Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

3 weeks ago

San Francisco

www.kqed.org/science/1999631/navy-apologizes-for-11-month-delay-in-reporting-radioactive-material...

Navy Apologizes for 11-Month Delay in Reporting Radioactive Material at Hunters Point
KQED, Dec 15, 2025, by Ezra David Romero

Abandoned buildings at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco on March 8, 2022. The U.S. Navy apologized to city leaders on Monday for waiting almost a year before disclosing that the agency found radioactive plutonium at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. (Beth LaBerge/KQED)

The U.S. Navy apologized to city leaders during a San Francisco Board of Supervisors hearing on Monday for waiting 11 months before disclosing to residents that the agency had detected airborne radioactive material at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.
The Navy alerted San Francisco health officials in October that it had discovered elevated levels of plutonium-239 in November of last year. The material is highly radioactive and used to create nuclear weapons. Breathing in tiny particles of the substance is dangerous over time and can cause health issues like lung cancer. Community groups and at least one San Francisco supervisor called the 11-month delay “unacceptable.”
The Navy found the sample in an area known as Parcel C, adjacent to a hill covered in condo buildings where hundreds of families live, and nearby a public park with a view of the shipyard. The Navy had previously cleared that area for redevelopment two decades ago.
Officials with the Navy told the supervisors that the sample posed “no health risk” to the public and said it was a hundredth of the radiation a person might receive during an X-ray.

Danielle Janda, base closure manager for the Navy at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, said the agency needed extra time to retest the sample and conduct a third-party audit of the laboratory where the test was conducted. She called the sample with a low level of plutonium an “outlier,” and said the Navy plans to improve communication by working with agencies and attending more local meetings.
“In this instance, we valued accuracy over timeliness,” Janda said. “It’s obvious that we lost trust in the community and are going to work with the community to get that trust back.”
Anthony Megliola, director of the U.S. Navy’s Base Realignment and Closure Program, acknowledged the delay created “concern and frustration” among regulators and the community.
“I take responsibility for this,” Megliola said. “We recognize this approach did not meet the community’s expectations for timely communication, and the long gap undermined trust.”
Shamman Walton, District 10 supervisor, said he appreciates the apology, but said this is “not the first time the Navy has lost the public’s trust.”
“I do appreciate you for coming, for owning up to the mistake, but again, apologies and admissions do not protect our community,” Walton said. “This should not happen, and we want to make sure that this does not happen.”
Susan Philip, health officer for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said federal rules require the Navy to notify state and local agencies and the public when a situation may pose a threat to the public. Even though the Navy found the sample posed no immediate public health issues, she said, her “greater concern, of course, is the delay in notifying the regulators, who are the ones who are to make that determination about safety.”
Michael Montgomery, director of the EPA’s Superfund and Emergency Management Division, said the Navy should have come to the agency earlier because its staff could have helped with testing and communicating with the public. He said the Navy is supposed to present these sorts of findings within two weeks.
“Unfortunately, the lack of transparency created a much bigger concern than it would have if we’d have been engaged early on and been able to do the risk communication,” Montgomery said.
Within 45 days, Montgomery said his agency will conduct an independent review.
When Supervisor Walton asked whether there were consequences for the Navy’s delayed reporting, Montgomery said there are generally penalties that could apply. Still, he can’t discuss them in this case.
District 10 resident Falaofuta Satele told Navy officials during the hearing that she “doesn’t trust” them and feels like officials are trying to “cover up” their findings by not providing direct answers to the community.
“We’re not frustrated, we’re alert,” Satele said. “We are not stupid, and please have some courtesy when you say transparent, please disclose with integrity.”


