Understanding the 2025-2026 Grand Jury Reports
Behind the Devastation: Tuolumne County Community Development Department Findings, #16 – #19
[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.”]
High School Road Project
Finding 16: The Conflict-of-Interest provisions contained within the Tuolumne County Governance Manual state, in part, that “A County Board member shall not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has reason to know that he/she has a disqualifying conflict-of-interest.”
The Grand Jury also found that permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities conducted outside the normal jurisdictional structure reduced transparency, complicated oversight responsibilities, and contributed to confusion regarding authority, accountability, and applicable standards.
Response to Finding 16. The County PARTIALLY AGREES and PARTIALLY DISAGREES with Finding 16.
The County AGREES that the Governance Manual contains the quoted conflict-of-interest language identified in the report.
The County OTHERWISE DISAGREES with the finding’s assertion that activities conducted outside the normal jurisdictional structure reduced transparency, complicated oversight, or caused confusion regarding authority, accountability, or standards. The finding again treats speculation and criticism of process as established misconduct.
Recommendation 16-1.
The Grand Jury recommends that Tuolumne County immediately rescind the agreement with Amador County related to permitting review, inspection, and regulatory services associated with the High School Road project, and that all such responsibilities be returned to the jurisdiction of the Tuolumne County Community Development Department and other appropriate County agencies.
Response to Recommendation 16-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted.
The County will not immediately rescind the Amador County agreement based on the Grand Jury’s unsupported conclusions about the High School Road project.
Recommendation 16-2.
In the event the Agreement with Amador County is not rescinded, the County should ensure that all future review, inspection, and enforcement activities related to the project are conducted in accordance with standard County procedures, established regulatory requirements, and normal jurisdictional authority to preserve transparency, consistency, accountability, and public confidence in the permitting process.
Response to Recommendation 16-2. This recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED.
To the extent any outside-agency assistance remains in effect, the County will ensure that future review, inspection, and enforcement activities proceed through appropriate County procedures and established regulatory requirements. Implementation does not constitute agreement that prior activities were deficient.
Finding 17: Supervisor Holland’s actions while serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors, a position entrusted with maintaining the public trust, raises concerns regarding compliance with Tuolumne County governance policies and ethical standards. These actions undermine public confidence in Tuolumne County government.
Response to Finding 17. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 17.
The report asserts that Supervisor Holland’s actions raise concerns regarding governance policies and ethical standards and undermine public confidence. The County rejects the finding. “Concerns” are not findings of wrongdoing, and public-confidence rhetoric cannot substitute for facts establishing a policy or ethics violation. The County will not adopt a public response that treats insinuation as proof.
Recommendation 17-1.
Considering the circumstances described above, by September 1, 2026, the County should evaluate whether appropriate administrative, legal, or corrective measures are warranted, consistent with applicable laws, policies, and procedures.
Response to Recommendation 17-1. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted.
The County will not initiate administrative, legal, or corrective measures based on the Grand Jury’s unsupported concerns regarding Supervisor Holland.
Recommendation 17-2.
By September 1, 2026, the County should establish a plan to strengthen oversight, ethics training, conflict-of-interest safeguards, and documentation requirements for elected officials and County staff to promote transparency, accountability, and public trust in County operations.
Response to Recommendation 17-2. This recommendation HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED on an ongoing basis.
The County will continue to strengthen ethics training, conflict-of-interest safeguards, documentation practices, and related oversight measures for elected officials and staff. This ongoing commitment of the County does not constitute agreement with Finding 17.
County Administrative Officer (CAO)
Finding 18: The Grand Jury identified a clear and recurring lack of understanding by County leadership regarding the complexities of permitting, code compliance, and inspection requirements. A notable example involved the distinction between public and private fire hydrants, including the differing permitting requirements, inspection standards, jurisdictional authority, and installation procedures applicable to each. Such misunderstandings contributed to confusion regarding compliance obligations, oversight responsibilities, and enforcement actions. The absence of sufficient technical familiarity with applicable building, fire, and public works requirements created the potential for inconsistent decision-making and increased risk to both public safety and County liability exposure. Your Grand Jury appreciates that the CAO has been tasked with doing multiple jobs concurrently and is making his best effort to meet expectations. However, the Grand Jury finds that technical, regulatory, permitting, and code compliance determinations should be made only by appropriately qualified and authorized personnel within the applicable departments or by certified subject-matter experts.
Response to Finding 18. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 18.
The report asserts a “clear and recurring lack of understanding” by County leadership regarding permitting, code compliance, inspection requirements, and the distinction between public and private fire hydrants. The County rejects that finding. The assertion is overbroad, unfair, and unsupported by the limited example identified in the report. Disagreement over a technical or procedural issue does not establish a recurring lack of understanding by County leadership, nor does it justify the sweeping criticism directed at the CAO.
Recommendation 18.
The Grand Jury recommends that the CAO immediately discontinue making independent technical or code-compliance determinations and instead defer such matters to qualified County staff, licensed professionals, or other properly authorized experts.
Response to Recommendation 18. This recommendation WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED because it is not warranted.
The County rejects the premise that the CAO has been making improper independent technical or code-compliance determinations. The CAO will continue to coordinate County operations and rely on qualified staff, licensed professionals, and authorized subject-matter experts where appropriate, but the County will not adopt a recommendation premised on an unfounded criticism of County leadership.
Finding 19: The Grand Jury determined that the press release issued by the CAO on October 10, 2025, contained statements that were misleading, inaccurate, or unsupported by available documentation and witness testimony.
Response to Finding 19. The County DISAGREES wholly with Finding 19.
The report asserts misleading and inaccurate statements in the October 10, 2025 press release. The County rejects that finding. The assertion is overbroad, unfair, and unsupported by the limited example identified in the report. Disagreement over a technical or procedural issue does not establish a recurring lack of understanding by County leadership, nor does it justify the surreptitious conclusions of the Grand Jury.
Recommendation 19.
The County Administrative Officer should, by August 1, 2026, issue a revised public statement or corrected press release containing accurate and verified information regarding the permitting status, hydrant classification, County involvement, and approval history associated with the High School Road project. Prior to release, the information should be reviewed for factual accuracy by the appropriate County departments and qualified personnel to ensure that future public communications are complete, accurate, and consistent with the documented record.
Response to Recommendation 19. The County WILL NOT IMPLEMENT Recommendation 19.
The County rejects the premise that the press release asserts misleading and inaccurate statements. The assertion is overbroad, unfair, and unsupported. Disagreement over a technical or procedural issue does not establish inaccuracy in a public statement by County leadership, nor does it justify the surreptitious conclusions of the Grand Jury.