<b>Tuolumne County Officials dated June 20, 2025</b>*

interview space to allow the Grand Jury to conduct confidential investigations and meet in secrecy as required. F-1 Response: The County disagrees that it is a fact that the County failed to provide adequate office, meeting, and interview space. Most Tuolumne County departments struggle to find adequate space for staff and larger meetings. The Grand Jury had a dedicated office and two dedicated interview rooms. Like many county staff, they had to share large meeting rooms. County staff made every possible effort to accommodate the Grand Jury's need for meeting space. Throughout the year, County staff reached out to several other counties, learning some have dedicated space provided by the county, some have space provided by the courts, and some don't have dedicated space and accommodate the Grand Jury as needed. This next year, the Grand Jury will have a dedicated conference room, office, and two interview rooms. They will also have more flexibility in scheduling larger conference rooms as needed. It is a fact that Tuolumne County has failed to address the treatment of the Grand Jury as

identified in the 2022-2023 and the 2023-2024 Grand Juries' Cover Letters which has caused delays, sometimes fatal, for investigations by the Tuolumne County Grand Jury. F-2 Response: The County disagrees with this finding. TREATMENT OF THE CIVIL GRAND JURY BY OFFICIALS - GRAND JURY RESPONSE | 6 It is a fact that Tuolumne County uses a poor Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system

that does not maintain historical information for employee positions and payments which has caused the inability of the County and Grand Jury from investigating potential issues with employment. F-3 Response: <u>The County partially agrees with this finding</u>. Tuolumne County acknowledges technical and operational issues with the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system that was implemented several years ago. The County has budgeted for a Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) solution to address the issue of tracking employee information. It is a fact that Tuolumne County currently uses an unworkable agreement with Calaveras

County but has no adequate way to provide independent counsel for the Grand Jury when the Grand Jury is investigating any one of the many departments represented by County Counsel which has caused fatal delays in obtaining information from the County. F-4 Response: The County disagrees with this finding. The Tuolumne County Counsel is one of the legal advisors for the Grand Jury by statute, as is the District Attorney. The Calaveras County Counsel may serve as a legal advisor based on a memorandum of understanding between the two counties since 2019. Had this Grand Jury requested information about alternative legal counsel, it would have been informed that in such cases which all counsel are conflicted, the Penal Code provides the court may appoint private counsel to represent the Grand Jury. However, the Grand Jury did not seek any assistance from the Tuolumne County Counsel's Office as to the matter, and they were appropriately represented by the Assistant District Attorney, per the Penal Code. Further, the Grand Jury suggested a friendship between the Tuolumne and Calaveras County Counsels influenced the Calaveras Office's decision to decline further representation of the Grand Jury. The report does not connect this serious implication to a factual finding or recommendation, nor did the Grand Jury interview the subjects of this investigation related to this matter, as is required by law. The information gathered from Calaveras was that it did not have the bandwidth to handle litigation on the Grand Jury's behalf, once it became aware that Tuolumne would file a motion to quash 17 subpoenas. The MOU is discretionary and does not mandate either Office to accept representation, nor does it address handling litigation on the Grand Jury's behalf. This is because litigation is time-consuming and resource-intensive. The decision by Calaveras was not based on anything other than workload issues and an inability to handle litigation, but this did not harm the Grand Jury because they used one of their statutory legal advisors, the district attorney, to represent their interests. Because the Grand Jury's report takes the unusual step of identifying the county staff member subject to the investigation, the Tuolumne County Counsel, and the Grand Jury failed to meet with the County Counsel as the subject of this particular investigation topic, the county is concerned the Grand Jury failed to comply with Penal Code §933.05(e) requiring the Grand Jury meet with the subjects of its investigations absent court determination that doing so would be detrimental. The county remains open to provide any information helpful in resolving questions about conflicts or other issues with legal representation. It is a fact that several current and former members of the Tuolumne County Board of

Supervisors either has an incomplete understanding of what the Grand Jury does or takes a dismissive attitude toward the work of the Grand Jury which causes morale problems for some Tuolumne County employees. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. There is insufficient F-5 Response: TREATMENT OF THE CIVIL GRAND JURY BY OFFICIALS - GRAND JURY RESPONSE | 6 evidence in the report to support the finding.