A view of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard from the Lennar at the Shipyard housing development on Feb. 25, 2022. (Beth LaBerge/KQED)
Joyce Armstrong, vice chair of the Hunters Point Shipyard Citizens Advisory Committee, said it doesn’t matter how low the sample reading was; the community is dissatisfied with how the Navy handled the findings. She called for an independent investigation and said the Navy’s lack of transparency is a “pattern.”
“It appears to us that this is a cover-up,” Armstrong said. “I don’t care how low [the levels are], we still want to know.”
The 866-acre Hunters Point site was home to a shipyard from 1945 to 1974 and the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory from 1948 to 1960. By decontaminating ships after atomic bomb tests and other activities, the Navy contaminated shipyard soil and groundwater — as well as surface water and sediment in the San Francisco Bay — with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals and petroleum fuels. The base was declared one of the nation’s most contaminated sites in 1989.
Back in 2022, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury issued a report alerting the public that groundwater rise — a result of sea levels rising in response to global emissions melting ice caps and expanding oceans — could have significant effects on the site in the coming decades.
The new finding raises fresh questions about the city’s plans to build thousands of homes amid an exceedingly complex and ongoing cleanup effort. When finished, the 693-acre Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard project — which the Superfund site is part of — could have more than 10,000 housing units. The development would include two new waterfront neighborhoods with housing and retail, along with over 340 acres of parks and open space. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

3 weeks ago

Plumas

plumassun.org/2025/11/29/multiple-grand-jury-reports-spark-controversy/

Multiple grand jury reports spark controversy,
Supervisors respond

The Plumas Sun, November 29, 2025, by Jane Braxton Little
The 2024-2025 Plumas County civil grand jury report has been a point of contention for months. Disputes over the official contents of the report arose over the summer, when two separate and significantly different reports were released to the public. In October the situation was exacerbated when the Plumas County Board of Supervisors took exception to a variety of the jurors’ findings. A month later, they reduced the membership from 19 grand jurors to 11.
Strict confidentiality
Civil grand juries act as watchdogs for local government. They investigate county, city and district operations to ensure they are efficient, economical and serve the best interest of the public. Juries examine financial accounts and audits, and make recommendations for improvement.
Grand juries operate under strict confidentiality to protect the integrity of their work and shield those they have interviewed from public stigma. Jurors take an oath of secrecy that prevents them sharing their investigations publicly beyond an annual report, which must be signed by a judge. The judges and district attorneys who act as advisors to the jury are also held to absolute secrecy.
These rules have made investigating allegations and rumors about the 2024-2025 Plumas County grand jury challenging.
Two reports released
The 2024-2025 Plumas County civil grand jury submitted its official report to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors June 26 and released it to the public June 30. In early July, a member of the grand jury contacted The Plumas Sun with another version of the report. It was published July 11.
Both versions include an introduction and a thank-you letter from foreperson Donald Bliss. Both contain “Jobs Jobs Jobs!,” an eight-page investigation of staffing of county departments, and “CRV — It’s Your Money,” a five-page review of the county’s recycling program. That is where the county’s June report ends.
The July report, however, includes a third investigation: “Is There Room for One More?” This five-page section investigates affordable housing, specifically Sierra Meadows in Chester, a public program operated by the Plumas County Community Development Commission.
The distribution of two different reports was not the only unusual aspect of the most recent grand jury investigation. Several jury members contacted The Plumas Sun to report that at least one extensive investigation they conducted was not included in either public version. A third version was apparently written, edited and fully approved, they said.
Plumas County Superior Court Judge Douglas M. Prouty and District Attorney David Hollister, who serve as legal advisors to grand juries, both declined to comment on any aspect of the reports, citing confidentiality. Violating grand jury secrecy can result in prosecution for criminal contempt of court or misdemeanor charges, according to Penal Code Section 924.2.
Supervisors react to recommendations
The board of supervisors discussed the discrepancy when they met to approve the grand jury report Oct. 18. The June report, the one posted on the county website, is the official version, said Supervisor Mimi Hall. The July report sent to The Plumas Sun is “not official,” she said. “I don’t know how this happened but it did happen,” Hall said.
She and the other supervisors primarily focused on the county staffing section of the report, found on Page 311 of the board’s Oct. 21 agenda. They agreed with the grand jury that the process for approving county position job descriptions is lengthy and requires several reviews. They disagreed with the jurors’ criticism of the process for filling vacated positions. The supervisors also took issue with grand jury recommendations regarding hiring, job descriptions and succession planning.
The supervisors agree with most of the jury’s recommendations for improving the county’s California redemption value program, and directed the public works department to make appropriate changes.
Rick Foster, a Quincy resident and self-described county watchdog, advised the supervisors to not adopt the grand jury report or submit their responses without further investigation. It would be “a travesty,” he said, to have issues “swept under the rug” without “thinking about their impact.”
Hall disagreed: “None of this is sweeping anything under the rug. I feel confident we are doing what we can” by talking to the appropriate county departments.
Foster said the responses prepared for adoption Oct. 21 “had not been looked at” by the entire board of supervisors. Janet Crain, a Meadow Valley resident who regularly attends board meetings, asked the supervisors to go through the grand jury report publicly.
“We as citizens would have a chance to hear the discussion” and participate, she said.
Kevin Goss, chairman of the board of supervisors, called the spirited discussion “clear as mud.” Supervisor Tom McGowan moved to table the response to the grand jury. Supervisor Jeff Engel countered with a motion to “approve it now.” Supervisor Dwight Ceresola seconded that motion, which was approved unanimously. McGowan cast a yes vote “reluctantly.”
Flawed process
In approving the grand jury report, the supervisors acknowledged that the process of preparing and releasing it was flawed. At their Nov. 18 meeting, they publicly addressed some of those concerns.
The 2025-2026 grand jury is struggling to fill its 19 positions, said Hollister, the district attorney. Recent juries have found it difficult to maintain the quorum of 12 required for them to conduct businesses. Hollister recommended reducing the number of jurors from 19 to 11 members.
“I’ve reached out to the county counsel and also our superior court judges. There’s unanimous support for this,” Hollister told the supervisors.
While state statute requires most counties to maintain grand juries at 21 members, it allows counties with populations of under 20,000 residents to reduce the number to 11. That would reduce the quorum to seven, Hollister said.
It took the Plumas supervisors less than a minute to unanimously adopt the change approving a grand jury of 11 members. The county has for several months been gathering members for the 2025-2026 grand jury, which has already begun its work, Hollister said. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

