Nearly Six Hours of Dysfunction
Grand Jury attacks, bungled votes, infighting and an uninformed data center debate revealed a board struggling to govern itself, let alone Our County.
Tuesday’s nearly six hour Board of Supervisors meeting was more than contentious. It exposed a county government struggling with preparation, procedure, internal conflict and its responsibility to the public.
The board attacked Civil Grand Jury recommendations, nearly destabilized a successful forest partnership, mishandled a major vote and debated data centers without several supervisors appearing to understand the industry or the regulations Tuolumne County currently lacks. These were not isolated mistakes. Together, they revealed a troubling pattern in which personal alliances, political theater and defensiveness repeatedly displaced informed, deliberate decision making.
Supervisors Mike Holland, Anaiah Kirk and Steve Griefer too often treated questions, criticism and public participation as inconveniences. or dismissed them as politically motivated attacks. County Administrative Officer Roger Root appeared more interested in defending decisions made within his office than acknowledging why residents, county partners and other supervisors were concerned.
The result was a meeting filled with unnecessary conflict, confused votes and missed opportunities to protect the public interest. Tuolumne County deserves leadership that arrives prepared, understands the issues and welcomes scrutiny. Tuesday showed how far this board remains from meeting that standard.
Suggestions are not attacks
A Civil Grand Jury does not govern the county. It does not pass ordinances, set the budget or remove elected officials. It investigates local government and makes findings and recommendations… RECOMMENDATIONS.
That distinction matters because much of Tuesday’s discussion centered on what the Grand Jury supposedly lacked the authority to “demand.” But the Grand Jury was not ordering supervisors to prison. It was not claiming the power to run the county. It was identifying problems and suggesting ways to avoid them in the future.
One recommendation encouraged greater participation in government ethics and governance training. Another raised concerns about incompatible public offices. Other portions addressed public records, email retention, Community Development Department practices, county culture and the conduct of public officials. The board was free to agree, disagree or explain why a recommendation would not work. That is how legitimate oversight functions. Instead, the county’s written responses frequently sounded combative and defensive. They challenged the Grand Jury’s authority, disputed its motives and devoted pages to rebutting criticism that could have been answered constructively in a few paragraphs.
At one point, the response reportedly invoked the “Star Chamber,” a reference to an abusive English court abolished nearly four centuries ago. (I also found it with ChatGPT)
That is not the language of a government calmly evaluating suggestions from its citizens. It is the language of an institution that sees scrutiny as a threat. Holland and Kirk argued that the Grand Jury had become political or “weaponized.” Griefer defended the responses and joined them in approving the documents without revision. But none of them adequately answered the obvious question: Why fight so hard against recommendations intended to improve future conduct?
If the recommendations are unnecessary, explain that respectfully. If a factual finding is incorrect, correct it. If a proposed policy would not work, offer a better one. Defensiveness is not proof of wrongdoing. But extreme defensiveness damages public confidence. Especially when officials attack the legitimacy of the people examining their conduct instead of addressing the substance of their concerns. It creates the unavoidable impression that protecting individual reputations has become more important than improving county government.
The public deserved a better process
The Grand Jury responses were drafted by county counsel and the county administrator. Holland was consulted because portions of the reports concerned him personally. The other supervisors were not given the same opportunity to offer feedback before the documents appeared publicly.
That process alone should have caused the board to pause. The responses were being issued in the county’s name, not Holland’s. They were supposed to represent the Board of Supervisors as a body and, ultimately, the people of Tuolumne County. Yet Supervisors Ryan Campbell and Jaron Brandon said they did not have a meaningful opportunity to participate in drafting them. They saw the completed responses at essentially the same time as the public. Root (CAO) admitted he had no particular reason for excluding the other supervisors from the drafting process. County counsel said he was unfamiliar with the county’s previous practice.
Are those convincing reasons to approve the responses to the public unchanged?
The board could have returned the documents for revision. It could have separated the reports and voted on them individually. It could have replaced inflammatory language with direct answers and acknowledged areas where the county could improve. Instead, Holland, Kirk and Griefer approved all three responses as written. The vote was 3–2.
That decision told the public that defending the institution and the officials criticized within it (Mike Holland) mattered more than listening to the citizens assigned to review it.
Disagreement is not a “circus”
The tone of the meeting became even more revealing when Kirk described Tuesday board meetings as a political “circus.”
