Tuolumne County Grand Jury

2024-2025

6 reports

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: It is a factii that Tuolum ne County has failed to provide adequate o ice, meeting, and interview space to allow the Grand Jury to conduct confi dential investigations and meet in secrecy as requirediii.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should assign the CAO to fi nd and provide an adequate and consistent meeting and interview space for future Grand Juries so that they may meet and interview in secrecy. This should be done immediately so the 2025-2026 Grand Jury may use it.
F2: It is a fact that Tuolumne County has failed to address the treatment of the Grand Jury as identifi ed 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should create a policy that encourages the Board and requires all senior Tuolumne County employees to read every part of every Grand Jury Report. The purpose of this is so all Board Members, Department Heads and other senior employees understand the public’s view of Tuolumne County government. This should be done within 180 days. 21
F3: 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should direct County Administration to create/hire/purchase/develop an Enterprise Resource Planning system that keeps track of historical information for employees including positions and payments. This should be done within 365 days.
F4: 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should instruct County Counsel to fi nd an independent attorney to function as counsel for the Grand Jury when a future Grand Jury investigates an agency or department whose attorney is County Counsel. This should be done within 180 days.
F5: 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. 20
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should create a policy that encourages the Members of the Board and requires the Department Heads to familiarize themselves with the role of the Grand Jury. This should be done before September 1, 2025.
F6: In the Di erential Treatm ent and Hiring Practices in Tuolum ne County Governm ent 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should create a policy for disciplining Tuolumne County Employees who use retribution and rumors to disparage other employees as well as the Tuolumne County Grand Jury. This should be done within 180 days.
F7: It is a fact that Tuolum ne County has failed to provide su icient 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.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should require the Tuolumne County Counsel to provide written and in person guidance regarding reimbursement procedures and budget management including procedures for increasing their budget, as necessary. This guidance should be ongoing and monthly, or as requested by the Grand Jury. This should be done within one month of the Grand Jury beginning their term and monthly and as requested by the Grand Jury.
F8: It is a fact that although the former CAO no longer works for Tuolumne County, the county still appears to be under the infl uence of her ‘confi dants’ who continue to use the same practices of intim idation and Di erential Treatm ent used before she vacated the County. It is a fact that these kinds of ‘confi dants’ have a negative impact on the morale of Tuolumne County employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should independently review the employment status of Senior Tuolum ne County em ployees w ho are participating in Di erential Treatm ent as described in the Grand Jury Report Dated April 30, 2025. This should be done on an as needed basis. 22 i There was a report on the Detention Facilities, however since the Grand Jury was only complimentary of those facilities, there were no recommendations. Therefore, there are no responses required. ii We use the term, “It is a fact,” to begin each of these fi ndings because the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors has attempted to interpret our previous fi ndings as opinion and thereby only address what they consider fact. (See BOS meeting June 4, 2025) Penal Code §933.05 does not include the term ‘opinion’ nor does it provide for a responding agency to claim a fi nding is opinion. The code requires the agency to state they either ‘agree,’ ‘disagree wholly’ or ‘disagree partially’ with the fi ndings. If the agency disagrees, they are required to provide an explanation as to why they disagree. Although it is very late in the year for our term, we should note that the fi ndings of all our reports are based on facts, not opinion. We are not permitted to include any fact unless at least two witnesses provided us with the same information. Every fact we provided in every report we submitted to the Court for their approval and publication was supported in the manner prescribed. For the Board of Supervisors to simply claim every portion of the report they disagree with is “opinion,” is the equivalent to calling the Grand Jury a group of liars. In the discussion on June 4, 2025, Supervisor Ryan Campbell stated: I think that's actually. I don't mean to say actually, I think that is a good idea that we. That could possibly serve as direction to sta , that they restrict their responses to what is factual and where it's opinion, we just say that's opinion. Our intention was not to single out Supervisor Campbell as nearly everyone present was participating in the discussion, this is just the most appropriate quote to use here. We hope the Board of Supervisors recants from this plan to label portions of the reports as “opinion.” iii It is the understanding of your Grand Jury that steps have already been taken to address this fi nding and recommendation. 23
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F1: The Board of Supervisors failed to provide sufficient transparency, nor honest and effective communication to staff and the community regarding board decisions, goals, and financial liabilities. This lack of transparency eroded public trust in the Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should develop and implement a comprehensive public information program by January 1, 2026, utilizing both digital and traditional media platforms to proactively communicate the Board's priorities and objectives, with particular emphasis on public safety initiatives and fiscal accountability measures.
F2: The Board of Supervisors failed to comply with the provisions and intent of the Brown Act, further contributing to mistrust of the Board by both the public and county staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should develop and implement formal procedures - no later than January 1, 2026 - authorizing a Public Information Officer or other designated representative to serve as the Board’s official spokesperson under clearly defined circumstances. 18
F3: The Board of Supervisors failed to exercise adequate direction and oversight over the CAO and non-elected Department Heads to ensure proper personnel policies and procedures were followed. This failure fostered a widespread perception among county employees and the public, that favoritism influenced hiring and promotions, and that policies and procedures were implemented inequitably.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Board of Supervisors should strictly and immediately comply with the Brown Act, upholding its provisions with the utmost diligence and adhering to County Counsel’s guidance on compliance.
Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: The Board of Supervisors should immediately and consistently evaluate its Brown Act actions through the lens of public perception, recognizing that even the appearance of impropriety can be as damaging as actual misconduct.
R5: The Board of Supervisors should establish and implement a formal annual performance evaluation process for all non-elected Department Heads and the CAO by January 1, 2026. This process must ensure full compliance with all applicable county personnel policies and procedures.
R6: The Board of Supervisors should modify the existing reporting structure to require the Director of Human Resources and Risk Management to report directly to the Board of Supervisors rather than through the CAO, with this change implemented no later than January 1, 2026.
Findings & Recommendations 16 findings
F1: It is di icult to predict future costs of pension funds due to being linked to the investment market, causing the risk of a short fall from what was earned to what we owe.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should, by November 30, 2025, publish a pension reform update and continue to do so annually.
F2: Tuolumne County, with the assistance of new state laws and good faith bargaining with employees, has made strides towards reducing unfunded liabilities by paying early, which saves $300K on the annual payment due as well as paying an additional $1M on the principal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County should continue annual prepayments to CalPERS to reduce unfunded liabilities.
F3: Periodic comprehensive update reports on pension reform are valuable tools for gauging the progress of reducing the unfunded CalPERS liability, which in turn impacts the budget. ECU
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Board of Supervisors, Senior County Administration and bargaining units should, by June 30, 2026, examine the possibility of providing a 401(k), or similar employer retirement plan in lieu of investing in CalPERS for new employees to reduce future CalPERS liability. ECU:
F4: There has been a signifi cant growth in the ECU classifi cation over the last 5+ years, which has caused a signifi cant fi nancial impact on the County’s budget and CalPERS obligations. 18
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors, starting October 1, 2025, should mandate that an annual report be prepared showing all employees and costs of the ECU classifi cation and, during the year, require clearly delineated qualifi cations and costs of any proposed new hires that may become part of the ECU, prior to their hiring.
F5: Within Tuolumne County Government there is a lack of understanding as to what defi nes ECU classifi cation, causing confusion as to whether employees should be in the ECU classifi cation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Board of Supervisors should, starting October 1, 2025, prepare a long-term solvency plan addressing pensions and general fund shortfalls and address the public with this plan each year through a PowerPoint presentation.
F6: Tuolumne County Government lacks understanding of the fi scal impact an ECU classifi cation has on the County’s budget, thus there is no clear plan to monitor ECU growth.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The Board of Supervisors should, by October 1, 2025, clarify and standardize what the ECU is as to defi nitions, qualifi cations, etc., and place that information in a document that is available to the public.
F7: There is a perception that the ECU classifi cation has been misused thus undermining the integrity of the classifi cation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Board of Supervisors should review all current ECU employees for compliance with the updated ECU defi nitions and qualifi cations by November 1, 2025.
F8: Tuolumne County has not fi led an Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the prior three years (2022, 2023 and 2024), causing the County to have a negative credit rating and to lose opportunities for qualifying for future grants. Deferred Maintenance
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: The Board of Supervisors should, by October 1, 2025, implement stronger oversight of hiring practices and require public reporting on ECU sta ing and costs.
F9: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors and Senior County Administration has not developed a plan to fi nance Deferred Maintenance based on a CIP as mentioned in their FY2022-2023 and FY2024-2025 Strategic Goals, thus not achieving their own goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: The Board of Supervisors, beginning August 1, 2025, should request a monthly report from the Auditor/ Controller’s O ice on the status of all overdue audits including the ACFRs. Deferred Maintenance:
F10: Senior County Administration has not issued an RFP to develop a CIP, thus not providing feedback for actual costs of CIP to the County for budget purposes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: The Board of Supervisors should develop a plan to fi nance Deferred Maintenance by November 30, 2025.
F11: Tuolumne County Ordinance Code, section 2.12 .170, requires that the CAO's o ice maintain an updated CIP in their possession. Currently one does NOT exist, therefore violating the ordinance Code.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: The Board of Supervisors should issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to prospective consultants for a new Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by November 30, 2025. 21
F12: The County has a current “Adopted Budget County Capital Projects” document for the current budget cycle which facilitates budget planning. 19
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: The Board of Supervisors, by May 31, 2026, should choose and award a contract for a consultant to develop a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that is due by November 30, 2026.
F13: The County has a Deferred Maintenance List that is delineated by building and is extensive, but has very little prioritization, no dates or associated costs hence there is no way to properly plan or budget for projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: The Board of Supervisors should, by December 31, 2025, mandate that an alternate in-house version of a CIP be developed and look at using free or low-cost tools and templates available from organizations like Governm ent Finance O icers Association ( GFOA) or the International City County Management Association (ICMA).
F14: The County lacks any sort of comprehensive project tracking document that includes costs ( sta estim ates or contractor bids) , thorough prioritization and dates as to when an issue is noted and due dates for completion. Hence there is no way to properly plan or budget for projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14: The Board of Supervisors should mandate that the CAO ’s o ice m aintain an updated CIP (or alternate version of the document), beginning November 30, 2025, and use it as a tool for limiting liability and budget planning.
F15: The condition of some life-safety equipment in County buildings is potentially inadequate, such as fi re alarms, horn strobes (audible and visual), waterfl ows sensors, and emergency signage thus exposing the County to potential legal and fi nancial liabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15: The Board of Supervisors should mandate that, by May 31, 2026, all County owned and leased buildings be thoroughly reviewed for life/safety inadequacies and that solutions are developed for any inadequacies found.