3 weeks ago

Looking ahead at 2026: A long and winding road for the homeless of Nevada County

A long and winding road for the homeless of Nevada County
The Union, January 2, 2026

The Nevada County Civil Grand Jury’s May report details increases in local homeless populations and provided a progress report with respect to the jury’s previous reports on the subject. The report concluded that “Though there has been considerable progress, the county needs to do much more.”

www.theunion.com/news/looking-ahead-at-2026/article_d366d9f5-9fa4-4fc9-8ad7-3900e55eb03f.html ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 months ago

www.newsbreak.com/kero-23-bakersfield-563644/4343603357536-shafter-city-council-oks-100k-hearing-...

The Shafter City Council voted Monday to appoint an administrative hearing officer to investigate formal complaints filed by Councilmember Pete Espinoza against Councilmember Gilbert Alvarado, a process expected to cost the city approximately $100,000.

The council voted 3-2 in favor of bringing in the hearing officer during a brief special meeting. The decision follows a Kern County grand jury report filed earlier this year that identified violations of the city charter.

In June, a Kern County grand jury report outlined several issues within the city government, including one finding that stated: "Although Council Members are familiar with the City Charter, there have been violations of City Charter which have caused concern among City employees."

The city responded to the report in September, noting that council members and staff had adopted guidelines in mid-July and added an ordinance in August specifying procedures for formal complaints against council members.

Two days after the city's response to the grand jury report, Espinoza filed his formal complaint against Alvarado.

"It is my desire that I NOT be associated with any accusations alleged against the Shafter City Council as a whole, as a result of the actions of one Councilmember," Espinoza wrote in the complaint.

The complaint included an ultimatum requesting a public apology from Alvarado or removal proceedings would begin.

During Monday's council meeting, Alvarado addressed the situation directly.

"Council member Espinosa gave me an ultimatum to give a public apology or he will file the complaint. His view was that he had been implicated in the grand jury report. I opt not to give an apology because I have not done what I'm being accused of, and I have repeatedly tried to de-escalate the situation from the beginning, and I believe this was caused by a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication and political motivation to remove me from Council," Alvarado said. ... See MoreSee Less