Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

www.mercurynews.com/2025/10/03/bay-area-elections-official-defends-his-office-after-critical-gran...

Elections official defends office after blistering Grand Jury report
East Bay Times, by Chase Hunter, Oct. 3, 2025
Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis has faced no shortage of criticism after recent elections, but he’s pushing back against a grand jury report taking his performance to task.
Though Dupuis announced in September that he would step down from his position in 2026, the county’s top election will oversee one more election this fall—which will include the controversial redistricting measure Prop 50—before the county replaces him.
The grand jury report had 13 findings and 10 recommendations for the Registrar of Voters, drawing primarily on the experiences of grand jurors who observed the election before, during and after Nov. 5, 2024. The Grand Jury’s focus on the Registrar of Voters comes after various issues in recent elections for which election integrity organizations have criticized Dupuis.
The most notable among these controversies concerned a 2022 Oakland school board race using rank-choice voting where human error led to certification of the incorrect candidate as the winner. Dupuis met with county counsel at the time to determine how to resolve the improper certification, eventually swearing in the rightful winner Mike Hutchinson to the school board. In addition, Alameda County has notoriously been one of the slowest counties in the state to produce election results, which has garnered anger and frustration from the public.
Former Alameda Supervisor Keith Carson addressed the protracted count following last November’s election, saying, “Months ago, in public meetings, I asked the Registrar if he had a sufficient workforce and resources to carry out the November elections; his response was “yes.” Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case.”
The Grand Jury report focused on election transparency, with jurors for Alameda County describing their attempts to observe the election via video streams and in-person observation as “frustrating” and saying the publication of election results was “incomplete, delayed and at times misleading.’ In one instance, observers waited two hours to be ushered into the room for vote tabulation, according to the report.
Dupuis did not reject all of the report findings, he told Bay Area News Group.
“We did take into account the items that they recommended. Some of those items we already implemented for the Oakland special election, or we will be implementing by the June (2026) election,” he said.
However, the Registrar of Voters office did draft a response to the Grand Jury report that pushed back against many of its findings or attempted to provide additional context to better explain the county election process.
“It’s a mix of things that we disagree with, partially agree with and do agree with,” Dupuis told the Board of Supervisors at Tuesday’s meeting. “We’re open to those suggestions, and we just need to look at it through a lens of the processes that we have to put in place.”
The report calls on the county to invest more into the Registrar of Voters Office to improve timely reporting of results. These recommendations call for larger facilities, more equipment and additional staff, according to the Grand Jury report.
However, the Board of Supervisors rejected that finding in a draft response, saying, “the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.”
“The Board will support the ROV to responsibly achieve greater transparency and increased reporting, while at the same time remaining mindful not to place undue burdens on the local jurisdictions, including the county,” the draft response by the Board of Supervisors states.
The Board of Supervisors did not adopt their response to the Grand Jury’s report this week, but scheduled the formal approval of the response for Tuesday. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

www.Edsource.orgedsource.org/updates/civil-grand-jury-questions-napa-valley-unifieds-use-of-bond-...

The Press Democrat, Friday, June 13, 2025

Civil grand jury questions Napa Valley Unified’s use of bond revenue

Just months after voters approved a $230 million bond measure for the Napa Valley Unified School District by less than 40 votes, a watchdog ...

Just months after voters approved a $230 million bond measure for the Napa Valley Unified School District by less than 40 votes, a watchdog panel is warning the district against using bond funds to cover staff salaries, The Press Democrat reported.

Using bond funds in that way could erode public trust, the Napa County civil grand jury wrote in a report. Although such spending is legal, grand jurors argued that it runs counter to promises made to voters and may deepen public skepticism, the newspaper reported.
District officials, though, were not swayed by the grand jury’s findings. In a written response, they said they would continue using a portion of bond revenue to pay staff directly involved in bond project oversight, calling the practice fiscally responsible.

A 2004 opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office advised that money from bond proceeds can be used to pay district staff performing direct oversight of construction projects. The newspaper reported that the district informed voters that bond proceeds would not be used for salaries, but in “legal fine print,” noted that the salaries of staff overseeing construction were exempt from that assurance. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks ago

www.edsource.org/updates/grand-jury-finds-san-diego-unified-fails-to-give-voters-enough-informati...

