Grand jury responses

Read a joint statement from 13 former grand jurors saying the county's responses were adversarial and questioning the 3-2 vote approving them as written.

A former grand juror who defended the jury's independence and asked the Board to respond to findings on their merits.

Former juror who criticized name-calling directed at jurors and urged independent, fact-based leadership.

Former juror who said the county checked off recommendations that were never actually done, including the insurance report, and cited 24 compliance deficiencies.

Former juror who asked the Board to place a public accountability plan on an agenda, addressing records retention, HR problems, and ethics recommendations.

Said the Board rushed to defend a colleague and disregarded the grand jury's criticism, calling it reprehensible.

Compared the grand jury to a nonpartisan scale and urged the board to stop disparaging its independent findings.

Thanked grand jurors for their watchdog work and asked what incentive volunteers would have if their recommendations are ignored.

An elected official (Speakers unidentified in record) asked the board to hold a higher standard, criticizing name-calling from the dais and the response's confrontational tone.

Defended Chair Griefer from blame over the response's tone, and criticized the county's handling of public records and email retention.

Twain Harte resident said the grand jury aims to make the county better and urged the board not to ignore it.

Asked detailed questions about who wrote, reviewed, and approved the grand jury responses and whether supervisors stand behind them.

Delivered a rhyming commentary accusing the board and county counsel of hubris and corruption in responding to the grand jury.

District 1 resident said the board rejected 85% of findings with identical boilerplate, misstated the law on deadlines, and asked for individualized good-faith responses.