F16: The County’s building insurance coverage was threatened to be canceled if measures weren't taken to eliminate the causes of previously claimed losses. RECOMMENDATIONS CalPERS:
Related Recommendations (1)
R16: The Board of Supervisors, by Dec 31, 2025, should obtain a report on the state of insurance coverage on all County owned and rented buildings to verify that there are no outstanding coverage concerns by the insurance carrier. REQUIRED RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the following responses are required: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors must respond to Findings F1-F16 and Recommendations R1- R16 within 90 days of receipt of this report. BIBLIOGRAPHY Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (tuolumnecounty.ca.gov/154/Financial-Data) The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors Governance Manual The Budget Act The Tuolumne County Governance Ordinance Employer/Employee Relations Resolution Fair Labor Standards Act Allocated Positions Report for Adopted Report fi scal year 2024 - 2025 Sonoma County Grand Jury Report 2014 - 2015 Shasta County Grand Jury Report 2016 - 2017 County of Plumas Civil Grand Jury Report 2019 - 2020 FY 2022-2023 Tuolumne County Strategic Goals FY 2024-2025 Tuolumne County Strategic Goals Board of Supervisors’ Response to 2011-2012 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury Findings
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Differential Treatment by Senior County Administration 2. Retribution by Superiors for Legitimate Action or Opinions 3. Treatment of the Board of Supervisors by County Employees 4. Misrepresentation of Information to and from the Board of Supervisors 5. Growth of the Executive Confidential Unit 6. Undue Control by Senior County Administration 7. High Performance Organization as a Framework Used by County Management 8. Hiring Irregularities. There has not been a better name for a group to endeavor such a report than Grand Jury, as this was a very grand undertaking. What residents may not know is that there is a type of Grand Jury Investigation called a Carry-Over Investigation. That is when a prior Grand Jury provides information in the form of complaints, documentation or interview notes on a topic that the Grand Jury was not able to adequately investigate or complete a report about. A Grand Jury would not be able to complete and investigate a topic for many reasons; the most common reason would be that each Grand Jury is only empaneled for one year. Whatever does not get fi nished within that timeframe must either be dropped or carried over for the next Grand Jury. Again, the issue that could be carried over could be as simple as a letter to the Grand Jury or as massive as a report that was not completed in time. The major issue with a Carry-Over investigation is that the new Grand Jury must start from scratch and must conclude and publish in one year. If any information was provided, this Grand Jury would have to do the entire investigation again; use of prior witness statements is strictly prohibited. These topics were brought to the 2024-2025 Grand Jury as a carry-over from the 2023-2024 Grand Jury and we would like to thank them for bringing this to our attention. This topic was not brought into the Grand Jury room from any one of the 2024-2025 Grand Jurors. This topic was not a grudge by any of your Grand Jurors. We make this point here and now because throughout our investigation, very senior members at the highest levels of Tuolumne County Government have made comments about this Grand Jury having a grudge against Tuolumne County or some senior employees. Nothing could be further from 1 the truth. Because of the rules your Grand Jury must follow, we are not permitted to list which senior employee made these comments, even though it could prove enlightening. At the beginning of our term each of us jurors had ideas about what we could investigate and what reports we could write. But when faced with the tremendous task outlined in this section, we all dropped every one of those topics because we all knew how important this would be to Tuolumne County residents. BACKGROUND Your Grand Jury received a Carry-Over request, and it was developed into this very wide- ranging report. Here are some of the many types of investigations and reports a Grand Jury can write. 1) Informing Tuolumne County residents about local government agencies that are doing an admirable job. 2) Open an investigation into a topic we received and choose not to write a report. 3) Investigate and write a report stating that we received information from a member of the community, investigated it and reached a conclusion. A conclusion could be that the information was determined to be true, and the community should know about it. Or a conclusion could be that the information was determined to not be true. Another conclusion could be that the information contained some truths and some inaccurate information, and, again, the community should be aware. In the case of this Report your Grand Jury received information from the prior Grand Jury that there was a pervasive feeling that some employees were treated better or worse than others based on cliques. These questions led to sections 1-7 of this report. The conclusion we reached for sections 1-7 was that there was signifi cant evidence that certain employees were part of what several interviewees defi ned as the (cid:145)In Group.(cid:146) We reach no conclusion other than to say the perception on this topic was so pervasive and county-wide and should be addressed. Questionable hiring practices were also alleged. Regarding section 8, it is important to note that it is beyond the scope of a Grand Jury to address if a particular employee was not the best candidate. However, it is within our scope to indicate that there was a pervasive feeling among county employees that individuals with connections were hired. This is both a legitimacy and morale problem. As stated earlier, your Grand Jury has taken steps to prevent the reader from knowing where a specifi c quote came from. This report uses four main types of information: witness statements, documents obtained through a Grand Jury request, public statements, and publicly available documents. Your Grand Jury is permitted only to identify public statements and publicly available documents. The report must protect the witness(cid:146) statements and the information in documents through a Grand Jury request. If future Grand Juries desire to have the level of openness and forthrightness this Grand Jury received, witnesses must feel that they are protected in everything they say. METHODOLOGY Early in its term your Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that hiring and personnel practices in county government were unfair, unprofessional and created morale problems. It was alleged that individuals in senior positions were engaging in questionable behavior that was having a detrim ental e ect on governm ent function and overall cohesion within county government. Once your Grand Jury became aware of the allegations, a committee was formed to investigate the credibility of these claims. To obtain the evidence needed to produce this report, your Grand Jury interviewed over 50 current and former Tuolumne County employees. In all, over 100 hours of interviews were conducted to obtain fi rst-hand accounts regarding the claims made in the complaint. An incalculable number of hours were spent organizing and