Kirk repeatedly blamed criticism of Holland, county leadership and recent staff problems on campaign politics. He also identified members of the public by their perceived political affiliation while complaining. In other words, Kirk was doing the very thing he claimed to oppose: turning a policy disagreement into a political fight instead of responding to the concerns being raised. A common practice Kirk did on the dais during his own campaign
Campbell pushed back, saying that an upcoming election does not make policy disagreements any less valid. He urged the board to focus on the issues instead of dismissing criticism as political.
September 1 Board meeting archive.
He’s right. Residents do not surrender their right to criticize elected officials during campaign season. A supervisor does not become immune from scrutiny because scrutiny might have electoral consequences. Government does not stop being accountable when accountability becomes politically uncomfortable.
Calling a meeting a circus does not make the underlying questions disappear.
Why are experienced county employees leaving?
Why do some employees say they do not feel safe raising concerns?
Why was a successful forest partnership suddenly placed at risk without first consulting its principal participants?
Why were the county’s Grand Jury responses drafted without equal participation from the full board?
Why does criticism so often produce an attack on the critic rather than an examination of the criticism?
Those are questions about governance, not campaign theater.
One public commenter reminded the board that supervisors are paid to attend meetings, while residents volunteer their time… sometimes waiting six or more hours for three minutes at the microphone.
That comment deserves attention. When elected officials treat public participation as a waste of time, they forget whose meeting it is. Residents who stay through hours of delays to address their government deserve gratitude and basic courtesy, not ridicule.
Kirk’s forest vote exposed a Much deeper problem
The vote on the Yosemite Rivers Alliance contract was one of the strangest moments of the meeting.
The board was deciding whether to continue a forest management partnership that has helped bring nearly $100 million into Tuolumne County. The work supports wildfire protection, forest restoration, local contractors, timber jobs and millions of dollars in pending grants.
Kirk spent much of the discussion speaking in favor of the partnership. But when it was time to vote, he voted no. The proposal still passed 3–2. Campbell, Brandon and Griefer voted yes. Kirk and Holland voted no.
After Kirk realized the proposal had passed without him, he said he wanted to change his vote from no to yes. Kirk explained that he thought the proposal was going to fail. He believed he could then offer a new version with a shorter contract, hoping Holland would support it. Once Kirk learned that the original proposal had already received three yes votes, however, he wanted his no vote changed. That is the problem.
Kirk did not accidentally say the wrong word. He voted no because he misunderstood how the rest of the board had voted. When he realized he had ended up on the losing side with Holland, he tried to change the public record.
The board initially recorded the vote as 3–2. County counsel then had to research whether a supervisor could change a vote after the result had been announced. Hours later, counsel said Kirk could ask the full board for permission. The board agreed, and the official vote was changed to 4–1. The final record now shows Kirk voting yes. But that does not change what the public watched happen.
A supervisor should decide whether a proposal is good or bad and vote accordingly. That vote should not change after the supervisor finds out who won.
Kirk often presents himself as a defender of efficient government. Yet his confusion forced county counsel to spend time researching the rules and required the board to revisit an already completed vote at the end of a nearly six-hour meeting. Like a child throwing a tantrum, the adults just wanted him to shut up and move on.
Everyone makes mistakes. This was more than a simple slip of the tongue, however. Kirk’s own explanation showed that his vote, as usual, depended on what he thought Holland was doing.
Tuolumne County deserves supervisors who understand the motion, follow the vote and make their decisions based on what is best for their district and the public. Not on which side is going to win.
The CAO Created an Unnecessary Crisis
The forest agreement also raised serious questions about County Administrative Officer Roger Root’s decision making.
Root directed staff to explore putting the Yosemite Rivers Alliance contract out for bids without first seeking direction from the full board or consulting the organizations that make the partnership work.
That was not a minor administrative decision. The change could have caused Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions to withdraw its support, damaged years of cooperation and placed millions of dollars in pending grants at risk.
Staff had already been working with Yosemite Rivers Alliance to control costs. The revised agreement included project specific budgets, documented billing, spending limits and a general 10% cap on project management expenses. Those safeguards could have been discussed without threatening the entire partnership. Instead, stakeholders had to pack the meeting and explain the consequences of a decision that should have been researched before it reached the agenda.
