Riverside County supervisors have rejected the Civil Grand Jury’s claims that their offices improperly influenced Code Enforcement cases. In a response approved Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors disputed allegations of political interference and unchecked retaliation, while acknowledging concerns about communication, leadership stability and employee confidence in the department.
Supervisors Call Findings Unsupported
The board said the grand jury’s allegations of retaliation, favoritism, selective enforcement and improper influence were based on perceptions or lacked supporting evidence, according to The Press-Enterprise. The county’s position is that constituent inquiries or staff requests for case updates and information about compliance options do not, by themselves, direct officers to change or stop enforcement. It also argued that managerial review of a case is not automatically evidence of favoritism or selective enforcement.
The dispute centers on the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury report, titled Code Enforcement: Not Living up to Code and released June 24. The citizen panel, which examines public agencies and recommends changes, alleged that staff in supervisors’ offices pressured Code Enforcement officers to pause investigations or potential citations involving influential property owners, according to the earlier Press-Enterprise report.
A Department Dogged By Turnover
The grand jury said employees believed Board of Supervisors interference had undermined fair enforcement, and alleged selective enforcement in tourist-driven destinations. Code Enforcement handles complaints in unincorporated areas of the county, including reports of illegal dumping, unlicensed cannabis grows, grading without a permit, noise violations and unpermitted events. Complaints can come from residents, other county departments, outside agencies and county officials.
The report also pointed to frequent turnover in department leadership: Code Enforcement had 12 interim or full-time directors over 15 years, and the longest-serving director stayed three years. The county acknowledged that turnover contributed to confusion and inconsistent direction over several years. The board agreed that the department has faced leadership instability, communication gaps, outdated written procedures, employee-confidence concerns and uncertainty over roles.
Allegations of a Hostile Workplace
The grand jury’s concerns extended beyond enforcement decisions to workplace conduct. Jurors reported that managers shouted at employees, bullied staff who disagreed with them, spread unfounded rumors or gossip, and showed a lack of courtesy. They also said some employees who challenged management decisions faced punitive transfers, undesirable assignments or changed duties, according to Valley News, which based its account on interviews with 27 current county employees, five former employees, union representatives and county officials.
Jurors further alleged that promotions reflected favoritism, outside friendships and manipulated resumes rather than merit, and that some promoted employees did not meet the experience requirements for their jobs. The county said it knew of no evidence that promotional processes or certified hiring lists had been manipulated to favor candidates. Supervisors also disputed the claim that human resources or the agency overseeing Code Enforcement had allowed abusive or retaliatory practices to go unchecked.
County Points to Changes Already Underway
The board nevertheless acknowledged that staff concerns about workplace culture, communication and trust need continued attention. It agreed to improve communication with Code Enforcement employees, and the department director is to meet with staff regularly. The Executive Office previously told Patch that the department had revised its interview process to promote objectivity and fairness in hiring and was providing substantive details through emails and written memoranda rather than informal conversations.
What the response and past funding establish
The grand jury report says governing bodies have 90 days to respond under California Penal Code §933 and gives September 24, 2026, as the deadline, according to the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury report. The commitments described above do not, on their own, establish that recommendations have been implemented; the information here also does not provide a recommendation-by-recommendation timetable or identify responsible offices for each one. A prior county budget decision provides a separate example of a specific Code Enforcement initiative: the Board approved $825,000 for a 10-member countywide team focused on short-term-rental enforcement on June 27, 2023, according to Supervisor V. Manuel Perez’s office. That funding announcement documents a planned allocation, not the team’s subsequent activity or effectiveness, and does not provide complaint, inspection, citation or permit totals.
