is the main ethical concern a nepotism policy is meant to address and prevent. The Grand Jury recommends that all county departments apply Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM as the countywide standard governing the employment and supervision of family members while allowing supplemental operational procedures that do not conflict with the Personnel Rule. Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM explicitly states, "Department Heads shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position in their department." Therefore, the Grand Jury further recommends that Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM be updated in order to clarify the definition ofa department head so that the definition includes elected officials and removes any ambiguity, and the rule should clearly state that Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM shall be applied by all departments. BACKGROUND The TC Sheriffs Office has 26 family members amongst its employees. Two are immediate family members ofthe Sheriff. The Tehama County Grand Jury interviewed executive level employees at TC Sheriffs Office, the Personnel Department and other departments, as well as reviewed all of the Tehama County Personnel Rules and Lexipol policies known to be in place regarding nepotism and conflict ofinterest. In addition, the Grand Jury reviewed county hiring and promotional forms for individuals. The Grand Jury confirmed that the TC Sheriffs Office applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest rather than Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM in regard to the employment and supervision offamily members within a department. The Grand Jury compared the Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest to Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM including the stated purpose, the stated impact ofnot having such a policy and the stated impact ofnot adhering to the policy, particularly in the most concerning instance ofa department's employment ofthe department head's family member. After this review, the Grand Jury decided to include the aspect of nepotism in the full investigation in order to make a recommendation that would improve the county work environment by strengthening and supporting a fair, merit-based system that has the potential to increase safety, security and the public trust. Tehama County has a long history ofprohibiting nepotism in the workplace. In June of 1992, the Board ofSupervisors(BoS) requested a Personnel Committee ofthe Board to adopt a "nepotism policy which prohibits the employment ofa person who is an "immediate family member" ofan employee in a position of supervisory responsibility over said person and who is employed within the same department, office, or division." The final policy was vetted through the bargaining units in place at the time and approved by BoS on September 15, 1992. This policy stood in practice until personnel rules were updated and combined in an easy access handbook 28 for all departments and the public, with Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM, approved by BoS on July 17, 2018. The TC Sheriffs Office implemented the Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest sometime after 1992 and prior to 2018. METHODOLOGY Documents The Tehama County Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Lexipol policy manual • Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM • Prior County Nepotism policy approved 9-15-1992 • Various other Tehama County Personnel Rules • County Charter • New hire, promotional and discipline records Other We also reviewed: • County and city law enforcement websites for posted policy manuals Interviews During this investigation Tehama County Grand Jury conducted interviews with 36 individuals. Some individuals were interviewed multiple times. Interviewees included Tehama County residents, several administrators, past administrators, managers, employees and past employees ofvarious Tehama County Departments, including some specific to TC Sheriffs Office. DISCUSSION Relatives in the workplace As ofMarch 24, 2026, Tehama County has 890.6 allocated employee positions. There are 21 department heads, which includes 6 elected and 15 appointed. Within the county departments, excluding TC Sheriffs Office, there are six family members employed at TC Probation Department, 10 family members employed at the TC Department of Social Services, and there are six family members employed at the TC Public Works Department. The TC Sheriffs Office has 26 family members working within a department of 123 positions. Employing family members that are not supervised by other family members or are not a member ofthe department head's family, does not violate either nepotism policy discussed in this report. None ofthe elected or appointed department heads employ their own family members, except the Sheriff, who employs two ofhis immediate family members. "Family members" is defined in the Tehama County Personnel Rules as "spouse or significant other; natural, step or legal: child; grandchild; parent; grandparent; sibling; niece; nephew; aunt; uncle; father-in-law; mother-in-law; son-in-law; daughter-in-law; or individual living in the employee's immediate household." Purpose ofNepotism Policy Nepotism as defined by County policy: The practice ofan employee using his or her influence or power in the employment setting because of a personal relationship. Nepotism as defined by Lexipol policy: The practice of showing favoritism to relatives over others in appointment, employment, promotion or advancement by any public official in a position to influence these personnel decisions. Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM states: • "Due to the potential for perceived or actual conflicts ofinterest that may impact daily working relationships, such as favoritism or personal conflicts from outside the work environment, Tehama County employees are prohibited from having any supervisory authority over a family member." • "Tehama County is committed to a policy ofemployment and advancement strictly based on qualifications and merit. It is found by the County that a business purpose exists relating to supervision, safety, security, and morale, and the public's trust in the agency's qualifications and merit-based employment practice and dictates that a prohibition on supervision offamily members within county departments is essential to the equal and fair treatment ofemployees and applicants." • "Department Heads shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position in their department. Other appointing authorities and/or supervisors shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position ofemployment in which they would have any direct or indirect supervisory authority over said family member. Lexipol Chapter 10 Personnel Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest states: • "The purpose ofthis policy is to ensure equal opportunity and effective employment practices by avoiding actual or perceived favoritism, discrimination or actual or potential conflicts by or between members ofthis department. These employment practices include: recruiting, testing, hiring, compensation, assignment, use offacilities, access to 30 training opportunities, supervision, performance appraisal, discipline and workplace safety and security." • "Employees are prohibited from directly supervising, occupying a position in the line of supervision or being directly supervised by any other employee who is a relative or with whom they are involved in a personal or business relationship." Analysis ofpolicies Both policies include the stated purpose ofavoiding actual or perceived conflicts ofinterest, or favoritism. Both policies include a prohibition on the supervision offamily members. Both policies cite "safety and security" as a potential concern ifthe policy is not followed. In addition, Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM also includes "morale" and the "public's trust" as something to be upheld by the adherence to the policy. Morale and public trust are not mentioned in Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest. Observations ofcitizens' public responses to County business are a clear indication that public trust is a highly valued motivation for creating and following policies that remove any perception ofimpropriety and requires voluntary adherence to ethical standards. A notable difference between the two policies: 1. Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM prohibits "direct or indirect supervision" offamily members. Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest only prohibits "direct" supervision and states "the department will not prohibit all personal or business relationships between employees". 2. Tehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM contains the explicit directive that "Department Heads shall not employ, or recommend for employment, any family members to a position in their department." A statement such as this is absent from the Lexipol policy. A reasonable person would consider that the stated purpose of"avoiding perceived favoritism" would require that a department head would not employ his/her own family member and employees would not be directly or indirectly supervised by a family member. A voiding a perceived conflict ofinterest may seem to be a subjective pursuit, and at times becomes an ethical question as to how this can be done. Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest does not include the specific directive prohibiting a department head (elected official) from hiring a family member. The omission oflanguage specifically addressing department-head employment offamily members results in operational differences between the 31 two policies; also, the omission ofthat statement does not remove the ethical consideration and responsibility to the public and employees ofavoiding the appearance offavoritism. Consistency reflects fair practices Lexipol policies are available for all public safety agencies. Within the TC government, the Lexipol manual was found posted to the websites for TC Probation Department, TC District Attorney Bureau ofInvestigation, and TC Sheriffs Office. The Grand Jury verified that the TC Probation Department and the TC District Attorney Bureau oflnvestigation applies Tehama County Personnel Rule § 1308 NEPOTISM regarding nepotism-related matters, while the TC Sheriffs Office applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest. Each ofthese agencies may apply Lexipol policies for other areas. The Grand Jury's inquiry focused on operational differences in the application ofnepotism-related policies among county departments. When only one department determines to use a different policy than all ofthe other departments, it increases the perception ofconflict ofinterest for that one department. Impact ofperceived conflict ofinterest The Tehama County Grand Jury strongly believes in the importance ofdepartment heads not employing family members, and that there should not be exceptions within the County departments. It is important to note that while the perception offavoritism is a subjective matter, it was clearly expressed as a perception and concern throughout the investigation. The cumulative list, from both policies, ofthe consequences for not upholding ethical principles in the area ofnepotism and conflict ofinterest includes: the potential negative impact on daily working relationships; safety; security; morale; and public trust. FINDINGS Fl. The Tehama County Sheriff applies Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict oflnterest in place ofTehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM when addressing the employment and supervision offamily members within the department. F2. The Sheriff has determined that the Lexipol Policy 1050 Nepotism and Conflict ofInterest allows him to employ his own family members. TC Sheriffs Office has a history ofallowing indirect supervision offamily members. This has resulted in the perception ofnepotism, favoritism and conflict ofinterest existing in TC Sheriffs Office and has eroded a sense of fairness and trust and is a contradiction ofTehama County Personnel Rule §1308 NEPOTISM. 32

All members ofthe public should comply with the Public Code ofConduct adopted by the Board ofSupervisors on September 16, 2025.