The board ultimately preserved the agreement, but only after Root’s direction created an unnecessary public crisis. Once again, county government acted first and listened later.
Tuolumne County cannot gamble with its water
The data center discussion was another example of supervisors approaching a complicated issue without first mastering its basic facts.
Large data centers are not ordinary warehouses. They contain densely packed servers and processors operating continuously and producing enormous amounts of heat. That heat must be removed every hour of every day.
Some facilities use air cooling or closed-loop systems that consume relatively little onsite water. Others use evaporative cooling towers that require a continuous supply of replacement water. The Department of Energy describes cooling towers as water-intensive because water is lost through evaporation and additional water must be discharged to control mineral buildup. Water consumption therefore depends on the facility’s size, computing load, climate and cooling technology. U.S. Department of Energy
That variation does not support taking a casual approach. It demonstrates why Tuolumne County needs detailed standards before an applicant walks through the door.
The Congressional Research Service has reported that water cooled data centers may consume roughly seven cubic meters of water for every megawatt-hour of energy used, although actual consumption varies considerably. It cited one Oregon community where Google data centers were responsible for nearly 30% of municipal water use. Congressional Research Service
Tuolumne County is not a place that can treat those risks as hypothetical. During the 2014–2017 drought, more than 200 dry wells were reported in the county. Tuolumne County ultimately placed 140 temporary water tanks at homes with confirmed dry wells. The county’s own emergency plan recognizes drought and groundwater shortages as recurring local hazards. Tuolumne County Emergency Operations Plan
Our groundwater is also not comparable to the easily measured aquifers beneath many valley communities. Much of Tuolumne County relies on fractured bedrock with low and unpredictable groundwater yields. A well’s production can depend on the size, location and connectivity of individual rock fractures, along with seasonal recharge. Tuolumne County General Plan Technical Background Report
Many rural residents depend entirely on those wells. Tuolumne County is a headwaters county, yet local communities do not control much of the water that originates here. Water leaves the region to serve agricultural and Bay Area users while residents within the county face drought restrictions, fragile wells and limited infrastructure. We often say “We conserve so others can have”
Against that history, the suggestion that the county should wait for a data-center proposal and figure out the rules afterward is reckless.
That leads us to…
Holland Claimed The Rules Already Exist
Holland made the main argument that Tuolumne County’s existing development process was sufficient to handle a data-center proposal.
He pointed out that many businesses operate without regulations written specifically for their industries. “It’s through the development process,” Holland said. “That’s what we do.”
But Community Development staff explained that the county does not have an ordinance specifically regulating large data centers. If an application arrived today, staff would have to make a “similar use” determination and fit the project into rules written for another type of development.
That is not the same as having appropriate regulations.
A general permitting process does not automatically address industrial-scale water consumption, electrical-grid upgrades, round-the-clock noise, backup generators or drought restrictions. It also does not determine where these facilities should be located or what benefits the county should require in return.
Yes, a company can submit an application. Yes, the project would undergo review. But that does not mean Tuolumne County has already answered the most important questions.
Holland confused having a process for accepting applications with having standards designed to protect the public from this particular industry.
That distinction is exactly why the county needs a data-center ordinance—and why a temporary moratorium would have been the responsible choice while those rules were developed.
A moratorium was the prudent choice
Because Tuolumne County has no ordinance specifically regulating large data centers, Campbell proposed scheduling a public hearing on a temporary 45-day moratorium while those rules were developed. The proposal was not a ban on data centers. It would not have decided whether a particular project was acceptable or prevented the county from approving one in the future. It was a pause.
That pause mattered because a large data center could place extraordinary demands on water and electricity Families in Tuolumne County still remember wells running dry during drought. Our electrical grid already struggles with outages. Before accepting an application, the county should determine where these facilities belong,lk2pzzag, how their water and electricity use will be controlled, who will pay for infrastructure upgrades and what residents will receive in return.
Without a specific ordinance, Community Development staff explained that an application arriving today would be processed through a “similar use” determination. The county would try to fit a massive, resource-intensive data center into regulations written for some other kind of development.
The moratorium would have protected the county while staff closed that gap. And forty-five days was hardly radical. It would simply have prevented an applicant from establishing a position under the existing rules before the county adopted standards designed for this industry. Other California counties have considered or adopted similar safeguards as data-center development expands faster than many local zoning codes can accommodate.