understanding the information obtained by your Grand Jury. In addition to interviews, your Grand Jury used the subpoena process available to it to compel Tuolumne County to provide documents the County was not willing to produce without subpoena. Finally, your Grand Jury made use of publicly available information. The interviews ranged from line-level employees to both current and former department heads, to current and former members of the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors. These interviews were conducted in confi dence, meaning that this report does not provide the names of those interviewed and your Grand Jury has done everything possible to eliminate any ability of the public from being able to identify who provided information. Otherwise, the usefulness of future Grand Juries would be in jeopardy. Likewise, the information produced via subpoena has been used, but not identifi able. However, the information obtained from publicly available documents may be cited. Finally, the bulk of this report is based on the testimony of county employees. The events communicated to your Grand Jury are accounts of these individuals. This report includes only the allegations that are supported by a preponderance of evidence and provided by at least two sources. Largely the preponderance of evidence standard is supported by a substantial number of individuals conveying similar views. DISCUSSION 1. D i erential Treatm ent by the Senior County Adm inistration The fi rst section of your Grand Jury(cid:146)s carry-over report addresses the pervasive feeling by county employees that the Senior County Administration treated employees, department heads and supervisors di erently. D uring your Grand Jury investigation on this topic, there were many witnesses to this pervasive feeling. The widespread feeling that some department heads were in an inner circle, while others were on the outside; those on the inside were able to meet more frequently and on shorter notice with the Senior County Administration employees. Additionally, those on the outside felt that the inner circle received preferential treatment when needing county approval. The better treatment appeared to exist in most facets of county employment. When confronted by these allegations those interviewed by your Grand Jury justifi ed their actions by claiming they acted in the name of (cid:147)team building,(cid:148) which rang hollow to those who have been subjected to this kind of class system. While your Grand Jury conducted many interviews and decided to write this report. We give a note of caution to the residents of Tuolumne County: your Grand Jury is not making a blanket statement that all of the allegations made by every witness are true; it is reporting that there is such a pervasive belief that so much of this information is true, that the morale of County em ployees is su ering and the Board of Supervisors should look into this all- encompassing problem for the sake of better governance. D i erent witnesses used di erent language to describe this situation. Several witnesses used the term (cid:147)like mean girls from high school(cid:148) to describe those on the inside. Others used the terms, (cid:147)confi dants,(cid:148) while others described (cid:147)good old boys club versus the not good old boy club,(cid:148) still others used the term, (cid:147)playing favorites.(cid:148) Regardless of the language used by the witnesses, they were all describing the same pattern of behavior: if you had friends in high places in Senior County Administration, you received better treatment and you did not have to face the backlash or retaliation given to those who were outside looking in. Now that your Grand Jury had a complaint, it next looked at why one particular employee would receive those benefi ts. The most common language used by witnesses was that if an employee was (cid:147)friends(cid:148) with those in high places in Senior County Administration, that employee would get the benefi ts of friendship. While your Grand Jury encourages our government to be friendly with each other, when it becomes polarizing to others, this type of friendship is counterproductive to good governance. If it were just a clique of friendship within Tuolumne County Government, that could be enough to create low morale. However, the benefi ts of friendship were far and wide. If you were a Department Head and there were issues with the quality of work in your department or if there were concerns from the Board of Supervisors or citizens during Board of Supervisors(cid:146) meetings, that friendship could protect you from fallout. If you were one of the (cid:147)mean girls(cid:146) and your position was up for a pay increase before the Board of Supervisors, that vote could be done on the consent calendar. Although these actions could be, and were, characterized by some as a time saving measure, using the consent calendar prevents the issues from being fully debated before the public. These pay increases for a (cid:147)friend(cid:148) could be tens of thousands of dollars along with double that in total compensation increases, and they were never debated. There were several comments from witnesses that questioned if the pay increases were approved on the consent calendar to keep them out of the public eye, or to hide them from the Board of Supervisors. Your Grand Jury does not seek to answer those questions, in an e ort to avoid turmoil for County employees. Other perceived benefi ts of being (cid:147)on the inside(cid:148) included the ability to get meeting time with Senior County Administration. The perception by many witnesses was that there was always time for (cid:145)friends(cid:146) to get meetings with Senior County Administration, while those (cid:147)on the outside(cid:148) sent multiple emails, made multiple phone calls, had to jump through (cid:147)multiple hoops(cid:148) and could not get fi ve minutes to discuss issues in their departments. Lack of meeting time was not the only issue if you were not a (cid:147)confi dant.(cid:148) Avoiding a Department Head is bad enough, but the many varieties of backlash from Senior County Adm inistration enforced the adage that the best defense is a good o ense. Senior County Administration used fear and retaliation toward employees, not just to lower-level employees, but those at the D epartm ent H ead level su ered from this abuse as well. Multiple witnesses informed your Grand Jury that Senior County Administration made disparaging comments about the (cid:147)sub-par(cid:148) work done by a few senior department employees. Through other interviews, we learned that those being disparaged were not in the (cid:147)inner circle(cid:148). Through further interviews, we also learned that the disparaging comments were false. Specifi cally, the level of work being done by those senior department 5 employees was evaluated as (cid:147)exceedingly professional(cid:148) by peers and supervisors, not as characterized by the Senior County Administration. Even elected county employees faced backlash. Multiple department heads, including several elected department heads indicated they felt Senior County Administration would go (cid:147)behind my back(cid:148) to Board Members and the Department Head would not have an opportunity to state their case. While an appointed department head would have to worry about losing their job if they found themselves on the outs; both the appointed and elected department heads had to worry about getting