A Public Personal Comment to the Board of Supervisors

Former 2025-26 Civil Grand Juror

October 6, 2026

“On September 22, Supervisor Holland said I did not need to keep escalating the Grand Jury issues, then said he would not discuss it further publicly. I continued because this stopped being just about him. It became about HOW this county chose to respond to its Civil Grand Jury.

The County’s response accused us of ‘intentional weaponization of the Grand Jury for some political purpose,’ questioned whether we violated our oaths, and cited a misdemeanor statute against us. We reject those accusations.

The information regarding Holland’s interview was approved by the statutorily required concurrence of the Grand Jury under Penal Code §§ 916 and 940 and remained in a report that Judge Beyersdorf found compliant with California Grand Jury law under Penal Code § 933(a). If you dispute it, take it up with the court.

Supervisor Holland then helped approve those accusations while voting to reject an independent review of his own High School Road project. Whether that created a legally disqualifying conflict is for the appropriate authorities to decide. FPPC complaints involving him are pending, and he is under review by the Attorney General. Those matters are now elsewhere. These responses still belong to the Board.

Thirteen former jurors signed a statement raising concerns. Six have spoken publicly. The Sheriff and District Attorney have both expressed disappointment that the Grand Jury’s findings were not seriously addressed on their merits. Meanwhile, this county continues to lose experienced employees and institutional knowledge through resignations and early retirements. And a new Grand Jury is serving right now.

The precedent you set matters.

Supervisor Holland says our reports were not ‘100% true’ and that we left things out. Then show us. We are asking you to put your proof on the record.

An accusation is not a rebuttal. And because Supervisor Holland likes to wear his ‘Local GOV’ hat so much, I am taking that phrase back, because his version of ‘Local Gov’ is too damn ugly.

Make Local Gov Hot Again.
Make Local Gov honest.
Where good employees want to stay.
Where we don’t brag about a $10 million budget surplus while County employees are outside fighting for fair wages.
Where citizens can ask hard questions without becoming targets.
Where criticism is answered with facts, not accusations.
And where accountability is not treated as an attack.
That is the Local Gov I want to believe in.

Board of Supervisors—reconsider these responses (to the Grand Jury Findings). And Supervisors Griefer and Kirk, every time you shield Holland from accountability, you make his misconduct part of your own reputation. Decide how much of his tarnished record you still want to make yours!”