Grand Jury Reports Zero In On Sheriff Oversight

Earlier this year, the Riverside County Grand Jury released a report that found there was a “perception of influence” after a motion failed for lack of a second at a meeting last July.

It was the first of three reports published this year centered on oversight of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office (RSO), both internal and external.

As part of that report, the grand jury found there was an appearance of undue influence since a decision on the item would have had “a direct and measurable impact on a labor union that made large campaign contributions to several members of the board.”

While the grand jury report did not specify the item, or the union, the only motion that failed for lack of a second at that meeting was one made by Supervisor Jose Medina to create an ad hoc committee to consider the establishment of a Sheriff’s Department Oversight Committee and Office of Inspector General. 

And, according to campaign finance reports filed with the California Secretary of State, the Riverside Sheriff’s Association (RSA) Public Education Fund, the union’s political action committee (PAC), has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of supervisorial campaigns since Ordinance 963 went into effect January 1, 2021.

That includes $40,000 in support of Supervisor Karen Spiegel, $78,500 in support of Supervisor V. Manuel Perez, $141,693 in support of Supervisor Yxstian Gutierrez and $182,672.74 in support of Supervisor Chuck Washington.

The PAC also spent $307,697.09 in support of former State Sen. Richard Roth’s failed 2024 bid for the District 1 seat won by Medina, whose campaign has received $500 in contributions from the PAC.

In order to address the concerns raised in the report, the grand jury recommended the county eliminate the exception in Ordinance 963 allowing unlimited campaign contributions from single contributors under certain circumstances, establish reasonable and mandatory limits on campaign contributions by single contributors, explain the rationale for the county’s current $20,000 limit if kept, adopt a policy requiring supervisors to disclose campaign contributions from large individual donors when that donor might have a vested interest in a vote and amend county policy to require any campaign limit or contribution changes to go before the voters.

The county, in its response to the report, said it would not be implementing any of the recommendations put forth by the grand jury, stating that they were “not warranted and unreasonable.”

According to the county, the provision that allows unlimited contributions by a single party was deliberately included in an attempt to level the playing field when one candidate has an outsized financial advantage due to their personal financial circumstances, independent expenditures or intra-candidate transfers. 

The county further said the $20,000 threshold was set due to the concern that a lower limit would drive campaign spending from candidate-controlled committees to independent expenditures, which often have less transparency.

When it came to additional disclosure of campaign finances, the county said the recommendation would require supervisors to make “realtime, vote-by-vote determinations,” even where no legal conflict or disqualification exists.

“It’s important to note that board members and candidates for board offices transparently disclose campaign contributions and expenditures, as required by law,” the county said in response to follow-up questions from The Riverside Record.

As for allowing voters to have a say in campaign limit and contribution changes, the county said the recommendation could cause a delay in legally necessary or technical amendments, create additional election costs and reduce the county’s ability to respond to changes in state law, guidance from the California Fair Political Practices Commission, judicial decisions or administrative experience.

The grand jury also recommended the county adopt language that more strongly states that supervisor meetings will be run in accordance with Robert’s Rule of Order and ensure that the meetings were prioritized over other obligations of the supervisors.

These recommendations were made in response to two actions — the moving of the item to the end of the meeting by Supervisor V. Manuel Perez without a vote and the early departure of Supervisor Yxstian Gutierrez — during that July 29 meeting.

The county also called those two recommendations “not warranted and unreasonable,” stating that meetings were “governed by applicable law, adopted Board policies and the practical need to manage a public agenda efficiently,” stating that the board chair has discretion when it comes to the order and flow of agenda items.

The county further noted that putting a new policy in place requiring supervisors to defer attendance at conflicting meetings would be “difficult to administer,” and “could impair the county’s representation” on regional, state and local bodies on which they sit.

A subsequent report, publicly released last month, found that the sheriff’s office was not compliant with countywide requirements for handling complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. 

Specifically, the grand jury found that the sheriff’s office was not reporting complaints, investigations or outcomes to the county’s human resources department as required by Policy C-25.

The grand jury, which also looked at the Riverside County Probation Department and the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, found that of the three public safety agencies, RSO was responsible for the bulk of settlement payouts related to C-25 harassment, discrimination and retaliation claims.

“All other county departments combined (41 departments), between 2016 and 2025 have paid about $10,000,000 in settlements from C-25 complaints,” the report said. “The Probation Department has settled claims totaling $191,234, the District Attorney’s Office has $1,552,354, and the Sheriff’s Department has $16,343,578 in settled claims.”

Earlier this year, a jury awarded $2.25 million to a former sergeant who said he was forced out of the department in retaliation for reporting workplace harassment, in circumstances similar to an investigation referenced by the grand jury in its report.

The grand jury recommended the county take steps to ensure the policy was being enforced as written, including conducting a comprehensive audit to ensure public safety agencies were in compliance. Responses to this report are not due until late August.

“The lack of consistent investigative standards, insufficient oversight of public safety agency compliance and the routine dismissal of complaints without adequate inquiry undermine the policy’s intent and contribute to employee perceptions that reporting discrimination or harassment is ineffective,” the grand jury wrote. “These findings underscore the need for immediate corrective action to ensure C-25 complaints are handled in a manner that is fair, thorough, and consistent with county policy.”

The final grand jury report focused on the sheriff’s office, published this month, found the lack of independent review by a citizen oversight committee had prevented the “full identification of root causes and corrective action,” when it came to the number of in-custody deaths in Riverside County jails.

“The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury’s investigation reveals systemic deficiencies in the oversight, transparency, and operational practices of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office and its jail system,” the report said. “Despite years of public concern, repeated findings from prior grand jury reports, and ongoing scrutiny related to in-custody deaths and internal investigative practices, the county has not implemented the structural reforms necessary to ensure safe, accountable and constitutionally compliant jail operations.”

As part of the report, the grand jury recommended the establishment of an independent civilian oversight body, the retention of an independent correctional health and custodial operations expert for the sheriff’s department, the creation of a publicly accessible quarterly reporting dashboard, the publication of a five-year strategic plan for jail operations, the adoption of a countywide oversight and accountability framework and National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement’s best-practice standards and the implementation of independent oversight of all RSO operations within 18 months.

The grand jury also recommended the dissolution of the current Sheriff’s Advisory Committee within a year and the independent review of all in-custody deaths and critical incidents within 18 months of the creation of an independent oversight committee.

The sheriff’s office was given 60 days to respond to the report with the county given 90 days.

In response to questions from The Riverside Record regarding the three reports, Sheriff Chad Bianco said the grand jury had “severely damaged its reputation as a fact-finding entity for all future reports,” with its most recent report.

He said his office would provide its response as soon as possible, but would not be implementing any of the recommendations concerning increased oversight.

“This current report is worth absolutely nothing and has tarnished the reputation of all previous Grand Jury reports,” he said. “They should be embarrassed.”