funding for their departments, getting the ability to hire new employees, and being undercut before the Board of Supervisors. Other benefi ts to being on the (cid:147)inside(cid:148) came when new positions were created or fi lled when vacant. Your Grand Jury learned that there are multiple ways to fi ll a vacancy in Tuolumne County. Most of your Grand Jurors believed that job notices were made public, a reasonable amount of time was given, the County took in applications from all candidates regardless of where they lived or worked. Human Resources whittled down to a few very qualifi ed candidates and those qualifi ed candidates were interviewed. What your Grand Jury learned is that many vacancies were only (cid:145)fl own internally(cid:146) which means that if you were not already a Tuolumne County employee, you could not even apply for the job. We also learned that even with Department Head level positions, some vacancies were only made public for fi ve days. This seems to only benefi t those who knew the job was about to be posted. Both internally fl own and short time limits gave the impression to many Tuolumne County employees that the decision on whom to hire was made before the job was announced. Your Grand Jury feels it is important to note that these were not solo or isolated events, they were prevalent. Tuolumne County faced two major issues on how to spend some money in recent years. The two projects subject to the backlash discussed in this portion of the report were the homeless project in Columbia and the condition of the dispatch center. Both of these projects were brought forward in Tuolumne County Board of Supervisor meetings. The homeless project was an attempt to house homeless people in a hotel near Columbia Elementary School. This project was supported by the Senior County Administration and the Homeless Coordination Department. The citizens of Columbia, especially those with students in that school, were very much against such a project. When multiple Tuolumne County employees spoke out publicly and privately against this project, they were harassed. This backlash was toward low- and high-level employees. This was not a case where each employee was entitled to their own opinion; it was a situation where (cid:145)how dare you take sides against me(cid:146) was stated. That kind of reaction created not only fear for one(cid:146)s job, but also as a warning to never speak against the Senior County Administration. The subject of the dispatch center was also the focus of multiple Board meetings. It has been publicly stated that Tuolumne County has a dispatch center that is in poor and unsafe condition. The recruitment of well-trained dispatchers is challenging. Statements made publicly by Tuolumne County employees, including Department Heads, Assistant Department Heads, and those from non-law enforcement sectors, all agreed to the need for improvement. Those statements supporting funding for the dispatch center were used as justifi cation for backlash by those opposed to spending money to improve conditions. Again, this was not a congenial disagreement, it was Senior County Administration lashing out using language to intimidate employees from disagreeing. Your Grand Jury interviews uncovered the use of reclassifi cation to benefi t the (cid:147)in crowd(cid:148) while not a orded to others or delayed in the bureaucratic bog. Reclassifi cation is when an employee is doing work that is beyond the scope and job description for their current classifi cation. It is not uncommon in county government for employees to be doing actual work that is beyond the scope of their job description. However, when the work beyond the scope exceeds the work being done within the scope, a reclassifi cation may be in order. Unfortunately, this report cannot give specifi c examples without violating privacy and confi dentiality concerns. According to very highly placed current and former employees, this process should only take a few months to complete. If there is an existing classifi cation, it could be even briefer. If the new classifi cation needs to be created, it might take a few months. However, when your Grand Jury investigated this topic, the kind of in-crowd vs. out-crowd discussed above was prevalent. When a (cid:147)friend(cid:148) wanted a reclassifi cation, it was done with a take-home pay increase of more than tens of thousands of dollars, and a total compensation increase of over $50,000. The process only took a few months. When someone from an agency that was not one of the (cid:145)friends(cid:146) wanted a reclassifi cation, there were multiple meetings, multiple versions, multiple drafts, and multiples of time needed. Those in charge of reclassifications were quick to point out the di iculties in such work. H owever, those di iculties did not seem to hinder reclassifications for ‘ friends.’ 2. Retribution by Superiors for Legitimate Action or Opinions Due to the organizational structure of Tuolumne County government, communication from non-elected county departments to the Board of Supervisors, other departments, or individuals is directed mainly through Senior County Administration. Likewise, any communication and direction from the Board of Supervisors to county departments is either done from the Board meetings or preferentially directed through Senior County 7 Administration. The same Senior County Administration currently provides oversight to all county departments run by non-elected officials with the exception of the County Counsel(cid:146)s department. This sets up a situation where many county employees, particularly Department Heads, report to Senior County Administration. This has created an environment where the Senior County Administration has hindered Department heads from performing their official duties and impeding these individuals from expressing views that may be counter to Senior County Administration. In fact, your Grand Jury interviews show that many county employees were not able to function autonomously without fear of retribution. A situation was created where a single person is responsible for gatekeeping large amounts of communication and decision making in County Government. Examples that your Grand Jury learned about included fear of retribution or some form of punishment. During interviews a theme emerged that spoke to the consolidation of authority and the discouragement of dissent. Public o icials repeatedly relayed accounts of retaliation to individuals who stepped out of line. Organizational problems also existed. Due to this issue, there was no protection to the Whistle Blower from retaliation if not a member of the, (cid:147)In Group(cid:148). However, if you were one of the (cid:147)In Group(cid:148) a more intensive evaluation of the issue was conducted. As an example, hiring irregularities have been documented elsewhere in this report. The ability of individuals to express an opinion and be heard regarding this practice was minimal. Individuals tasked with ensuring ethical conduct in hiring had their opinion disregarded by Senior County Administration. Your Grand Jury heard testimony from multiple individuals tasked with ensuring fairness in hiring and from employees who resigned. The stated reason for leaving was due to the Senior County Administration ignoring complaints of favoritism and questionable management practices. The conclusion of this is that the Senior County Adm inistration o ice has had control over which concerns or complaints would be addressed.
