What We Do
We provide the general public with information and educational materials and activities on the California Civil Grand Jury system that will help increase public awareness of the valuable role the civil grand jury plays in our democratic system of government.
We provide comprehensive training on all subjects relative to empaneled civil grand juries available to all 58 counties within California including civil grand jury training as well as specific workshops on key topics relevant to civil grand jury service.
What Are You
Looking For?
Find valuable information on these subjects
Civil Grand Jury Resources
Here you can find sample documents, templates, examples of well-written reports, links to local government resources,
and FAQs.
Our Annual Conference
Every year in the fall, CGJA holds an Annual Conference and Membership Meeting to provide an opportunity for members and civil grand jurors to meet and discuss experiences and hear from speakers and panels on relevant topics of interest.
Chapter Resources
Includes chapter resource documents, suggested activities for chapters, guidance for forming a chapter along with templates.
Get Involved
Join CGJA as an active member, volunteer for CGJA, become a civil grand juror, join a chapter, or support us through a tax deductible donation.
Grand Jurors' Journal
This bimonthly journal is a major source of information about the civil grand jury system and recent updates on CGJA activities of interest to our members.
CGJA and California's Civil Grand Jury System
Learn about CGJA and details about California’s unique system of civil grand juries.
Our Awards
Annual awards recognizing civil grand jury reporting and media coverage along with the Angelo Rolando Service Award.
We can help you become
an effective civil grand juror
CGJA conducts training seminars for civil grand jurors and alternates on their various civil functions. These seminars include twelve full hours of presentations and over 300 pages of training materials. Experienced and highly qualified trainers who have served as civil grand jurors or grand jury legal advisors present these programs locally, throughout the state as “onsite” seminars or via Zoom if Covid-19 restrictions exist.
We also conduct Foreperson and Pro Tem Workshops, Legal Advisors’ Workshops, and Report Writing Workshops.
Stay Updated with Civil Grand Jury News
CGJA Journal
This bimonthly journal is a major source of information about the civil grand jury system and recent updates on CGJA activities of interest to our members.
The Gift of Your Time
is Priceless
CGJA is an all-volunteer membership organization. We succeed mainly because our members volunteer to serve on our committees and/or train civil grand jurors. Serving on committees almost never requires travel as we communicate via email and computer video. Our trainers do travel to venues throughout the state and we reimburse them for lodging, mileage, and a modest per diem for other expenses.
Making Local Government More Efficient and Effective
Follow us on Facebook
Santa Clara has a Transparency Problem — Still - The Silicon Valley Voice
www.svvoice.com/santa-clara-has-a-transparency-problem-still/
David Alexander
POSTED: 03:00 AM, March 19, 2026
Excerpt with Grand Jury Content:
A Pattern of Denial
A 2019 California Civil Grand Jury report, titled “The City of Santa Clara: Public Records Access – The Paper Chase,” found the city’s “recordkeeping to be disorganized” and getting supposedly publicly available information to be a “time-consuming and difficult chore.”
When a civil grand jury accused several of her council colleagues of colluding with the San Francisco 49ers in 2022, Gillmor was keen to put the grand jury on a pedestal. Despite her frequent defense of that grand jury, in a 176-page response to the 19-page grand jury report from 2019, Gillmor dug in her heels. She noted that the council questioned why the grand jury singled out Santa Clara and took issue with the “lack of benchmarking.”
The report called for the city to provide employees additional training, create a written policy and put in place a records management system.
In response to the recommendation that the city should “only invoke the 14-day extension where permissible,” the city claimed such a policy was already in place. It claimed a written policy was underway, that setting up a management system “required further analysis” and that it will not train other city employees on records requests because “it is not warranted or is not reasonable.”
Santa Clara has a Transparency Problem — Still
www.svvoice.com
Santa Clara continues to have an unaddressed problem with transparency and at least one council member is now speaking out.0 CommentsComment on Facebook
www.times-standard.com/2026/03/15/my-word-grand-jurors-association-follows-up-on-agency-board-com...
OPINIONCOMMENTARY
My Word | Grand Jurors Association follows up on agency, board commitments
By THE TIMES-STANDARD
PUBLISHED: March 15, 2026 at 5:31 AM PDT
By Victoria Joyce
(Note: this article lies behind a ‘pay-wall,’ and requires a subscription to the providing media service to access)
Once again, the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury is hard at work on its reports. With their term coming to an end on June 30th, they are finalizing their interviews and investigations and beginning to write their reports.
When completed, the reports will be read by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and then released to the public.
