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
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
plumassun.org/2026/02/15/2024-2025-grand-jury-report-controversy-continues/
Plumas County
2024-2025 grand jury report controversy continues
Supervisors hear complaints despite limited role
The Plumas Sun, February 15, 2026, by Jane Braxton Little
Controversy over the 2024-2025 Plumas County Civil Grand Jury once again spilled into the county supervisors’ board room Feb. 10, airing questions about who did what and on whose authority. At issue are a published grand jury report sharing the results of two investigations, a published grand jury report sharing three investigations, and a rumored fourth investigation not included in either published report. That fourth investigation relates to the Chester Public Utility District.
Despite the Plumas County Board of Supervisors’ limited role with grand juries, acrimonious disagreements have arisen at three separate meetings since the dual reports were issued in late June. The Feb. 10 meeting, which included nothing about the grand jury on the agenda, was the most recent.
Clint Koble, a resident of Hamilton Branch, used the public comment period to share what he called “considerable speculation” about the grand jury’s official 2025 publication. It was “missing its major report,” he said, an apparent reference to the alleged investigation of the Chester Public Utility District.
The “omission” left members of the jury “marginalized if not dismissed by justice,” said Koble, who served on the 2025 jury. Grand juries are, by state statute, designed to be independent investigative bodies. Koble said he and other jury members were “made to feel we didn’t matter” by the county officials serving in advisory positions.
Koble said a person interviewed by the grand jury sent a “scathing and libelous letter” to the county supervisors; Plumas County Superior Court Judge Douglas Prouty, the presiding judge; and District Attorney David Hollister. The judge and district attorney responded by calling a meeting of the jurors and questioning their interview procedures, said Koble.
That felt “like a reprimand or disrespect and deep humiliation,” he said. Along with the “missing” investigation, the jurors felt as though their findings and recommendations were “thrown out the window without legal cause,” Koble said.
The DA responds
Any suggestion that last year’s grand jury report had a portion omitted by the judge is “a categorically false statement,” said Hollister. Using a section of the Feb. 10 agenda for department head announcements, Hollister said he would have ignored Koble’s comment “like other false tales on social media” if a similar comment had not been shared publicly at the previous board of supervisors meeting.
Hollister was referencing comments made Feb. 3 by Supervisor Tom McGowan during a discussion about authorizing a $900 budget transfer to cover expenses for the 2025-2026 grand jury. McGowan said he was “disappointed” that previous grand jury results had been “shoved under the table.”
“It concerns me” that a grand jury investigation “was shelved and ignored,” McGowan said Feb. 3.
After that meeting Hollister took McGowan to task in the public hallway outside the board room, a conversation that was witnessed by The Plumas Sun among others. A week later, McGowan publicly apologized for “misspeaking.”
“Many in the northern end of the county … are convinced there is an ember, a spark, that something was left unexplained.” (Tom McGowan, Plumas County supervisor)
But he returned to the matter Feb. 10: “I am expressing the frustration of many in the northern end of the county who are convinced there is an ember, a spark, that something was left unexplained.”
Hollister countered: “The suggestion the judge removed a portion of the final report is not only patently false but really unfair to the Superior Court judges and the institution of the grand jury,” he said.
According to the California Department of Justice, a grand jury is an independent body that operates separately from the entities and officials it investigates. It conducts its investigations under the auspices of the superior court. The district attorney and county counsel can act as advisors on request.
The jury’s final report must be approved by at least 12 of its 19 members. Prior to publication, it is submitted to the presiding judge, who may or may not approve it, Hollister said.
“By law, neither can forbid publication.” (David Hollister, Plumas County district attorney)
Whether the final report is approved by the presiding judge or the county counsel or the DA has no bearing on publication, he added. “By law, neither can forbid publication,” said Hollister, citing the California Grand Jury Manual and a court case involving Santa Barbara County.
Two grand jury reports
The 2024-2025 grand jury report has been controversial since June, when jurors issued not one but two reports. The version sent by the grand jury to Plumas County Clerk of the Board Allen Hiskey included two investigations; it has been posted on the county website since June 26. The version grand jury members sent to The Plumas Sun included an additional third investigation; it has been posted on The Plumas Sun website since July 11.
Neither published report released by members of the grand jury included the “missing” investigation Koble referenced, said to be about the CPUD. The report published by The Plumas Sun ends with “without CPUD (1).”
The Feb. 10 discussion at the supervisors’ meeting did nothing to clarify how the grand jury released two different versions of its report to the public, but it did make clear the proper procedure for supervisors — at least going forward. In the future, only a report confirmed by the superior court judge will be posted on the Plumas County website, said Board of Supervisors Chair Mimi Hall.
The supervisors have limited involvement with grand juries. They are tasked with responding to any investigations that involve county operations or departments. They also provide an annual budget and post final reports, Hall said.
State law allows the supervisors to set the size of the grand jury. In November, at Hollister’s recommendation, they reduced the size of the 2025-2026 grand jury from 19 to 11 members. The action was designed to help enable the jury to meet a quorum, which is 12 with a 19-member panel, seven with an 11-member panel, Hall said.
