The 2024-2025 Plumas County civil grand jury report has been a point of contention for months. Disputes over the official contents of the report arose over the summer, when two separate and significantly different reports were released to the public. In October the situation was exacerbated when the Plumas County Board of Supervisors took exception to a variety of the jurors’ findings. A month later, they reduced the membership from 19 grand jurors to 11.
Strict confidentiality
Civil grand juries act as watchdogs for local government. They investigate county, city and district operations to ensure they are efficient, economical and serve the best interest of the public. Juries examine financial accounts and audits, and make recommendations for improvement.
Grand juries operate under strict confidentiality to protect the integrity of their work and shield those they have interviewed from public stigma. Jurors take an oath of secrecy that prevents them sharing their investigations publicly beyond an annual report, which must be signed by a judge. The judges and district attorneys who act as advisors to the jury are also held to absolute secrecy.
These rules have made investigating allegations and rumors about the 2024-2025 Plumas County grand jury challenging.
Two reports released
The 2024-2025 Plumas County civil grand jury submitted its official report to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors June 26 and released it to the public June 30. In early July, a member of the grand jury contacted The Plumas Sun with another version of the report. It was published July 11.
Both versions include an introduction and a thank-you letter from foreperson Donald Bliss. Both contain “Jobs Jobs Jobs!,” an eight-page investigation of staffing of county departments, and “CRV — It’s Your Money,” a five-page review of the county’s recycling program. That is where the county’s June report ends.
The July report, however, includes a third investigation: “Is There Room for One More?” This five-page section investigates affordable housing, specifically Sierra Meadows in Chester, a public program operated by the Plumas County Community Development Commission.
The distribution of two different reports was not the only unusual aspect of the most recent grand jury investigation. Several jury members contacted The Plumas Sun to report that at least one extensive investigation they conducted was not included in either public version. A third version was apparently written, edited and fully approved, they said.
Plumas County Superior Court Judge Douglas M. Prouty and District Attorney David Hollister, who serve as legal advisors to grand juries, both declined to comment on any aspect of the reports, citing confidentiality. Violating grand jury secrecy can result in prosecution for criminal contempt of court or misdemeanor charges, according to Penal Code Section 924.2.
Supervisors react to recommendations
The board of supervisors discussed the discrepancy when they met to approve the grand jury report Oct. 18. The June report, the one posted on the county website, is the official version, said Supervisor Mimi Hall. The July report sent to The Plumas Sun is “not official,” she said. “I don’t know how this happened but it did happen,” Hall said.
She and the other supervisors primarily focused on the county staffing section of the report, found on Page 311 of the board’s Oct. 21 agenda. They agreed with the grand jury that the process for approving county position job descriptions is lengthy and requires several reviews. They disagreed with the jurors’ criticism of the process for filling vacated positions. The supervisors also took issue with grand jury recommendations regarding hiring, job descriptions and succession planning.
The supervisors agree with most of the jury’s recommendations for improving the county’s California redemption value program, and directed the public works department to make appropriate changes.
Rick Foster, a Quincy resident and self-described county watchdog, advised the supervisors to not adopt the grand jury report or submit their responses without further investigation. It would be “a travesty,” he said, to have issues “swept under the rug” without “thinking about their impact.”
Hall disagreed: “None of this is sweeping anything under the rug. I feel confident we are doing what we can” by talking to the appropriate county departments.
Foster said the responses prepared for adoption Oct. 21 “had not been looked at” by the entire board of supervisors. Janet Crain, a Meadow Valley resident who regularly attends board meetings, asked the supervisors to go through the grand jury report publicly.
“We as citizens would have a chance to hear the discussion” and participate, she said.
Kevin Goss, chairman of the board of supervisors, called the spirited discussion “clear as mud.” Supervisor Tom McGowan moved to table the response to the grand jury. Supervisor Jeff Engel countered with a motion to “approve it now.” Supervisor Dwight Ceresola seconded that motion, which was approved unanimously. McGowan cast a yes vote “reluctantly.”
Flawed process
In approving the grand jury report, the supervisors acknowledged that the process of preparing and releasing it was flawed. At their Nov. 18 meeting, they publicly addressed some of those concerns.
The 2025-2026 grand jury is struggling to fill its 19 positions, said Hollister, the district attorney. Recent juries have found it difficult to maintain the quorum of 12 required for them to conduct businesses. Hollister recommended reducing the number of jurors from 19 to 11 members.
“I’ve reached out to the county counsel and also our superior court judges. There’s unanimous support for this,” Hollister told the supervisors.
While state statute requires most counties to maintain grand juries at 21 members, it allows counties with populations of under 20,000 residents to reduce the number to 11. That would reduce the quorum to seven, Hollister said.
It took the Plumas supervisors less than a minute to unanimously adopt the change approving a grand jury of 11 members. The county has for several months been gathering members for the 2025-2026 grand jury, which has already begun its work, Hollister said.