Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

2 weeks 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 weeks 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

3 weeks 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

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

3 weeks 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

Civil Grand Jurors' Association of California

3 weeks ago

Plumas County Faces 21 Percent Workforce
Vacancy Rate Amid Recruitment Challenges

Workforce vacancies have haunted Plumas County for years. They prompted a recent investigation by the
Plumas County Civil Grand Jury and, for the last four months of 2024, forced the sheriff to eliminate on-
the-street law enforcement from 10 p.m. until noon.
Just how many positions are vacant, and in which county departments, has been a matter of speculation for
the county and the public. Now it is a matter of public record.
Plumas County has a total of 423.476 full-time equivalency positions, said Sara James, deputy county
counsel who is temporarily serving as the county’s interim human resources department director. Ninety
positions are vacant. That’s a 21% vacancy rate, James told the Plumas County Board of Supervisors Aug.
19.
Reporting by bargaining unit
In her report, prompted by a new state law, James used the county’s employee bargaining units to document
vacancy rates, emphasizing those with 20% or higher. Thirteen different bargaining units represent county
employees in setting wages and benefits. Three units hit the 20% mark or above, while two others were just
below that vacancy rate.
The probation department’s mid-management unit is at the top of the county’s vacancy rate with 50%
percent of its positions vacant. That number is deceptive: The mid-management unit has just two positions;
one is vacant. The rest of the probation department won honors for having a 0% vacancy rate. All of its 12
positions are filled.
A more realistic picture of vacancies shows in the general employee department, a broad category that
includes the treasurer and assessor departments, health and human services, behavioral health and social
services. Of its 175.731 full-time equivalency positions, 53.095 are vacant. That’s 30.21%, James said.
The sheriff’s office also illustrates the county’s issue with vacancies. It has 62 positions, including deputies,
dispatchers and correctional officers working at the jail. Of them, 14 (22%) are vacant.
Moving to the bargaining unit for contract employees, James said one of its five full-time equivalent
positions is vacant. In the confidential bargaining unit, which includes the auditor’s office, three of the 18
approved positions are vacant.
James also reported three vacant department head positions: social services, human resources and the
county administrative officer. All three have been topics discussed recently by the supervisors. At its Aug.
19 meeting, the board’s closed session agenda included discussions of appointments of both a CAO and
social services director. Board Chairman Kevin Goss reported no action.
While the raw numbers in the vacancy report were sobering, James was upbeat in presenting them: “We’re
hoping for a positive conversation to come out of this,” she said.

Supervisor Mimi Hall said she welcomed the numbers as a way to dispel “rural rumors,” her Plumas County
equivalent of urban myths. The new state law “forces us to be transparent. We need to be making decisions
based on real data,” Hall said.
Recruitment and retention
The actual workforce vacancy numbers may be new, but the supervisors have been working to improve the
county’s application and hiring process. Under the leadership of former Interim Human Resources Director
Joshua Mizrahi , and now James, the number of new hires is gradually increasing.
During the fiscal year that ended June 30, Plumas County hired 120 employees. In the first month and a half
of the new fiscal year, 17 applicants were hired to new positions. That improves the rate of monthly hiring
from 10 a month to 11.3 a month, a positive sign, said James.
The HR department has increased its public outreach in recent months, she said. James publicly
acknowledged Hannah Hayes, an HR technician, for getting applications out quickly to department heads,
contributing to the improved hiring rate.
James also reported that once hired, Plumas County employees stay with their jobs. The average rate of
worker retention for Plumas County is 10 years, she said. Over 40 employees have been with the county for
20 years or more, she reported.
In her report James listed a number of challenges to successful recruiting and retaining county employees.
Wages, cost of living and health insurance rates are among them. But James also included particular local
issues: staffing shortages, burn-out and department stability.
“Outdated” requirements and “cumbersome” process
Several positions that have remained open for over a year may be the result of outdated job descriptions. In
the auditor’s office, the assistant position has been vacant since December, 2022. It requires five years of
experience and the equivalent of a four-year degree. In its 2025 report, the grand jury found that
requirement too high and recommended a change allowing experience to supersede the degree requirement.
Other departments are also impacted by “outdated” job descriptions and a “cumbersome” process for
updating them, according to the grand jury report. The county public works department has positions that
have been vacant for as long as 17 months. In the building department, key positions went unfilled due to
experience requirements and a process requiring resignations and retirements to go through the human
relations department. The sheriff’s office is “chronically understaffed,” the grand jury reported.
It recommended that the board of supervisors allow more frequent changes to job descriptions and give
authority to the HR department to do that in some cases. The grand jury also recommended a greater effort
on recruitment for open positions.
Goss was not available to respond to these recommendations. The board of supervisors has until late
September to issue its formal response.
Suggestions from the public
The public also weighed in on workforce vacancies, contributing to the “positive conversation” James said
she hoped for when she delivered her report to the supervisors. Several suggestions were aimed at
innovations that might help make working in Plumas County more attractive to newcomers and easier for
those already here.

Deb Hopkins, a Quincy resident, suggested the county offer daycare to its employees. She also proposed
offering work experience to local high school students to introduce them to the jobs that are available.
Rick Foster, a self-described board of supervisors “watchdog,” questioned the number of contract
employees working for Plumas County, suggesting that they may be affecting the vacancy rate in some
departments. James said they may, in some cases. But the county often needs “overnight services” for
positions, required in social services or behavioral health positions where the county has no qualified
people.
“As soon as we have the staff, those contracts go away,” she said.
Contract workers also play a role in curbing employee burn out, said Hall. When someone is working a job
without the experience or skills required, it tends to lead to quitting, she said. Hiring a contract worker can
spare that frustration, Hall said.
Sheriff’s caveats
Chandler Peay, president of the Plumas County Sheriff’s Employee’s Association, said he and the
department appreciate the 20% raise across-the-board the supervisors approved in October 2023. But, he
pointed out, the raise was the first one in eight years. Low wages for that long “set us back” in terms of
recruiting and retaining employees. In addition to the Plumas County Sheriff’s 14 vacancies, several
workers are close to retirement, which will create additional vacancies.
“Pay is still our biggest issue,” Peay said. Even with the increase, wages remain 20% below the average in
comparable counties, he reported.
Hall said a salary study, currently underway for all county employees, will contribute to reducing the
county’s workforce vacancies. It is designed to identify jobs and pay scales across a broad spectrum,
producing “real data” for basing decisions.
The salary study, expected to be complete April 2026, should evaluate all employee positions, including
department heads, and review the salary and work requirements established for each one, said County
Counsel Joshua Brechtel at the supervisors’ July 1 meeting. Until its completion, Hall encouraged county
departments to help find ways to “jump-start” recruitment for vacant positions.
The vacancy report was required by California Assembly Bill (AB) 2561. It holds public agencies
responsible for an annual public hearing to present the status of vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts.
The bill, which went into effect in January, also requires that these recruitment plans be made available
online for public review. The bill does not require a vote once the report has been presented.
this month. ... See MoreSee Less