The Grand Jury Just Told the County It Has a Trust Problem
Part 1 of a 3 part series
by Tim McCaffrey
7 minute read
The 2025–2026 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury report is not light reading. It is dense, legal, and at times uncomfortable. But the message underneath it is pretty simple.
The Grand Jury is saying that Tuolumne County government has a public trust problem.
Not because of one vote or one supervisor or disagreement. But because of a pattern involving conflicts of interest, poor record keeping, confusion over closed session rules, resistance to oversight, and a lack of easy access to public information.
For a county government, that is not a small thing.
What the report looked at
The Grand Jury spent six months reviewing county governance practices. They interviewed supervisors, county staff, subject matter experts, and members of the public. They reviewed Board meetings, documents, policies, state law, Attorney General opinions, and county procedures.
The result is a report that focuses on six major concerns.
1. Conflict of interest
The report says Supervisor Mike Holland participated in a Board discussion and vote involving mobile home park fees even though he owns property in a mobile home park.
The issue was not just whether he voted yes or no. The issue was that he participated at all.
The Grand Jury argues that because the decision could affect his financial interests, he should have recused himself before the discussion began. He later recused himself when the item came back to the Board, but the Grand Jury says the damage had already been done.
That matters because public officials are not supposed to use their position to influence decisions where they have a financial interest.
2. Possible incompatible offices
The report also raises a serious question about whether Mike Holland can legally serve both as a County Supervisor and as a Sonora High School District trustee.
The Grand Jury does not make the final legal call. Instead, it recommends that County Counsel ask the California Attorney General for an official opinion.
The concern is that the two roles may overlap in ways that create divided loyalties. Budgets, land use, emergency planning, lawsuits, school safety, and public power decisions can all involve both the county and the school district.
Even if nothing improper happens, the appearance of divided loyalty is enough to damage public confidence.
3. Closed session confusion
The report says Board members gave inconsistent answers about what they could and could not say regarding closed session matters.
Closed sessions are private for a reason. But not everything connected to a closed session is automatically confidential.
The Grand Jury says some basic procedural information may be discussed, especially during a lawful Grand Jury investigation. Because Board members appeared unsure, the investigation was delayed and limited.
That is a training problem. And in government, training problems become public trust problems.
4. Resistance to Grand Jury oversight
The report says Supervisor Holland objected to two Grand Jurors participating in his interview because he believed they were biased.
The Grand Jury accommodated the request, but also made clear that witnesses do not get to choose which jurors investigate them.
The report draws an important distinction. Having political views is not the same as having a legal conflict of interest.
That point matters in a small county where almost everyone has opinions, history, and relationships. The standard is not whether someone has ever had a thought about local politics. The standard is whether they can act fairly and impartially.
5. The county’s 90 day email deletion policy
This may be one of the biggest issues in the whole report.
The Grand Jury says Tuolumne County’s automatic 90 day email deletion policy makes it harder to investigate county business, respond to public records requests, and preserve important documents.
In plain English, emails that may matter can disappear before anyone knows they matter.
The report recommends changing the policy so potential public records are retained for at least two years.
That should not be controversial. Public business should not vanish after 90 days unless someone remembered to save it.
6. Public access to Board meetings
The Grand Jury also says the county needs better access to Board meeting records.
Videos are helpful, but they are not enough. They are hard to search, time consuming to review, and not always accessible to everyone.
The report recommends full transcripts of all open Board meetings on the county agenda website.
That would be a major step forward. Residents should not have to spend hours scrubbing through video just to find out what their government said or did.
Why this matters
This report is not about left versus right. It is not about liking or disliking one supervisor. It is about whether the public can trust the process.
People will not always agree with Board decisions. That is normal. But the process has to be clean.
Supervisors need to know when to recuse themselves. They need to understand closed session rules. They need to cooperate with oversight. They need to preserve public records. And the public needs easy access to what happens in public meetings.
That is not asking too much.
That is the minimum.
What happens next
The Board of Supervisors is required to respond to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations. They can agree, partially agree, disagree, or explain why they will not implement a recommendation.
But the public should pay close attention to those responses.
Because the real question is not whether the report is uncomfortable.
The real question is whether the county takes it seriously.
The Grand Jury has done its job. Now it’s our turn.
One thing becomes difficult to ignore as you read this report: the Grand Jury repeatedly found that members of the Board lacked a clear understanding of some of the most fundamental responsibilities of the office they hold. Conflicts of interest. Ethics laws. Closed session rules. The role of the Civil Grand Jury. Public records. These aren’t obscure legal technicalities. They’re the basic framework for how county government is supposed to operate.
The Grand Jury has done its job. Now it’s our turn.
This report deserves more than a few days of headlines and Facebook arguments. Read it. Ask questions. Watch the Board’s response. Attend a meeting if you can. If you can’t, follow those of us who do. Hold every supervisor to the same standard, regardless of whether you voted for them. Transparency and accountability aren’t partisan ideas. They’re the foundation of good government.
Real change doesn’t happen because one person writes an article or one Grand Jury publishes a report. It happens when enough ordinary citizens decide they are paying attention. A handful of engaged residents can change the conversation. A few hundred can change the culture. If we want a county government worthy of our trust, it won’t happen by accident. It happens because the people of Tuolumne County expect it, demand it, and stay involved long after the headlines fade.
