Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Responses to Code Enforcement: Not Living up to Code

Final supplied positions, implementation claims, future actions and stated refusals are attributed separately to the responding agencies or signatories.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by See per-item agency attribution

16

Addressed

1

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

6

Implemented

2

Will be implemented

0

Requires further analysis

0

Will not be implemented

0

Unclear

How to read this audit

Assessment concerns statutory response clarity, explanation, coverage and traceability, not which party is factually correct or whether a legal violation occurred. Implementation is an agency claim unless explicitly established otherwise. No inference of nonresponse or lateness follows a source gap. Finding clarity scores are separate from coverage and support; recommendations have dispositions, not finding scores. September 22 minutes approve a single Board response with TLMA input, not additional identical HR/TLMA respondents. The attached response body starts physical page 5; physical page 4 is blank.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

3

Extracted commitments

1

Definite or bounded timing

1

Conditional timing

1

No timeframe

BOARD-R2 · Exact date

Update the Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual with the described policy and complaint-process information.

2027-01-31

BOARD-R3 · No timeframe stated

Continue monitoring required manager and supervisor training and ensure newly appointed managers complete applicable County training.

No target date stated

BOARD-R6 · Conditional timing

Use available department-level engagement results to identify action steps; if usable results are unavailable, work with the Executive Office on a supplemental anonymous feedback tool.

Supplemental tool is conditional on usable department-level results being unavailable; no completion date or annual cadence supplied.

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 17 of 17 items

finding · BOARD-F1

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Disagrees wholly with the culture and unchecked-complaint characterization.

Audit analysis

Pages 5–6 describe complaint channels, investigations and management review. The response disputes the jury’s characterization rather than establishing that every complaint was substantiated or resolved correctly.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 5–6 describe complaint channels, investigations and management review. The response disputes the jury’s characterization rather than establishing that every complaint was substantiated or resolved correctly.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 5
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F2

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Disagrees; acknowledges missing manual references and emphasizes policies’ independent applicability.

Audit analysis

The explanation distinguishes a manual omission from the continued force of County policies, but does not fully answer the requested complaint-process documentation.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The explanation distinguishes a manual omission from the continued force of County policies, but does not fully answer the requested complaint-process documentation.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F3

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Disagrees wholly that the described events establish a leave-law violation.

Audit analysis

Pages 7–8 explain the County’s employment and assignment interpretation; neither party’s legal position is adjudicated by this audit.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 7–8 explain the County’s employment and assignment interpretation; neither party’s legal position is adjudicated by this audit.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F4

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Disagrees wholly with the claimed biased promotional process.

Audit analysis

Pages 8–10 describe panel selection, hiring safeguards and claimed practice. The detailed rebuttal is a response position, not independently tested personnel evidence.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 8–10 describe panel selection, hiring safeguards and claimed practice. The detailed rebuttal is a response position, not independently tested personnel evidence.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 8
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F5

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Disagrees wholly with the asserted selective-enforcement inference.

Audit analysis

Pages 9–10 distinguish case-specific severity, evidence, compliance history, resources and voluntary compliance from favoritism. The response describes Board-office communications as information or coordination, not enforcement overrides. It names no individual case or specific ordinance section establishing those outcomes.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

The whole disagreement and operational reasoning are explicit; described practices lack a specifically identified case record or ordinance citation.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 9
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F6

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Disagrees wholly with the claim that complaints are not taken seriously.

Audit analysis

Pages 10–11 identify complaint routes and HR processes. Clear disagreement is distinct from proof of individual outcomes.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 10–11 identify complaint routes and HR processes. Clear disagreement is distinct from proof of individual outcomes.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 10
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F7

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Accepts that roles and authority were not always clearly understood or consistently applied; disputes that this necessarily created micromanagement.

Audit analysis

Page 11 identifies the accepted role-clarity problem and rejected micromanagement inference, then describes clarification and leadership contact since January 2025. These are agency explanations, not an independent workplace finding.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The accepted ambiguity and disputed micromanagement conclusion are explicit, with a named period and operational role/contact practices.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 11
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F8

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.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partly agrees on leadership continuity concerns.

Audit analysis

Page 12 accepts the historical effect of director turnover but rejects the claim that leadership remains missing under the current Director appointed in January 2025. Historical disruption and claimed current improvement are separated.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The response clearly separates accepted historical disruption from disputed current conditions and identifies January 2025 leadership and specific improvement practices.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 12
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F9

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

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partly agrees on communication improvements.

Audit analysis

The Board accepts that practices can be more consistent while describing existing written direction and communication channels.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The Board accepts that practices can be more consistent while describing existing written direction and communication channels.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 16Response page 12
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims implementation through existing C-25/C-27 requirements and complaint processes.

Audit analysis

The response identifies policy duties and complaint handling as existing measures. No independent case-level compliance check was performed.

Report page 17Response page 13

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will update the manual by January 31, 2027.

Audit analysis

The answer gives a future documentation commitment rather than treating missing manual material as already corrected.

Extracted commitments

Update the Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual with the described policy and complaint-process information.

Responsible party
Code Enforcement management
Timing
2027-01-31 · Exact date
Report page 17Response page 14

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims required FMLA and supervisory training is implemented; will continue monitoring completion and newly appointed managers.

Audit analysis

Physical page 14 describes existing County-required training and HR consultation. It supplies no separate certification record or December completion promise. The report’s December 31 recommendation date is not an agency commitment; training completion is not independently verified.

Extracted commitments

Continue monitoring required manager and supervisor training and ensure newly appointed managers complete applicable County training.

Responsible party
TLMA and Code Enforcement
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 17Response page 14

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims implementation through a qualified, varied panel-selection process.

Audit analysis

The response explains existing safeguards and personnel selection. It does not independently prove every panel is neutral.

Report page 17Response page 15

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims implementation through uniform policy requirements and communication records.

Audit analysis

Pages 15–16 describe enforcement standards and documentation duties; implementation is not independently verified.

Report page 17Response page 15

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Plans to use available department survey results, or seek a supplemental anonymous tool if usable results are unavailable.

Audit analysis

Page 16 labels the recommendation future implementation but gives no completion timetable or explicit annual frequency. The jury’s June 30, 2027 date is not repeated as an agency commitment. Conditional supplemental feedback and periodic County surveys are not proof of the requested annual departmental survey.

Extracted commitments

Use available department-level engagement results to identify action steps; if usable results are unavailable, work with the Executive Office on a supplemental anonymous feedback tool.

Responsible party
TLMA and Code Enforcement
Timing
Supplemental tool is conditional on usable department-level results being unavailable; no completion date or annual cadence supplied. · Conditional timing
Report page 17Response page 16

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims director office visits and staff engagement are implemented.

Audit analysis

The answer describes management contact and schedule practices. No independent visit or attendance audit is implied.

Report page 18Response page 16

recommendation · BOARD-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

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims written direction and schedule information are implemented.

Audit analysis

The response identifies existing communications, not proof that every directive is consistently documented across all offices.

Report page 18Response page 17