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Cupertino mayor gives measured State of the City speech-
Reference to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
Bay Area News Group – Mercury News
PUBLISHED: February 27, 2026 at 11:45 AM PST | UPDATED: February 27, 2026 at 10:18 PM PST
By LUIS MELECIO-ZAMBRANO
Cupertino state of the city: Mayor paints tough challenges and a resilient city
Cupertino Mayor Kitty Moore offered a speech that looked at the city’s challenges with measured optimism
Cupertino Mayor Kitty Moore delivers the State of the City speech on February 26, 2026. (Luis Melecio-Zambrano/Bay Area News Group)
In a measured State of the City speech that came as Cupertino stares down mounting financial issues, Mayor Kitty Moore offered a vision for a city that called for navigating rough waters through rigorous and transparent governing.
“The state of our city is resilient, disciplined and forward looking,” said Moore. “We are not without challenges … But we also have remarkable strengths.”
Since Moore was appointed in December, the city has grappled with a growing and ongoing set of fiscal pressures, including an impending overhaul of its city hall, a huge cut in tax revenue from Apple and a sharp hike in the cost of its contract with the county sheriff’s office.
Even before Moore spoke, that issue seemed present in the room, with representatives from the Sheriff’s department speaking in an apparent show of unity amid ongoing negotiations between Cupertino and the county. “We are very proud of the services that we provide, (the) collaboration that we have with the city,” said Undersheriff Michael Doty speaking of “continuing to work together … to ensure that this city remains safe.”
Towards the beginning of her remarks and throughout the speech, Moore spoke clearly about the obstacles facing the city. Fiscal challenges placed “tension between what we want to do and what we can afford to do” said Moore, acknowledging that regional and state pressures could affect the city’s ability to afford services or require exploring future tax measures.
She described Cupertino as an economic engine for the region that gave out millions more in taxes than it received.
Moore also painted a stark picture of California’s growing slate of increasingly rigorous policy intent on addressing the state’s housing crisis, arguing that local control had been “supplanted by a reign of ever-changing state laws” mandating more housing while putting retail at risk. In perhaps the most fiery moment in the approximately 50-minute speech, she promised to push back against that “reign” by lobbying against state laws that might limit the city’s control of its development. “It is our duty to fight for every inch of local control we have left to ensure Cupertino’s future is shaped by its residents and not by Sacramento,” said Moore to a burst of applause.
As much as the speech focused on outside pressures, it turned inward on city government itself, lauding city staff and listing off victories from hosting thousands of businesses, opening parks, maintaining trees and roads, and expanding transit options.
It also took a technocratic look at improving the transparency of the city. While she admitted that talk of “website upgrades” and “prioritization matrices” might seem technical, Moore stated that smooth, transparent governance would help the city weather the coming challenges and continue to move forward.
With that approach, the difficulties of the past and present could ultimately be approached with some optimism, making the city “more focused, more polished and more resilient,” said Moore towards the end of her address.
Many residents and officials in attendance seemed to appreciate the even keeled-nature of Moore’s speech.
“She’s not afraid to take a principled position and that has actually led to more progress … that has led to some more balanced positions and her looking at each issue on the merits,” said Seema Lindskog, a planning commissioner for the city and chair of the advocacy group Walk Bike Cupertino.
Even so, some differed on Moore’s assessment of the issues facing Cupertino. Councilmember J.R. Fruen maintained that the city had much to do before it achieved “good governance,” pointing to a civil grand jury report critiquing Cupertino’s government. He also argued that problems with housing and retail were best addressed by strategic planning of housing growth, not by lobbying against state regulations.
“When you misdiagnose the problem, you frequently prescribe a solution that is unlikely to solve it,” said Fruen, even as he appreciated the tone of the address. “She clearly put a lot of effort and thought into it … I thought that it was welcoming and optimistic.”
Still, others remained optimistic about the speech and Moore’s leadership.
“We’re in a much better place than we were two years ago, even three years ago,” said Councilmember Ray Wang, who looked ahead to the challenges facing the city. “This is going to be interesting, but the more transparent you are, the easier it is to make hard decisions.
0 CommentsComment on Facebook
www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/sonoma-county-grand-jury-local-fees/
After a steep fee hike last year for construction in Santa Rosa’s historic districts sparked backlash and resignations, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury is calling for more transparency in how cities adjust fees.
In a new report, the jury found Santa Rosa followed the legal process in adjusting its fees, some of which rose by more than 1,000%. But jurors concluded the process was not as clear as it could have been, and that lack of clarity contributed to the public outcry.