Page 2
F3: Treatment of the Board of Supervisors by County Employees Regardless of whether members of County Administration disagree with board members or not, showing disrespect towards Board Members and the districts that members represent is inappropriate. After multiple hours of interviews your Grand Jury concluded that there was a major confl ict between Senior County Administration and at least one Board Member. Your Grand Jury soon realized Senior County Administration would call out one or more Members and treat them di erently than other Board M em bers. For exam ple, when a 8 Department Head which was part of the (cid:147)inner circle(cid:148) came to Senior County Administration complaining that a Board of Supervisor member was creating a hostile work environment. The Senior County Administration hired an outside special investigator at $70,000. After many hours of review, the outside investigator concluded there was no hostile work environment as alleged by the Department Head against the Board Member. Senior County Administration characterized some Members of the Board of Supervisors as being (cid:147)immature(cid:148) and inexperienced with unrealistic expectations. Senior County Administration rebuked the Member in non-public meetings. Those same employees claimed that the supervisors turned meetings into a "debating club." According to witnesses, this created frustration for many other county employees and created a dysfunctional workplace. The unequal treatment of the Board of Supervisors caused confl ict among the Board as well as in the Senior County Administration. Several witnesses claimed that some Members of the Board of Supervisors showed blanket trust in Senior County Administration; according to some witnesses this was enough to abdicate their responsibility to make decisions that could have fallen into the Board(cid:146)s purview. Senior County Administration, by disparaging one or more Members of the Board of Supervisors directly encouraged rumors and gossiping. This behavior created an environment that undermined the authority of the Board of Supervisors. Such action is an impediment to good governance.
Page 9
F4: Misrepresentation of Information Coming to and From the Board of Supervisors Over the course of its investigation your Grand Jury learned of repeated instances of misrepresentation of information by Senior County Administration. The misrepresentation was regarding information going through Senior County Administration to the Board of Supervisors from Department Heads and of information going through Senior County Administration to Department Heads from the Board of Supervisors. This represents a communication failure in several directions. One can appreciate that the presence of this type of situation is neither healthy nor e icient for an organization and m ay very well have been intentional to control the narrative. During individual interviews many county employees provided examples of misinformation being provided to the Board of Supervisors by Senior County Administration during publicly held Board of Supervisor meetings. Multiple County employees expressed concern that what was presented to the Board of Supervisors was presented in such a way, that if not aware of the details, it would leave a false impression. The subject matter of this 9 misrepresentation included actual costs of pay raises, grants, funding sources and other information. Frequently, Senior County Administration presented Grant Funded positions as not impacting the General Fund when in fact it did. Grant Funded positions always impact the General Fund as stated by senior o icials. Pay raises, when presented to the Board of Supervisors, did not represent the full cost to the county on multiple occasions. In one instance, a specifi c department received an 8% increase just prior to the approved 5% Cost of Living Adjustment thus creating a two-fold increase for employees in the Senior County Administrations department. This information was not presented to the board. Senior County Administration repeatedly presented information minimizing fi scal impact as opposed to the actual cost to both Budget Team and the Board of Supervisors. In one instance this cost was double what the actual fi nancial burden was reported to be. For example, a particular employee was to get a raise. What was presented to the board was that the total cost would be $21,000, the total cost was actually over $50,000. Individual members of the Board of Supervisors were also misled during day-to-day interactions with Senior County Administration. Members of the Board of Supervisors would frequently be led to believe that Department Heads had one specifi c position. Later they learned that those views were misrepresented to the Board of Supervisors. Your Grand Jury repeatedly heard many reports of Senior County Administration (cid:147)controlling the narrative(cid:148) or similar statements made by county employees. Senior County Administration was repeatedly labeled as a narrative controller. For example, Members of the Board of Supervisors were told by Senior County Administration, (cid:147)boy, the department heads are really angry with you...(cid:148) when this statement was not true. There were also cases where individual members of the Board of Supervisors were given false information regarding the position taken by another Supervisor. A particular Supervisor later learned that a di erent Supervisor shared sim ilar positions on an issue. Senior County Administration would then make contradictory comments such as, (cid:147)a majority is not in support of that,(cid:148) or (cid:147)you’re the only one bringing this to me,(cid:148) when those statements were not true. During individual interviews a multitude of county employees provided examples of misinformation that they believe was being provided as coming from the Board of Supervisors when in fact, the Board had not conveyed this information. Senior County 10 Administration would indicate to Department Heads, and sta , what the Board of Supervisors(cid:146) position was on certain issues, even if this took place during closed sessions, or during one-on-one meetings with Supervisors. The information that was conveyed was often false. It appears Senior County Administration mis-labeled a closed session, after the failure of Measure Z, as (cid:147)Labor Negotiations(cid:148) on the Board of Supervisors Agenda. The following morning a text was sent to Department Heads to attend an impromptu meeting about the previous day(cid:146)s closed session and receive directions from the Board involving (cid:147)Budget(cid:148) not (cid:147)Labor Negotiations.(cid:148) In addition to discussing Budget issues, Senior County Administration stated positions of the Board that were not accurate positions of the Board. Several of those involved also interviewed with your Grand Jury. Those involved were adamant that the closed session was about (cid:147)labor negotiations,(cid:148) but also admitted that the conversations with Department Heads at the impromptu meeting were about budget. To summarize this section, Senior County Administration had a dysfunctional relationship and struggled with at least one Supervisor. Senior County Administration negatively infl uenced Department Heads regarding at least one Supervisor, indicating at least one supervisor was always the outlier. Senior County Administration did not accurately relay information back and forth between the Board of Supervisors and Department Heads and lower-level employees. Additionally Senior County Administration sometimes inaccurately relayed inform ation between di erent Board M em bers.