San Diego Union Tribune, May 23, 2025, by EdSource.org

Grand jury finds San Diego Unified fails to give voters enough information on bonds

The San Diego Unified School District doesn’t give taxpayers enough clear information on bond measures before votes are cast and afterward on how money is spent, according to a new report.
San Diego County’s Civil Grand Jury found that the district hasn’t consistently complied with state law to inform voters on bond ballot initiatives, offering too little information on ballot summaries and about unspent funds from previous bonds, the Union Tribune newspaper reported.

District officials should tell voters how much money in previously approved bonds still hasn’t been spent by the district, and they should be given the required school-specific list of projects each bond would fund, the report states.

The district has four active bonds of different ages, the newest being Measure U, a $3.2 billion initiative approved by voters in 2022 with 65% of the vote. Also still active are previous bonds from 2008, 2012 and 2018. The district still has $4.58 billion left to issue from those bonds, the grand jury found.

San Diego Unified’s head of facilities told the newspaper that the district has transparently operated its bond program and will cooperate with the grand jury by carefully reviewing and responding to its report. ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 months ago

El Dorado County Takes Action on Grand Jury IT Recommendations
In March 2025, the El Dorado County Grand Jury released its report “Time to Reboot County Technology Leadership with a Chief Information Officer (CIO)” (Case #25-05). Drawing on more than 200 years of combined IT leadership experience among jury members, the report offered an in-depth analysis of the County’s fragmented technology environment, its long history of costly project delays, and the absence of strategic leadership. The Jury concluded that El Dorado County had fallen behind its peers and urgently needed to establish a true CIO position to drive county-wide IT strategy, reduce duplication, and save taxpayers millions.
A Longstanding Leadership Gap
The report detailed how, over the past decade, the County cycled through six IT Directors—each focused largely on tactical support rather than long-term strategy. This instability and narrow focus produced siloed IT departments, duplicate data centers, fragmented procurement, and a pattern of high-profile project overruns and missed deadlines. In some cases, costs ballooned by several hundred percent and scheduled timelines stretched for years. Without a CIO-level leader, El Dorado County lacked a cohesive vision for integrating new technologies such as cloud services, data analytics, cybersecurity, and AI into its operations.
Unlike most of California’s 58 counties—42 of which already have CIOs—the County had relied on a Director of IT job description that did not even mention establishing a strategic plan. The Grand Jury found that this absence of strategy significantly limited efficiency, cost savings, and public-service improvements.
Findings and Recommendations
The Grand Jury issued seven findings and five major recommendations. Among the most significant:
• Direct the County to draft and adopt a true CIO job description by September 2025.
• Hire a CIO by January 2026 to lead county-wide IT and develop data center consolidation strategies.
• Reconfigure the County IT Steering Committee into a collaborative, transparent body with clearly defined performance measures and regular reporting to the Board of Supervisors.
Based on evidence from other counties, the Jury estimated the potential cost savings of a strategic CIO model at $1–3 million per year. Equally important, a CIO could help modernize service delivery, improve cybersecurity, and strengthen public trust.
County Response and Progress
Shortly after publication, the County updated its IT leadership recruitment. The Board of Supervisors approved a revised Chief Information Officer class specification that elevates the position to department-head status, reporting directly to the Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors. The new role includes visionary leadership, county-wide governance, data consolidation, performance metrics, vendor negotiation, and public transparency—all key elements the Grand Jury highlighted.
The updated job description also explicitly calls for developing a county IT strategic plan, establishing clear performance measures, consolidating infrastructure, and seeking measurable cost savings—concrete steps to implement the Grand Jury’s recommendations.
A Model for Constructive Oversight
This swift and substantive response demonstrates the impact a Grand Jury report can have when grounded in deep expertise and actionable recommendations. The County’s move to create a CIO role represents not just a change in title but a shift toward modern governance, fiscal responsibility, and innovation.
We are encouraged to see El Dorado County embracing the transition from fragmented IT management to a unified, strategic approach. While much work remains—including the recruitment of a highly qualified CIO and the implementation of cross-departmental performance measures—this is a milestone for taxpayers and County staff alike.
We look forward to seeing how this leadership evolution improves services, strengthens cybersecurity, and positions El Dorado County to leverage emerging technologies for decades to come. By embracing a CIO-led model, the County is signaling its commitment to efficiency, accountability, and innovation—a change supported and recommended by the Grand Jury.