Koble disagreed with the reduction, asking the supervisors to rescind their decision. “The system needs to be fixed, not destroyed,” he said.
2024-2025 grand jury report controversy continues | The Plumas Sun
plumassun.org
Controversy over the 2024-2025 Plumas County Civil Grand Jury once again spilled into the county supervisors’ board room Feb. 10, airing questions about0 CommentsComment on Facebook
Watchdogs Wanted, Call for Marin County Civil Grand Jury | Pacific Sun share.google/KWjISFzI5haDMRaZs
Applications are now open for the Marin County Civil Grand Jury, a little-known but consequential institution that serves as Marin’s only independent watchdog over local government.
Each year, 19 Marin residents are selected to serve a one-year term investigating the operations of county and city governments, special districts and certain nonprofit organizations that receive public funds. Empowered by the judicial system and operating independently of elected officials, administrators and legislators, the Civil Grand Jury examines citizen complaints, conducts its own studies of local issues and publishes investigative reports with findings and recommendations intended to improve transparency, efficiency and accountability in government.
The Civil Grand Jury is strictly civil in scope and should not be confused with a criminal grand jury. While a criminal grand jury reviews indictments brought by the county district attorney to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, the Civil Grand Jury focuses on how public agencies function. Jurors review records, conduct interviews, deliberate in committees and collaborate on written reports that are released publicly once completed.
No legal background is required to serve. According to the Superior Court, jurors are selected for their curiosity, objectivity, sound judgment and commitment to public service. Members are chosen through a formal process that includes an application, background check and interviews. The foreperson is appointed by the Marin County Superior Court, and juror names are announced at the start of each term.
Civil grand jurors attend weekly investigative committee meetings. Because jurors are sworn to secrecy during their term, there are no published meeting agendas or minutes, and the public cannot request jury records. This confidentiality is designed to protect the integrity of investigations and encourage candid participation. Once reports are issued, however, they become part of the public record, and agencies named in them are required to provide formal responses.
The Civil Grand Jury’s budget is included in the annual budget of the County Counsel’s office. The jury does not receive fees, taxes, bonds or grants, and it does not issue requests for proposals or solicit outside bids. Jurors are paid $20 per day for each day they attend a committee meeting and are reimbursed for mileage.
Watchdogs Wanted, Call for Marin County Civil Grand Jury | Pacific Sun
share.google
Applications are now open for the Marin County Civil Grand Jury, which serves as Marin’s only independent watchdog over local government.0 CommentsComment on Facebook
kfbk.iheart.com/featured/the-afternoon-news-with-kitty-o-neal/content/2025-12-04-recruitment-unde...
Nineteen Sacramento County residents and 11 alternates will be selected from among qualified applicants. The one-year term for volunteer jurors runs from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027.
The Grand Jury is appointed to provide oversight of Sacramento County, its cities, public schools, including community colleges, and special district agencies and operations.
I'm
The Grand Jury is authorized to hear criminal indictments and is tasked with visiting regional detention facilities, along with the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office Crime Lab and the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office.
The Grand Jury also investigates complaints submitted by the public and issues reports of its findings. Past Grand Jury reports and government responses can be found online at sacgrandjury.org/reports.aspx.
To serve on the Grand Jury, you must be a U.S. citizen 18 years of age or older, a resident of Sacramento County for at least one year, and available for 20-30 hours a week. Applicants must also be able to speak, read, and write the English language.
Applications must be received by January 2, 2026, to be considered. The 2026-27 Grand Jury will be empaneled in June 2026. Grand Jurors receive a small stipend for their volunteer work.
For more information about the Sacramento County Grand Jury, applicant criteria, and how to apply, please visit bit.ly/SCGrandJury2627.
kfbk.iheart.com
Applicants are now being sought for new jurors to serve on the Sacramento County Grand Jury.1 CommentsComment on Facebook
sjcbar.org/?pg=news&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=137780
San Joaquin County Superior Court Seeking Applicants to Serve on the 2026-2027 Civil Grand Jury
Posted on: Jan 27, 2026
Stockton, CA — The Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, is accepting applications for service on the 2026–2027 San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury. The deadline to apply is March 27, 2026.
Applicants must be able to work in person and have the ability to participate remotely via telephone or video appearance. A smartphone and internet access are required. To qualify, applicants must be at least 18 years of age, a United States citizen, and a resident of San Joaquin County for at least one year. Applicants must possess sufficient knowledge of the English language and may not be currently serving as a trial juror or as an elected public official. Qualified applicants may be interviewed by a Superior Court judge. Background investigations, including law enforcement record checks, will be conducted by the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office.
Members of the 2026–2027 Civil Grand Jury will begin their service on July 1, 2026. The Grand Jury is composed of 19 citizens whose names are randomly selected from a list of qualified applicants.
Applications are available by calling (209) 992-5695 or by visiting the court’s website at www.sjcourts.org/general-info/civil-grand-jury
San Joaquin County Superior Court Seeking Applicants to Serve on the 2026-2027 Civil Grand Jury
sjcbar.org
Stockton, CA — The Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin0 CommentsComment on Facebook