Page 10
F5: Growth of the Executive Confi dential Unit In accordance with the Executive Confi dential Unit Compensation Plan dated Feb 7, 2017, , 1 (c) defi nes "Confi dential Employee(cid:148) as an employee who could responsibly have access to inform ation that could a ect em ployer (cid:150) employee relations. This designation comes with additional benefi ts for these employees. There are exempt and non-exempt personnel in the Executive Confi dential Unit. Funding Retirement plans and salary rates for this designation are some of the most lucrative for county employees. Your Grand Jury witness statements uncovered a large discrepancy in how various Department Heads viewed and defi ned the Executive Confi dential designation. The criteria used as a determination for being in the unit also varied among Department Heads. Your Grand Jury heard repeated claims that this designation was being used as a means for employees favored by Senior County Administration to receive additional benefi ts. This is clearly not the intended purpose of this designation. Your Grand Jury also heard multiple 11 allegations that many positions that are currently categorized as Executive Confi dential, do not belong in this classifi cation. In addition, your Grand Jury heard testimony that individuals who were handling confi dential information were denied an Executive Confi dential designation with the stated reason being that (cid:147)we(cid:146)re trying to shrink this unit.(cid:148) The totality of the testimony presented to your Grand Jury leads to the conclusion that regardless of whether this designation has been applied in a way that does not serve its intended purpose or not, the perception of bias by many Tuolumne County employees created a poor work environment and low morale. In addition to alleged misuse of the designation, your Grand Jury found a surprising lack of understanding or clarity in current and former members of the Board of Supervisors and Department Heads as to the nature and intended use of this classifi cation.
Page 12
F6: Undue Control by Senior County Administration Documented events, and many interviews support claims that Senior County Administration o icials sought to m icrom anage departm ents and events in a way that caused m orale problems in employees. This micromanagement was not perceived to be the overall good of the county but instead was directed to benefi t Senior County Administration and was far less frequent toward those of the in-crowd. Senior County Administration used di ering approaches to, and provided di ering levels of assistance to, Department Heads. Evidence obtained by your Grand Jury suggests a lack of consistency in how departments were supported. Some departments appeared to have more leeway for discretion than other departments, which raises concerns about fairness and transparency in county leadership as addressed in Section 1 of this report. Several incidents illustrate a breakdown in communication. As an example, during a Board retreat focused on strategic planning, a Department Head sparked a negative reaction, and a public berating from the Senior County Administration. The cause of this public display was simply announcing via email that a key county employee was on leave. This incident underscores the challenges Department Heads face as they try to act in the organization’s best interest while risking backlash when their actions do not align with Senior County Administration’s expectations. Your Grand Jury was inform ed repeatedly of discouragem ent of County Sta and Department Heads from speaking out regarding a variety of issues. These warnings were not because the issue was not valid; it was because they were counter to Senior County Administration(cid:146)s objectives. Individuals came forward and spoke of instances where sharing information with higher ups was discouraged if there were any chance it would frame Senior County Administration in a bad light. This is indicative of a culture of fear within the 12 organization discussed by many witnesses. This type of environment stifl es innovation and open communication.