Article submitted by:
Ken Pauley
Member, El Dorado County Civil Grand Jurors’ Association ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 months ago

Opinion: Let the civil grand jury do its constitutionally mandated job - without political spin

Jill Wynn

In the recent Lookout article, “County watchdog strikes a positive tone, praising local government in grand jury reports,” former Santa Cruz County Sheriff Jim Hart was once again quoted making unfounded accusations of bias against the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury.

As a former juror who served on the 2022–2023 panel, I feel compelled to respond, and to set the record straight.

Each year, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court convenes a civil grand jury of 19 jurors for a one year term. Similar to other juries, grand jurors are individual citizens who volunteer their time. These citizens are randomly selected from a pool of applicants to investigate the operations of county and city governments, special districts, and other public agencies, ensuring they are functioning effectively and within the law. A superior court judge presides over a swearing-in ceremony binding each juror to their duties, and provides guidance and oversight throughout the term.

Grand juries have existed since the adoption of California's original Constitution in 1849-50. Section 23 of Article 1 of the state Constitution requires that a grand jury "be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county." Each newly impaneled civil grand jury determines which officers, departments and agencies it will investigate during the one year term. Additionally, California penal code Section 919(b) specifically mandates that grand juries inquire into the condition and management of public prisons within the county. The public prisons in Santa Cruz County fall under the purview of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office.

I chose to apply for the civil grand jury after I received encouragement through the city’s highly respected 2022 Citizen Police Academy led by City of Santa Cruz Police Lieutenant Karina Cecena. That’s right, some local law enforcement actively encourages civic participation and transparency by supporting service on the civil grand jury.

Unfortunately, during my time on the jury, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office – under then-Sheriff Hart – declined to provide information relevant to our investigations. This lack of cooperation was documented in the report, Surveillance State in Santa Cruz County: Who Surveils Those Who Surveil Us?

A prior civil grand jury recommended additional sheriff’s office oversight in a 2021 report. “Within six months the Board of Supervisors should either establish a Sheriff Oversight Board or Inspector General as provided in Government Code 25303.7, or alternatively place the issue before the voters in the county.”

The board of supervisors took action in 2023 establishing an inspector general via the Los Angeles-based OIR Group as an oversight body. This work does not replace the civil grand jury, but it does offer continuity and expert knowledge in law enforcement as seen in publicly available OIG Reports.

Our county has new leadership at the sheriff’s office. Sheriff Chris Clark brings a refreshing focus on community partnership and transparency.

His recent launch of the Care Alert program is a prime example; this is a voluntary system allowing families to share critical information about people with cognitive or behavioral conditions to improve law enforcement response in emergencies. It’s a smart, compassionate initiative that puts people first, and this idea was brought forward by a local citizen.

I’m hopeful Sheriff Clark will continue to support community engagement, including encouraging qualified citizens to serve on the civil grand jury. This vital institution exists not to antagonize public officials, but to investigate and improve the operations of local government on behalf of all residents.

Allowing jurors access to sheriff’s office documentation and interviews with jailed persons will broaden public knowledge. Santa Cruz County is a compassionate community. Residents expect that while justice is being served, the community stays informed.

The civil grand jury is not a political clique.

The state constitution mandates this independent, citizen-led watchdog. It deserves respect and cooperation, not knee-jerk defensiveness or unfounded claims of bias.

Let’s keep our focus on constructive dialogue, transparency, and the shared goal of better governance in Santa Cruz County.

