Executive Office Responds To Grand Jury Report Critical Of Riverside County Code Enforcement

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA — Findings critical of the Riverside County Department of Code Enforcement, including allegations of political influence bearing on field operations and deficient management, were not found to be accurate in some cases, according to an Executive Office report approved by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.

"Residents should receive fair and consistent enforcement," county CEO Jeff Van Wagenen said in an introduction to the EO's response to the 19- member civil Grand Jury report. "We disagree that there have been improper influences on code and workplace retaliation against employees ... Our response identifies changes that have already been implemented."

Subscribe

In June, the grand jury issued a 20-page narrative stemming from an investigation conducted by jurors to ferret out possible failings in the Department of Code Enforcement, connected with how field-level employees are treated, how enforcement is applied and who may be hamstringing it, and what impacts high administrative turnover may have had on operations.

"The overriding problem ... is that the culture of the department is not aligned with its mission," according to the grand jury report. "The attitudes and behaviors of a few individuals seem to have shaped the actions within the department as a whole."

The agency is relatively small, employing fewer than 100 people, among the more than 40 departments within county government. Jurors spoke with roughly two dozen individuals, most of them unionized, on code's payrolls.

"In many cases over the last two years, employees have been subjected to extreme changes in work environment, duties, or assigned work locations without discussion," the jurors stated. "The terms `highway therapy' or `punishment detail' were brought up during interviews."

The grand jury's report went on to document instances in which employees were allegedly rotated among the county's five Department of Code Enforcement offices unnecessarily, were passed over for promotion because of favoritism shown to relatively new hires preferred by an administrator and endured other insufficiencies.

"One example was the hiring of a Transportation & Land Management Agency manager," the report said. "The promotion appears to have been potentially influenced by friendships rather than the required level of qualifying experience."

Jurors said the county's established policies and procedures for considering when and where to award promotions appeared to have been blatantly disregarded.

The panel recommended that, "in order to promote an unbiased and neutral interview (process)," the TLMA, which oversees code, should ensure there is a "rotating pool of supervisory personnel" that votes on promotions following appropriate vetting.

According to the Executive Office, since the jury report, the agency has "implemented a revised interview process to promote objectivity and fairness."

One of the more broadly addressed topics among the jury's findings related to alleged "selective enforcement." Jurors' interviews uncovered alleged instances where code officers were steered away from enforcement actions, directed to "stand down" and "tread lightly" because of political connections or favoritism, mostly in connection with short-term rental properties or locales where tourism is significant.

"Numerous interviewees validated that interference by the Board of Supervisors adversely affected the outcome of code enforcement officers' fair enforcement of the laws and codes that are in place to protect all constituents," the jury report said. "The challenges facing the Department of Code Enforcement reflect broader systemic pressures that arise when economic interests, political influence and public safety intersect."

No supervisors or staff members were mentioned by name. Jurors specifically cited two notorious "party houses" that were apparently exempted from enforcement actions because of high-level interference.

The panel said the county should always make certain enforcement measures are implemented "regardless of political or monetary influences to ensure equal treatment of all residents."

The EO replied that the county already "applies ordinances consistently and impartially."

The jury was especially troubled by the high turnover of directors for the Department of Code Enforcement -- a dozen in the previous 15 years. In one half-year period, due to no chief overseeing operations, the department was "controlled by a subordinate" who wasn't prepared, according to the report.

Jurors said to avoid a "culture of confusion and inconsistent direction," the county must work on appointing directors who will stay the course and provide "strong, consistent leadership."

The Executive Office didn't disagree.

Jurors additionally suggested the Department of Code Enforcement had a history of employees "working in silos," without the ability to contribute ideas or communicate their needs at remote locations. The panel said better communication, both electronically and in person, was needed at the top, and "employees should be made aware of management schedules and availability" to resolve issues.

The EO said that either before or not long after jurors' findings, the Department of Code Enforcement established a "a practice of issuing substantive" details by way of emails and written memoranda. Officials further noted "accessibility, consistency and organizational awareness" are at the forefront of management's concerns.

"I support the grand jury. They do a lot of work and spend a lot of time on matters," board Chair Karen Spiegel said Tuesday. "There must be positive changes. This is a learning curve. This report sheds light on what we need to know and what needs to be looked at."