Page 13
F7: High Performance Organization as a framework used by County management Prior to Covid-19, Senior County Administration championed a campaign to train executives, D epartm ent H eads, supervisors, and sta in a leadership program called High Performance Organizations (hereinafter HPO). This was not a new concept; in fact, this methodology began in the 1990s. However, after this Senior County Administration was able to champion this path with the Board of Supervisors approval, they moved ahead by sending sta to the training to change the culture of how the county functions. To put this into perspective, an HPO company strives to achieve strong results through their culture, structure, and processes. HPOs are known for their agility, adaptability, and commitment to continuous improvement. The goal is to have a clear and inspiring mission that guides the organization by developing strong leaders who encourage collaboration and involvement. It’s an ongoing process where sta are coached to focus on perform ance. A change in culture which looks for ways to improve processes, products, and services by utilizing both a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach. By focusing on understanding and building relationships with customers, both internal and external. As with all training, there is a price tag. Your Grand Jury was informed of county employees being sent to South Carolina for a weeklong course costing approximately $15,000 per person. Eventually the county brought in an instructor several times to teach county employees. In total an undisclosed number of personnel received training in this methodology. To date, that cost has been over $67,000 that your Grand Jury is aware of. Your Grand Jury believes this fi gure is likely well more than $100,000 because there were several that we became aware of that took this course in South Carolina, and we did not receive all invoices. The reason your Grand Jury cannot provide the reader with an exact cost for this training is that the County’s process for tracking these costs is ine ective. During our interview process we found most of the trainees were excited, (cid:147)fi red up(cid:148) as one employee stated after returning from training. This employee said they looked forward to putting what they learned into practice and to promoting the use of HPO within their sphere of infl uence within the county. Not only engaging employees in leadership at every level, but where sta have an opportunity to participate in m aking decisions on how their departm ent not only manages issues but also being part of an empowering organization. Your Grand Jury learned through the interview process that H PO was practiced at di erent levels and at di erent rates of success by various departm ents within county governm ent. Your Grand Jury learned that some departments, specifi cally Health and Human Services, Public Works and IT embraced this methodology and seemed to have success. Your Grand Jury also found that while HPO can be used in many departments, it is not an appropriate system for others. However, your Grand Jury also found that a Department Head bragged that they went to out of state training twice, while simultaneously indicating that they did not use, or need, HPO. Your Grand Jury notes that the defi ciencies found elsewhere in this report are refl ective of an organization that is not invested in or practicing HPO philosophies in any meaningful way. Sections 1 through 7 show that the most problematic portions of Tuolumne County Government are the same portions that regularly fail to adequately utilize HPO. Your Grand Jury also interviewed past and current supervisors about the use of HPO in the county. Your Grand Jury was alarmed at the result of this inquiry. Supervisors were unaware of the cost, e ectiveness and inconsistent im plem entation of H PO.
Page 14
Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors and the Tuolumne County Sheriff issued a joint response to the report entitled "Dambacher Detention Center and Mother Lode Regional Juvenile Detention Facility" within the 60-day timeframe mandated for elected officials (Sheriff), however the response was improperly addressed and not delivered to the court in accordance with the instructions given to each of the entities when they were given the Grand Jury report naming them as required respondents. Although the responses have since been delivered to the court, they were not received within 60 days (Sheriff), nor within 90 days (Board of Supervisors), of receiving the Grand Jury report, thus violating Penal Code section 933.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2025, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should establish a protocol confirming that their responses to Grand Jury reports are received by the presiding judge and accepted by the court as compliant with Penal Code section 933.
F2: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors and the Tuolumne County Sheriff issued a joint response to the report entitled "Tuolumne County 911: Sheriff's Dispatch Center" within the 60-day timeframe mandated for elected officials (Sheriff), however the response was improperly addressed and not delivered to the court in accordance with the instructions given to each of the entities when they were given the Grand Jury report naming them as required respondents. Although the responses have since been delivered to the court, they were not received within 60 days (Sheriff), nor within 90 days (Board of Supervisors). of receiving the Grand Jury report, thus violating Penal Code section 933.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2025, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should establish a protocol confirming that their responses to Grand Jury reports are received by the presiding judge and accepted by the court as compliant with Penal Code section 933.
F3: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors issued a response to the report entitled "Tuolumne County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)" within the 90-day timeframe mandated for a governing body, however the response was not delivered to the court in accordance with the instructions given when the Board of Supervisors was given the Grand Jury report naming them as a required respondent. Although the response has since been delivered to the court, it was not received within 90 days of receiving the Grand Jury report, thus violating Penal Code section 933.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2025, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should establish a protocol confirming that their responses to Grand Jury reports are received by the presiding judge and accepted by the court as compliant with Penal Code section 933.
F4: The Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors issued a response to the report entitled "County Services Areas (CSAs)" within the 90-day timeframe mandated for a governing body, however the response was not delivered to the court in accordance with the instructions given when the Board of Supervisors was given the Grand Jury report naming them as a required respondent. Although the response has since been delivered to the court, it was not received within 90 days of receiving the Grand Jury report, thus violating Penal Code section 933. Grand Jury - Compliance Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: By September 30, 2025, the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors should establish a protocol confirming that their responses to Grand Jury reports are received by the presiding judge and accepted by the court as compliant with Penal Code section 933.
F5: The Tuolumne County Transit Agency Board of Directors failed to provide a timeframe for implementation of recommendation R2 in the report entitled "Tuolumne County Transit Agency", thus violating Penal Code section 933.05(b)(2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: By July 31, 2025, the Tuolumne County Transit Agency Board of Directors should further respond to the report entitled "Tuolumne County Transit Agency" stating a date by which recommendation R2 will be implemented.
F6: The Tuolumne County Transit Agency Board of Directors failed to provide a timeframe for implementation of recommendation R6 in the report entitled "Tuolumne County Transit Agency", thus violating Penal Code section 933.05(b)(2).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: By July 31, 2025, the Tuolumne County Transit Agency Board of Directors should further respond to the report entitled "Tuolumne County Transit Agency" stating a date by which recommendation R6 will be implemented.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.