Understanding the 2025-2026 Grand Jury Reports
Behind the Devastation: Tuolumne County Community Development Department Findings, #10 – #13
[Note: The entire report can be found here. For those Grand Jury recommendations containing a specific deadline, the County’s response includes the following statement: “The Grand Jury has no authority to order and mandate deadlines as that invades the discretionary decision-making of the legislative branch.”]
Findings & Recommendations
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed documentation, correspondence, public records, and other relevant materials supporting the following Findings and Recommendations, which are offered to strengthen administrative oversight, improve public confidence, and enhance consistency in County permitting, enforcement, and inter-agency coordination practices.
Conflict-of-Interest Policy
Finding 10: The Board of Supervisors amended its Governance Manual on June 3, 2025, to include a Conflict-of-Interest provision establishing a mechanism for projects involving potential conflicts of interest to be reviewed by an outside agency when multiple conflict-resolution and review mechanisms already existed. The Grand Jury further found that Supervisor Holland participated in discussions and voting related to the adoption of the Conflict-of-Interest provisions while having an active project that was subsequently subject to the policy. These circumstances created concerns regarding transparency, impartiality, and public trust.
Response to Finding 10: The County PARTIALLY AGREES and PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 10.
The County AGREES that the Board amended its Governance Manual on June 3, 2025, to include a Conflict-of-Interest provision and further that Supervisor Holland participated in discussions and voting on the item.
The County OTHERWISE DISAGREES with the finding. The report’s remaining assertions—that the provision was unnecessary, that existing mechanisms made it redundant, and that the circumstances created concerns regarding transparency, impartiality, and public trust—are argumentative conclusions rather than findings of established misconduct.
Recommendation 10-1.
Within 60 days of this report, the Board of Supervisors should reconsider the June 3, 2025, approval of the Conflict-of-interest Policy due to concerns created by Supervisor Holland’s participation in a vote on a policy that was subsequently applied to his own project.
Response to Recommendation 10-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted.
The County will not reconsider the June 3, 2025 approval of the Conflict-of-Interest Policy merely because the Grand Jury disagrees with the policy or speculates about public concern.
Recommendation 10-2.
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should review and reconsider the Conflict-of-Interest provisions contained within the Governance Manual and evaluate whether existing conflict resolution, appeal, and review mechanisms provide adequate safeguards before retaining, modifying, or rescinding the policy.
Response to Recommendation 10-2. This recommendation will NOT BE IMPLEMENTED.
The County will not reconsider the Conflict-of-Interest provisions in the Governance Manual merely because the Grand Jury disagrees with the policy or speculates about public concern.
Recommendation 10-3.
Utilize existing contracted consultants and escalation procedures to provide verification of impartiality in cases of actual or perceived impropriety where county services affect an official or county leader, within 60 days of this report.
Response to Recommendation 10-3. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as a mandatory directive.
The County retains discretion to use contracted consultants, escalation procedures, or other appropriate mechanisms when warranted, but it will not bind itself to the Grand Jury’s preferred mechanism for every alleged or perceived concern.
Recommendation 10-4.
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should require full disclosure of any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts-of-interest that may reasonably benefit from a proposed governance policy before Board consideration and voting. Following such disclosure, the Board should reconsider and retake any vote involving the Conflict-of-Interest provisions if advised by County Counsel that such action is appropriate. Any officials with a direct conflict-of-interest should recuse themselves from participation consistent with applicable laws and policies.
Response to Recommendation 10-4. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.
The County will continue to address conflicts consistently with applicable law and policy, but the recommendation improperly assumes that a prior vote must be reconsidered based on the Grand Jury’s speculative conflict theory.
Finding 11: Policies and procedures governing the delegation of project review, permitting, and inspection responsibilities to an external agency under the Conflict-of-Interest provisions are not clearly defined. The Grand Jury found limited guidance regarding scope of authority, roles and responsibilities, communication requirements, documentation standards, and oversight of projects transferred outside Tuolumne County. In the case of the work sent to Amador County, the Grand Jury found that the solution to the problem was even more dysfunctional than the problem itself.
Response to Finding 11. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 11.
The report asserts that policies and procedures for external review under Conflict-of-Interest provisions are not clearly defined and characterizes the Amador County solution as “even more dysfunctional than the problem itself.” The County rejects the finding as conclusory, inflammatory, and unsupported by the response record.
The County further objects to the Grand Jury’s attempt to convert policy preferences into directives. A civil grand jury may submit findings and recommendations concerning local government matters, but the statutory response framework confirms that findings and recommendations are not binding commands. Penal Code section 933.05 expressly allows a responding agency to state that a recommendation “will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.” The Board—not the Grand Jury—retains responsibility for deciding whether and how to adopt County policy.
Recommendation 11-1.
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should develop and implement formal procedures establishing minimum requirements for agreements with outside counties or agencies performing project review, permitting, inspection, or related functions under the Conflict-of-Interest provisions.
Response to Recommendation 11-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.
The County may evaluate outside-agency procedures where appropriate, but it will not adopt the Grand Jury’s proposed policy mandate or accept the premise that existing arrangements were dysfunctional.
Finding 12: The Grand Jury found limited transparency and project tracking when responsibility for review, permitting, or inspection is assigned to an external jurisdiction. This creates uncertainty regarding project status, decision-making authority, document retention, and accountability to the public.
Response to Finding 12. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 12.
The report asserts limited transparency and project tracking when responsibility for review, permitting, or inspection is assigned to an external jurisdiction. The County rejects the finding because it overstates the issue and improperly assumes that outside-agency assistance necessarily creates uncertainty, lack of accountability, or deficient recordkeeping.
Recommendation 12.
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should establish a policy requiring any outside jurisdiction performing work on behalf of Tuolumne County to provide regular written status updates and supporting documentation. Tuolumne County should maintain these records within its project tracking systems, including OpenGov or any successor platform, to ensure transparency, accountability, and continuity of oversight.
Response to Recommendation 12. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.
The County will maintain appropriate records for County projects, but it will not adopt the Grand Jury’s preferred tracking policy as a binding requirement for every matter involving outside-agency assistance.
Finding 13: The Grand Jury was unable to identify an active Code Compliance Board within the County’s current Code Compliance framework. Current County materials describe enforcement through the CDD and Chapter 1.10 of the Tuolumne County Ordinance Code but do not reference a functioning Code Compliance Board. The Grand Jury did not determine whether the Board was formally dissolved, whether its duties were reassigned, or when it last met.
Response to Finding 13. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 13.
The report states that the Grand Jury was unable to identify an active Code Compliance Board and did not determine whether the Board was dissolved, reassigned, or when it last met. That admission defeats the finding. An inability to identify information is not proof of a governance deficiency. The County also rejects any suggestion that the Grand Jury may dictate whether an independent local review body should be re-established, activated, or replaced. That is exclusively a County policy decision.
Recommendation 13.
By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should review the status, authority, and purpose of the Code Compliance Board and determine whether an independent local review body should be reestablished, activated, or otherwise replaced to provide an additional layer of public oversight and accountability within the County’s regulatory framework.
Response to Recommendation 13. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted as framed.
The Board will determine the appropriate structure for code-compliance review through its own policy process, not through a Grand Jury directive to re-establish, activate, or replace a particular body.