EARLY VERSION STORY – This story will be updated with more quotes before presstime Tuesday, June 30, 2026.
A sweeping Riverside County Civil Grand Jury report has concluded that the county’s Code Enforcement Department suffers from a dysfunctional workplace culture marked by allegations of retaliation, favoritism, inconsistent enforcement, and political interference that has undermined public confidence in the agency.
The 19-page report, released June 24, is titled “Code Enforcement: Not Living up to Code.” It follows an investigation that included interviews with 27 current county employees, five former employees, union representatives and county officials, as well as reviews of personnel records, county policies, complaint files and internal documents.
“The overriding problem identified is that the culture of the department is not aligned with its mission,” the Grand Jury wrote. “Within Code Enforcement, the attitudes and behaviors of a few individuals seem to have shaped the actions within the department as a whole.”
The department’s stated mission is to improve public safety and quality of life through fair enforcement of county laws and ordinances. The Grand Jury concluded that the goal has not been consistently achieved.
Allegations of retaliation
Among the report’s most significant findings are allegations that some employees who questioned management decisions were subjected to punitive transfers, undesirable assignments or changes in duties.
Witnesses described practices referred to as “highway therapy” and “punishment detail,” terms they said were used when employees spoke out or were viewed as disloyal. According to the report, employees alleged they were reassigned to distant offices or unfamiliar duties in ways intended to pressure them into resigning, transferring or retiring. Management denied using those practices, but the Grand Jury said the terms surfaced repeatedly throughout its interviews.
The report also raises concerns about one employee who allegedly returned from approved Family and Medical Leave Act leave to find supervisory responsibilities removed, work hours changed and a new assignment awaiting them. The Grand Jury stated those actions “may violate FMLA law and may be an example of retaliation.”
Promotions questioned
The Grand Jury also criticized hiring and promotion practices, concluding that some employees appeared to receive promotions despite not meeting minimum qualifications, while more experienced candidates were passed over.
One example cited involved a Code Enforcement technician with fewer than two years in the department who was promoted to Senior Code Enforcement Officer even though the position required three years of qualifying technical experience, including two years at the Code Enforcement Officer II level. According to the report, other candidates who met or exceeded those qualifications were not selected.
The report also questioned the hiring process for a Transportation and Land Management Agency management position, alleging that a candidate who initially failed to qualify was later allowed to submit an updated résumé before ultimately being hired.
Political influence alleged
Perhaps the report’s most consequential finding involves allegations that political considerations influenced code enforcement decisions in portions of Riverside County.
Multiple employees told the Grand Jury they were instructed to “stand down,” “tread lightly,” or avoid enforcement actions involving certain politically connected businesses or property owners. According to testimony summarized in the report, some Board of Supervisors staff allegedly asked officers to delay investigations or citations because of relationships with influential constituents.
The report says those allegations included:
- Repeated compliance extensions lasting up to 18 months instead of the normal 30 days to six months;
- dismissal of noise citations;
- continued operation of allegedly unpermitted event venues and swap meets; and
- directives not to enforce violations involving certain short-term rental “party houses.”
The Grand Jury stated that several witnesses described those directives as verbal and originating through the Board of Supervisors’ offices, while upper management said they were unaware of such orders. The report concludes that political interference, if allowed to continue, undermines the equal application of county laws.
Complaint system criticized
The report also found shortcomings in Riverside County’s internal complaint process.
According to the Grand Jury, many employee complaints filed under county anti-harassment policies were categorized as “rude and discourteous behavior” and either dismissed or never advanced through a formal investigative process.
The Grand Jury noted discrepancies between complaint records it received directly from employees and those provided by Human Resources, leading investigators to conclude some complaints may never have reached HR for review.
Leadership turnover
Investigators also pointed to instability in department leadership.
The report states Code Enforcement has had 12 interim or permanent directors over the past 15 years, with the average tenure lasting approximately two years. That turnover, investigators said, contributed to inconsistent direction and uncertainty throughout the department.
Employees also described inconsistent communication, outdated policy manuals and confusion over reporting relationships following departmental reorganizations.
Nine findings, eight recommendations
The Grand Jury issued nine formal findings, including allegations of abusive management practices, biased promotional processes, selective enforcement, poor communication and an unclear chain of command.
Among its eight recommendations, the Grand Jury called on county officials to:
- ensure complaints are taken seriously;
- update departmental policies;
- require Family and Medical Leave Act training for managers;
- establish neutral interview panels for promotions;
- document communications from elected officials affecting enforcement decisions;
- conduct anonymous employee surveys;
- increase leadership presence in district offices; and
- require written directives for departmental decisions.
County response required
Under California law, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors is required to formally respond to each of the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations within 90 days. The Transportation and Land Management Agency and Code Enforcement Department are invited, but not required, to respond. Human Resources is also invited to respond to findings involving hiring and employee complaints. Responses are due by Sept. 24.
The Grand Jury emphasized that its report does not identify individual witnesses, as required under California law, and that its findings are based on testimony, interviews and documentary evidence gathered during its investigation.
