Understanding the 2025-2026 Grand Jury Reports
Governance Practices Impacting Public Trust
Findings #1 and Recommendations are explained in this week’s newsletter. Findings #2-#6 will follow in later issues of Engage Tuolumne. [Note: The entire report can be found here.]
Findings & Recommendations
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed official documents, correspondence, and public records to develop these findings and recommendations. The goal is to help the County improve its administrative oversight, boost public trust, and create more consistent permitting, enforcement, and teamwork across agencies.
Ethical Behavior
Finding 1: On May 5, 2025, Supervisor Holland participated in a debate and vote regarding mobile home park fees, despite having a conflict of interest on that item because he had a direct personal financial interest in the matter. Such a violation undermines public confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process.
Response to Finding 1: The County PARTIALLY AGREES and PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 1.
The County PARTIALLY AGREES with Finding No. 1. The County agrees that on May 5, 2025, Supervisor Holland participated in a debate and vote regarding mobile home park fees.
The County PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding No. 1. Except as stated above, the County disagrees with every other assertion in the finding. What the Grand Jury has not reported is that the matter was taken up again at the board meeting of May 20, 2025. Supervisor Holland did not participate (left the dais), and the matter was further debated, and a vote was taken without the presence of Supervisor Holland. The Board unanimously approved the item at that time.
The County does not concede that Supervisor Holland had a disqualifying financial interest in the mobile home park fee matter on May 5, 2025. The County does not concede that his participation in the debate and vote violated the Political Reform Act or any other California law. The County does not concede that any harm to public confidence resulted from his participation.
The County acknowledges only the undisputed fact: that on May 5, 2025, Supervisor Holland participated in a debate and vote regarding mobile home park fees. Whether that participation was lawful, whether a disqualifying interest existed, and whether any violation occurred are legal questions that the civil grand jury lacks authority to resolve. Those questions remain open unless and until a legally authorized adjudicator—the FPPC, a court, or another competent tribunal—determines otherwise following a proceeding that affords Supervisor Holland the procedural protections to which he is entitled under California law.
The investigative and oversight powers of the Grand Jury do not include the authority to adjudicate whether a public official violated conflict-of-interest law, to determine as a matter of law that a disqualifying financial interest existed, or to declare that a legal violation occurred. The civil grand jury is not a court. It is not an administrative tribunal with adjudicatory authority over conflict-of-interest disputes. It is not the Fair Political Practices Commission. It cannot issue binding legal conclusions about whether the elements of a statutory violation have been satisfied.
The finding further asserts that the alleged violation “undermines public confidence in the integrity of the decision-making process. ” That statement is conclusory, unsupported, and prejudicial. It assumes a violation occurred when no legal determination of violation has been made. It asserts harm to public confidence without evidence. It conflates the Grand Jury’s subjective opinion with a finding of fact.
Public confidence in county government is important. The County does not dispute that. But public confidence is not served by unsupported accusations of legal violations, by findings that exceed the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction, or by reports that bypass the due process protections afforded to public officials under California law.
The County respectfully but firmly rejects the Grand Jury’s finding that Supervisor Holland “had a conflict of interest” and committed a “violation.” That finding exceeds the Grand Jury’s statutory jurisdiction, usurps the role of the FPPC and other enforcement authorities, and improperly declares a legal conclusion without the factual analysis, procedural protections, or adjudicatory authority required by California law.
Recommendation 1-1
Publicly elected county officials must complete training on the Political Reform Act of 1974, the Levine Act, Section 109018, and the Fair Political Practices Commission within 90 days of the publication of this report. Additionally, they must retake AB1234 ethics training within 90 days and within 6 months of taking office for any newly elected board members.
Response to Recommendation 1-1. The County WILL NOT IMPLEMENT this recommendation by the arbitrary deadline that has been set by the Grand Jury.
The County respectfully objects to the Grand Jury’s use of mandatory language and any implication that the Grand Jury may direct binding timelines for elected officials’ training. The Separation of Powers does not permit the invasion of the Grand Jury into the Policymaking of the Board. The Grand Jury is a Judicial Body in the Judicial Branch. The Board is a Legislative Body in the Legislative Branch. The use of the word “MUST” by the Grand Jury exhibits either a fundamental misunderstanding of the Grand Jury’s role or an intentional intrusion (“weaponization”) of the Grand Jury for some political purpose.
The recommendation’s directives and timelines exceed the Grand Jury’s advisory role. Training frequency and deadlines for AB 1234 ethics training are governed by statute, specifically Government Code 53234—53235.2, which establish the initial and continuing training requirements. The County will comply with those statutory requirements rather than arbitrary, ad hoc, across-the-board deadlines. Additionally, practical constraints, including course availability, external provider schedules, FPPC program updates, official calendars, and election-cycle onboarding, make a uniform 90-day post-publication deadline infeasible and potentially counterproductive.
Accordingly, because the recommendation directives and timelines exceed the Grand Jury’s advisory role, fails to identify any actual deficiency in the County’s existing practices, imposes unnecessary and significant administrative costs, reflects a policy preference rather than a legal or operational necessity, and the County receives training every six (6) months from the County Counsel’s office on these exact areas of law and ethics, the County declines to implement the recommendation by an ultra-vires mandated deadline.