Holland argued that the county’s existing development process was sufficient and warned that a moratorium could signal that Tuolumne County was unfriendly to business. Kirk also opposed the pause while repeatedly questioning what additional rules or permits were needed. Griefer preferred directing staff to develop an ordinance without temporarily stopping applications.
With no majority willing to support the moratorium, Campbell offered a compromise: direct Community Development staff to write a data-center ordinance without imposing the 45-day pause. The board approved that direction 5–0.
Creating an ordinance is better than doing nothing, but the unanimous vote should not be confused with unanimous support for Campbell’s original proposal. The board rejected the protection that would have been in place while the ordinance was being written. That leaves Tuolumne County in an unnecessary and contradictory position.
The board has acknowledged that the county needs specific data-center regulations. At the same time, it has left the door open to an application arriving before those regulations exist. That is not careful planning. It is hoping nothing happens before government catches up.
If a proposal arrives during that window, residents should remember who decided that protecting Tuolumne County for 45 days was too great an inconvenience.
Is the Supervisor’s Job Getting Kirk’s Full Attention?
Short answer? No
According to Kirk’s campaign biography, he serves as a county supervisor while continuing his career as a supervising correctional counselor at Sierra Conservation Center. His biography also identifies him as a small-business owner.
There is nothing wrong with working hard or having responsibilities outside county government. The issue is whether Kirk has taken on more than he can manage while giving the supervisor’s job the attention it requires.
Tuesday’s meeting provided legitimate reasons to ask. His confused forest vote, repeated questions about data-center regulations and reflexive defense of Holland during the Grand Jury discussion were not isolated moments. Together, they revealed a pattern of insufficient preparation.
When Kirk appears lost in the details, he often changes the subject. The discussion becomes a speech about campaign politics, government overreach or the supposed “circus” surrounding the board. That may distract from the original question, but it does not answer it.
A supervisor does not need to be an expert on every subject. Residents should, however, expect supervisors to read the material, understand the central issues and absorb the answers provided by professional staff before casting a vote.
Kirk’s outside employment does not prove that he neglects his county duties. His public performance nevertheless gives residents reason to question whether those duties receive his full attention.
That is not a personal attack. It is basic accountability.
Tuolumne County needs supervisors who do their homework before meetings begin. It cannot afford leadership that tries to catch up while the vote is already underway.
Development concerns were brushed aside
The Redtail Ridge appeal presented legitimate questions about wildfire evacuation, oak woodlands, environmental review and the use of privately maintained High Meadow Drive.
Residents were not arguing that the property could never be developed. They were asking the county to ensure that development occurred safely, transparently and fairly.
They described a decades-long sequence of proposals in which earlier environmental mitigation measures appeared to disappear as the project changed form. They questioned whether a private neighborhood road should absorb construction traffic and permanent additional use without a maintenance agreement.
The board could have required proportional road maintenance or protection against construction damage. It had the authority to condition the approval.
Instead, the appeal was denied 5–0, with supervisors suggesting that residents could resolve road damage through private negotiation or litigation.
That answer once again placed the burden on residents.
Government exists partly to prevent foreseeable conflicts, not merely to tell citizens they can sue one another after damage occurs.
Public office is not personal property
The most concerning part of Tuesday’s meeting was not any single vote. It was the attitude displayed toward accountability.
Holland, Kirk and Griefer increasingly appear to approach county government as though challenges to their decisions are personal attacks. Root’s administration likewise seems willing to make consequential decisions internally and explain them only after opposition forces them into public view. Whether these actions arise from personal interest, political loyalty or individual agendas, the result is the same: the public’s interest becomes secondary.
Public office is not personal property.
The county administrator works for the board. The board works for the people. The Civil Grand Jury works on behalf of those same people by examining whether their government is functioning properly. Oversight is not obstruction. Criticism is not persecution. Without ego, a command is still just a recomendation. And disagreement is not a “circus”.
Strong leaders do not need to attack every person or institution that questions them. They listen, separate useful criticism from genuine errors and explain what they will do better.
Tuolumne County deserves supervisors who arrive prepared, understand the matters they are deciding, know the rules of their own proceedings and place the public interest above personal alliances or appearances.
Tuesday’s meeting illustrated how backwards our leaders are and how far we still have to go.