While state regulations require cities to justify fee adjustments, local governments aren’t required to clearly state what prior fees were or what the change in cost will be. That can make it difficult to identify unreasonable adjustments, and when those increases are abrupt, it can come off as “excessive and punitive,” jurors wrote.
“Nobody likes paying government fees, especially regulatory ones like permits for home renovations. But frustration can turn to anger when these fees suddenly increase dramatically without warning or alternatives,” the jury wrote in its eight-page report. “If Santa Rosa’s process had clearly flagged the substantial fee increases nearly a year earlier, the public outcry and subsequent council remorse might have been avoided.”
Horoscope for February 25, 2026
Though the fee increase has since been reversed, the panel recommended that the city reexamine how such fees are adjusted in the future so residents aren’t caught off guard.
A city spokesperson said the city was reviewing the report and preparing a response but declined to comment on the findings or provide details about any changes being considered.
The grand jury’s report follows the resignation of nearly the entire Cultural Heritage Board last July in protest of the new fees for landmark permits and other work in the city’s eight historic districts.
Under the previous city rates, a major alteration would’ve cost homeowners about $2,100, including $999 for the landmark permit and additional charges for a Cultural Heritage Board hearing. Under the new fee schedule, that same project would cost about $20,000, with the landmark permit alone priced at $17,762.
The increases were part of a sweeping but routine update that took effect July 1, 2024. But outgoing board members argued the hike would make even routine maintenance unaffordable and push residents to skip permits altogether, hindering preservation efforts.
That controversy spurred the grand jury to investigate how fees are set in the county’s three largest cities — Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Rohnert Park — and explore how local governments might avoid approving large increases “without proper consideration and oversight.”
State law governs how local municipalities set development fees and prohibits them from charging more than the actual cost of providing services.
Development fees, including those charged for landmark permits, are meant to cover staffing costs for processing applications, reviewing plans, conducting inspections and coordinating public hearings.
In Santa Rosa’s case, planning officials said the fees had not been updated since 2014 and no longer reflected the city’s actual costs.
To update the fee schedule, the city hired MGT Consulting to study its actual costs and compare fees with those in similar cities. The City Council adopted the new schedule in March 2024 based on the study’s full cost-recovery recommendations — except for a few categories, including day cares, some grocery stores and affordable housing, which council members chose to subsidize.
Fees for landmark alterations had historically been subsidized by up to 70% to encourage residents to seek permits and maintain the historical characteristics of preservation districts. That subsidy was removed as part of the update.
Council members later said they hadn’t realized the historic district fees would rise so dramatically. Former Council member Chris Rogers, who represented District 5 — home to many of the city’s historic neighborhoods — said the consultant’s study and staff presentation didn’t specifically highlight fees tied to landmark properties.
The grand jury reviewed the fee study, the staff report and other public documents. Jurors found it wasn’t easy to determine how much fees would change under the new schedule, an issue that may have contributed to the council’s and public’s surprise.
The jury also found that state law doesn’t specify how often fee studies must be conducted, nor does it limit how steeply fees can be increased as long as it doesn’t exceed actual costs to the city. That allows for long gaps between updates, which can lead to sharp, one-time hikes when cities eventually act.
The jury noted that in Petaluma, by contrast, fees are adjusted annually to keep up with inflation, which has helped prevent large, sudden fee hikes. Under a new schedule adopted in May 2024, the largest increase for any existing Petaluma fee was under $1,000, despite the city also going nearly a decade without an update.
Following the resignations from the Cultural Heritage Board, Santa Rosa officials took several steps to address the backlash. In February, the council approved slashing landmark permit fees by 92%, bringing costs closer to pre-2024 levels.
The city also revamped the permitting process: Many routine projects — like installing landscaping or fences — no longer require a permit, and minor projects can be approved over the counter.
The council also endorsed consolidating the Cultural Heritage Board with the Design Review Board, a change officials said would help reduce the time and cost of processing permits.
Preservation advocates at the time raised concerns that the newly formed Design Review and Preservation Board, which began meeting in May, wouldn’t be equipped to adequately review landmark alterations and called on the city to provide proper training for board members.
The grand jury commended the city for these changes but offered several new recommendations aimed at improving transparency.
It urged Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Rohnert Park to direct staff — by year’s end — to include in future fee proposals a breakdown of any fee changes that exceed a council-specified threshold and a list of fees that have been or will be subsidized.
Petaluma City Manager Peggy Flynn said city officials agreed with the need for more clarity in how fees are set.