Jill Wynn was a Santa Cruz County civil grand juror in 2022–2023. She is a retired market researcher, a Santa Cruz master recycler volunteer and an avid hiker ... See MoreSee Less

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 months ago

The Public Defender’s Office is Overworked, Underfunded and Housed in a Truly Shxxx Old Building, Civil Grand Jury Report Finds

The Humboldt County Public Defender’s Office, located at 1001 Fourth Street in Eureka. | Photo by Andrew Goff.
Is Humboldt County’s criminal justice system inherently unfair to defendants? The latest report from the county’s Civil Grand Jury concludes that it most certainly is.
Titled “Scales of Justice Out of Balance?” and featuring Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s famous quote about how best to judge a society as an epigraph, the 34-page report finds that while staff in the Humboldt County Public Defender’s Office excel in their mission to represent indigent clients, they are egregiously overworked and underpaid compared to their counterparts in the District Attorney’s Office — plus they’re forced to work in an “inadequately maintained, infested, sometimes leaking, dilapidated” old building (pictured above).
“Staff experience burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and even physical attacks, with limited resources provided to address these issues,” the report says, “Despite these challenges, the Public Defender’s Office successfully and competently represents their clients, with few client complaints.”
Regarding the workload, the report notes:
Each attorney in the Public Defender and Conflict Counsel’s Office is doing the job of at least 2.5 attorneys based on caseload recommendations from the Office of the State Public Defender. This is without taking into account the complexity of the cases, and does not allow for even a single hour of sick leave, vacation, training or administrative tasks.

(The Conflict Counsel’s Office is part of the PD’s office and also represents indigent clients, though it includes private attorneys. Its attorneys are typically appointed when there’s a conflict of interest in the PD’s Office.)
Meanwhile, the DA’s Office receives about 40 percent more funding than the Public Defender’s Office despite having similar caseloads. Investigators and support staff in the PD’s Office staff make significantly less than their counterparts in the DA’s Office. Humboldt’s PD attorneys also make less than those in other California counties, which makes it tough to recruit and retain new ones.
“The PD has lost experienced and effective attorneys to alcoholism and burnout,” the report says. “One former Deputy Public Defender reported it took two years after leaving the office to recover from the stress and trauma and reach the point of being able to work again.”
As a reminder, Humboldt County’s Civil Grand Jury is an independent body of 19 citizen volunteers tasked with investigating the operations of local government agencies to ensure accountability, efficiency and transparency. For this report, the group interviewed county employees, made site visits, attended court proceedings and reviewed relevant records, laws and policies.
Regarding that ugly box of rotting shingles on Fourth Street, the Civil Grand Jury notes that the county has long planned to consolidate multiple county services into one comprehensive campus, which may explain the reluctance to fix up the PD’s existing office, but those consolidation plans have been repeatedly delayed, most recently because of the county’s budget woes.
As for the pay and resource disparity between the DA and PD offices, the report notes that the problem is not unique to Humboldt. While the American Bar Association says that, as a matter of principle, there should be parity between defense counsel and the prosecution, in reality that’s just not the case.
Consider the chart below, which shows the ratio of District Attorney Office funding versus indigent defense funding for the 32 California counties that reported data for both public defender and district attorney offices.

Data compiled by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. | From the Grand Jury report.

The DA’s Office has other built-in advantages:
Much of what the DA needs to prosecute a case is given to them by law enforcement, including the law enforcement report, witnesses’, victims’ and defendants’ statements and contact information, electronic and physical evidence, and medical and laboratory reports. The PD must put together the defense by itself. The PD conducts its own investigations, and must identify, find and interview all defense witnesses.

The report invokes the Sixth Amendment and says it “seems difficult to justify” the big funding gap between the DA and PD offices, and it concludes that the scales of justice are most certainly out of whack.
Regarding the PD Office’s employees, the report says, “These defenders of justice are disadvantaged, deluged and devalued. They all work stressful jobs, in a demoralizing, decrepit environment, with too few staff, not enough money, little opportunity for advancement, and no hope of relief.
“Is there equity in our local judicial system? There is not,” the report continues. “The one and only advantage the Public Defender’s Office has is its quality, highly skilled, and dedicated staff. Pitted against a Goliath, these Davids are winning battles.”
As with all reports from the Civil Grand Jury, this one concludes with a list of findings followed by a list of recommendations. There are 20 of the latter in this instance. They include relocating the office into better facilities within a year; raise deputy PD wages to a level of parity with deputy DAs; provide more investigatory resources to the office; fund a full-time social worker for the office; allow the employees to bring emotional support dogs to work; and provide funding to hire more support staff.
You can download the full report by clicking here. ... See MoreSee Less