In the <u>Differential Treatment and Hiring Practices in Tuolumne County Government</u> report issued on April 30, 2025, your 2024-2025 Grand Jury described retribution tactics and rumors being used to disparage employees and that behavior seems to exist regarding criticizing the integrity of members of the Grand Jury. It is a fact that those same tactics are still present in Senior Tuolumne County government even after the departure of the recent CAO in January 2025 and after the publication of the April 30, 2025, report. This is a condemnation on the credibility of all Grand Jury reports and continues the morale problems by Tuolumne County employees. F-6 Response: The Board disagrees with this finding in that there is insufficient evidence in the report for the Board to agree or disagree. The Grand Jury asserts continuing retribution tactics and rumors by "high levels of Tuolumne County" regarding criticizing the integrity of members of the Grand Jury, referring back to the report section entitled "Criticisms regarding the integrity of individual Grand Jurors". This section of the report describes an accusation of bias of Grand Jurors, Clint Parish and Deb Esque. However, the Grand Jury report did not fully describe the referral of this concern to the Grand Jury or accurately characterize its intended purpose. A Deputy County Counsel representing the County was aware of Ms. Esque's past employment with the County and Mr. Parish's past role a county contracted criminal defense counsel, as well as his participation in public meetings opposing the county administrator's recommendation to bring those Public Defender services in-house. The Deputy County Counsel informed the Assistant District Attorney representing the Grand Jury generally of these past roles. The referral did not include a request that either member be disqualified in any particular investigation, nor was there an accusation of bias in any particular investigation. However, if any facts that may give rise to a conflict, appearance of conflict, or bias, the Office of the County Counsel, as a matter of course in any operation involving the County, refers the matter to the affected staff, official, or their counsel, to consider. Here, the matter was brought to the attention of the Grand Jury's counsel as a courtesy and precaution to ensure the matter was considered and in furtherance of maintaining the integrity and credibility of its investigations and reports. As apparent from the report, the information provided was already known to the Grand Jury and considered. The referrals were, however, interpreted and characterized as an act to impugn the credibility of Grand Jury members and elevated to a report topic without seeking information from the County Counsel's Office. The County disagrees with the Grand Jury's characterization of the referrals and remains available in the future to provide information to assist the Grand Jury. It is a fact that Tuolumne County has failed to provide sufficient written guidance on

reimbursement procedures as well as tools for the Grand Jury Treasury Committee to adequately track reimbursement breakdowns. County Counsel made a point at the May 6, 2025, Board of Supervisor's meeting that the Grand Jury needs more guidance on this topic. This failure has caused the Grand Jury to be unable to understand the budget process and resulted in the 2024-2025 Grand Jury to go over budget. The County partially agrees with this finding. The County acknowledges F-7 Response: challenges with explaining the total budget to the Grand Jury treasury committee and is refining the sharing of the budget with future Grand Juries. It is a fact that although the former CAO no longer works for Tuolumne County, the county

still appears to be under the influence of her 'confidants' who continue to use the same practices of intimidation and Differential Treatment used before she vacated the County. It is a fact that these kinds TREATMENT OF THE CIVIL GRAND JURY BY OFFICIALS - GRAND JURY RESPONSE | 6 of 'confidants' have a negative impact on the morale of Tuolumne County employees. F-8 Response: The Board disagrees with this finding in that there is insufficient evidence in the report for the Board to agree or disagree. The Tuolumne County Ordinance Code Section 2.12.080 states, "the county administrator shall administer the budget and exercise continuous expenditure control...[H]e/she shall supervise expenditures of all county offices, departments and institutions, including those departments in which the department head is an elected or appointed officer." The Tuolumne County Administrator's Office divides expenditure control responsibilities of the county's budget between the Deputy County Administrator and the Acting/Assistant County Administrator. As noted in the report, the Acting County Administrator is currently the County's liaison to the Grand Jury, which includes exercising the "continuous expenditure control" of the Grand Jury's budget and expenditures. Also, as noted in the report, the Acting County Administrator met with the Grand Jury regularly and was exercising that necessary expenditure control. Furthermore, regular communication was taking place between the Acting County Administrator and the Deputy County Administrator regarding the Grand Jury's budget and expenditures to ensure any needed budget adjustments would be brought to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The statements referenced in the Grand Jury report from county staff on the May 6th Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the Grand Jury's budget are consistent with the same standards all county departments are held to, and the Grand Jury was not unfairly or specifically targeted.