Civil Grand Jury Watches Government, But Who’s Watching Them?
By David King, Diablo Gazette / Photos Added by Clayton Watch
 |
| 2025/2026 Civil Grand Jury with the Board of Supervisors |
The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is annually impaneled to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Recommendations resulting from these investigations are listed.
This year, a just released report 2602 is a highly critical Civil Grand Jury review of Contra Costa County’s Internal Audit Division (IAD), concluding that the County’s internal auditing system is outdated, lacks independence, and does not comply with professional auditing standards or California law and says the current structure undermines both independence and public accountability.
Among the Findings
The Grand Jury says the County’s internal audit operation has major structural problems.
One of the more egregious findings is the Internal Audit Division has not had an outside quality review in more than 25 years, even though auditing standards require one every 3–5 years.
It cites examples indicating the audit division is functioning in what the report calls a major conflict of interest and “independence impairment.”
Oversight from the Board of Supervisors is described as weak and largely symbolic.
The audit division operates under a governing administrative bulletin written in 1975 that has never been modernized to reflect current standards.
The County does not publicly post completed internal audit reports or annual audit plans online and lacks several standard safeguards expected in modern government auditing.
Jury Recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends sweeping reforms, including:
* Creating a dedicated Audit Committee and adding outside/public financial experts.
* Ending the practice of auditors helping prepare the County’s financial reports.
* Requiring quarterly reporting to supervisors.
* Publishing audit reports publicly online.
* Bringing the division into compliance with Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and Government Accountability Office (GAGAS) standards.
The County must respond to the Court regarding recommendations offered by the report.
Last year when the Clayton City Council had to respond to its Civil Grand Jury Report 2505. The Council responded with an emphatic “no” to most of the report’s recommendations, citing the investigators used inaccurate figures, dismissed audited figures and other information provided and misunderstands local government procedures and functions.
In addition, believing the report was detrimental to the City’s reputation, the local Political Action Committee, Clayton Watch, submitted a petition to the Court requesting a correction or amendment to their report.
Did they do it? It doesn’t appear so.
“The new Pinole Civil Grand Jury Report 2604 shows what good oversight looks like: facts, benchmarks, and transparency,” said Gary Hood, a member of the Clayton Watch and Clayton resident who filed the petition.
“Last year’s Clayton report did the opposite. It started with a conclusion, then worked backward and failed badly to support it.
“Maybe it’s time for the Civil Grand Jury to look in the mirror. A watchdog should be held to the same standard it demands of everyone else. Political influence has no place in the process. The public deserves independence, objectivity, and facts. And maybe it’s time someone on the judiciary side of the street did their job. Who watches the watchdog?”
* Publishing audit reports publicly online.
* Bringing the division into compliance with Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and Government Accountability Office (GAGAS) standards.
The County must respond to the Court regarding recommendations offered by the report.
In addition, believing the report was detrimental to the City’s reputation, the local Political Action Committee, Clayton Watch, submitted a petition to the Court requesting a correction or amendment to their report.
Did they do it? It doesn’t appear so.
“The new Pinole Civil Grand Jury Report 2604 shows what good oversight looks like: facts, benchmarks, and transparency,” said Gary Hood, a member of the Clayton Watch and Clayton resident who filed the petition.
“Last year’s Clayton report did the opposite. It started with a conclusion, then worked backward and failed badly to support it.
“Maybe it’s time for the Civil Grand Jury to look in the mirror. A watchdog should be held to the same standard it demands of everyone else. Political influence has no place in the process. The public deserves independence, objectivity, and facts. And maybe it’s time someone on the judiciary side of the street did their job. Who watches the watchdog?”
The Civil Grand Jury's latest report warns about the dangers of weak oversight, poor accountability, and a lack of independent review within county government.
ReplyDeleteIronically, those are some of the same concerns many Clayton residents have raised about the Civil Grand Jury itself.
When a government department is wrong, there are audits, appeals, and corrective actions. When a Grand Jury report contains disputed facts or questionable conclusions, citizens are largely told to accept it and move on.
No public institution should be beyond scrutiny, including the watchdogs.
If accountability matters, it has to run both ways.
Clayton Watch was right for speaking up. The report on Clayton was a political hit piece - no doubt about it. -Robert
ReplyDeleteThere is little doubt that the “report” was nothings more than a hit job put together by all friends of #justonecouncilmember, the defunct newspaper editor, and the political party of Clayton masquerading as a nonprofit. And if you have the right friends on a civil grand jury you can make anything stick! Who checks for those conflicts of interest? All you need to do right now to prove it was a hit job is read the report on Pinole and compare it the report they did on Clayton. Night and day! Facts vs made up things to harm our town.
DeleteWhat’s the next step for Clayton Watch? Does anybody know?
ReplyDeleteThe Grand Jury says everyone needs oversight. Fair enough. The question is: who's minding the watchdog, and why does it seem nobody on the judicial side of the street wants that job? The whole county system is messed up. I’m so glad their tax measure failed. They’re all a bunch of lazy SOB’s collecting a paycheck. The report on the county proves just that. .-Howard the Handyman
ReplyDeleteThis is another example of Clayton Watch reporting facts and pursuing the truth to the benefit of us all! It is insane that an unknown group of people (Grand Jury) come to conclusions and produce an inaccurate report based on incorrect information, and then refuse to make any corrections or even acknowledge they based their report on false statements from people with an agenda. Thank you Clayton Watch.
ReplyDeleteThe primary oversight of a Civil Grand Jury generally comes from three places:
ReplyDelete• The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
• Legal counsel assigned to advise the Grand Jury
• The Grand Jury itself
In Contra Costa County, that means the responsibility ultimately rests with the Court, its advisory counsel, and the Grand Jury members charged with ensuring accuracy and fairness.
The troubling question is this: if those safeguards were working as intended, how did so many disputed facts and concerns about the Clayton report make it into a public document in the first place?
At some point, "trusting the process" is not enough. Oversight requires verification, not assumptions. If accountability, fact-checking, and quality control are standards the Grand Jury expects from every public agency it investigates, then those same standards should apply to the Grand Jury itself.
Perhaps it's time for someone on the judicial side of the street to ask whether the oversight system is actually functioning as intended. It’s apparent they trusted Peter Appert, the foreperson, more than they should have. Were there potential conflicts of interest? Sure sounds like it. -Retired Attorney
The report contains factual claims that are contradicted by audited records, official minutes, and documented actions. If the Civil Grand Jury expects transparency and accountability from local governments, it should welcome the same scrutiny of its own work. Change is needed!
ReplyDelete