“The public needs and deserves to know what is behind this process and how fees are calculated,” she said.
The Petaluma City Council is expected to consider the city’s formal response to the jury’s recommendations Sept. 8.
Rohnert Park hasn’t yet responded.
Jurors also recommended that Santa Rosa and Rohnert Park adopt policies to prevent abrupt fee spikes by the end of the year.
City officials must respond to the grand jury’s findings and recommendations by Sept. 30. The Santa Rosa City Council is expected to discuss the report later this month.
You can reach Staff Writer Paulina Pineda at 707-521-5268 or paulina.pineda@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @paulinapineda22.
Sonoma County grand jury calls for more transparency in how cities set fees
www.pressdemocrat.com
After a steep fee hike last year for construction in Santa Rosa’s historic districts sparked backlash and resignations, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury is calling for more transparency in …0 CommentsComment on Facebook
sanjosespotlight.com/op-ed-san-jose-parents-question-truth-behind-pending-school-closures/
Op-ed: San Jose parents question truth behind pending school closures
by Special to San José Spotlight
February 17, 2026
A civil grand jury described SJUSD “leadership culture (as) characterized by tolerance for verbally abusive behaviors, lack of a safe space to communicate, (and) low morale.” Only the SJUSD school board has the ability to address this by firing the superintendent.
If not addressed, thousands of young students will be displaced in August. Some children as young as 4 and 5 years old will have to walk up to 1.5 miles to reach their new classrooms. Special education students could be taken out of familiar routines.
The San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD) is taking steps to close up to nine elementary schools as early as August. Thousands of parents have asked to stop the school closures, but Superintendent Nancy Albarrán has not shown willingness to take this input. This demonstrates the need for new district leadership.
Unlike many districts facing funding cuts due to lower enrollment that subsequently leads to schools closures, SJUSD is funded by local property taxes and is not financially obligated to close any schools.
If it’s difficult to understand why SJUSD would be so unresponsive to the community’s outcry, it’s crucial to know that Superintendent Albarrán and Chief Business Officer Seth Reddy are graduates of the Broad Academy and Broad Residency, respectively. These are billionaire-founded programs that seek to “fix” public education with corporate tactics that prioritize the bottom line, take power away from unions and families and most often result in charter schools expanding.
In November 2024, voters approved Measure R, which provides SJUSD with $1.15 billion in bonds to “complete identified repairs and improvements across all school sites.” SJUSD did not disclose that when it passed, they would instead seek to close schools. This is duplicitous.
Rather than spend the money as voters intended, SJUSD is taking drastic steps to make elementary schools into a supposed “ideal” size of three to four classes per grade level. To achieve this, smaller schools would be closed and their students redistributed. Superintendent Albarrán says this is needed to improve quality, but students and parents are saying their small schools are high quality.
The harm of school closures cannot be overstated. David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, says: “Closing schools is the last thing we should be doing. Schools are a safety net in so many communities. … Disrupting that is a setback that is hard to undo.”
In contrast, the president of SJUSD’s teachers union spoke supportively about closures. This may be because the San Jose Teachers Association presidents automatically serve as part of Superintendent Albarrán’s cabinet, which is a very unusual arrangement between unionized labor and district administration.
SJUSD was ordered by a judge to racially desegregate in 1986, but has never fully done so. Rachel Carson Elementary in SJUSD, however, is racially integrated, yet it is slated for closure in every scenario put forward by SJUSD. There are under 240 Black elementary students in SJUSD, or 2.2%. But as many as 36% of Black elementary students could be displaced, compared to just 13% of white students. Where is SJUSD’s “commitment” to equity?
Even in a normal setting, school closures result in a sense of loss and negatively impact grades, behavior and graduation rates. Navigating the loss of school communities during these perilous times when children feel unsafe due to ICE raids seems especially detrimental. This is a cruel and unacceptable plan on behalf of SJUSD.
Make your voices heard — say no to school closures and join us in asking for fresh district leadership. SJUSD families deserve a new superintendent who makes decisions based on compassion, empathy, wisdom and a real love for our students, teachers and communities.
Jeffie Khalsa, Hilary Thorsen and Evelyn Cervantes are parents of elementary school students in the San Jose Unified School District.
Op-ed: San Jose parents question truth behind pending school closures - San José Spotlight
sanjosespotlight.com
The San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD) is taking steps to close up to nine elementary schools as early as August. Thousands of parents have asked to stop the school closures, but Superintendent ...0 CommentsComment on Facebook
