County watchdog strikes a positive tone, praising local government in grand jury reports

Last year, after Mike Weatherford was chosen to head the county’s citizen-led local government oversight committee, his schedule filled up with meetings as he essayed to gain insight into the public sector machinery. 

As the 2024-25 foreperson of the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury, Weatherford would be responsible for leading a committee of residents — whose 19-member roster is selected anew each year — into independently investigating whether government policies and operations were serving the public.

“During those early interviews with some senior officials, there was a tone of, ‘You guys just don’t appreciate what we do, and your grand jury opinions are written in silos and there is no acknowledgment of our hard work,’” said Weatherford, who recently retired as chief financial officer of Stanford Medicine Partners. “And we thought, ‘Hey, that might be fair.'” 

The criticism is not new. Though a state-mandated practice in counties across California, the civil grand jury has been accused of civil grandeur, making sweeping, sometimes damning conclusions about government programs and policies from the sidelines. Former Santa Cruz County sheriff Jim Hart threw this notion into sharp relief last year, when he called one critical investigation from the group “the most factually inaccurate” grand jury report he had seen. He immediately, and publicly, accused the members of bias. 

Weatherford maintained that the negative opinions were not universally held across government. Yet, something from those early conversations stuck. In its latest report, published Tuesday, the Weatherford-led grand jury struck a different, more positive tone about local government, in stark contrast to many reports in years prior. 

The grand jury’s second investigation of the year, titled “Honoring Commitments to the Public,” is of a genre the group has produced most years over the past decade. The report looks at whether local governments have fulfilled the commitments they made in response to past grand jury recommendations. In this case, the jury followed up on four reports from the 2022-23 cycle that focused on cybersecurity, the local jail, behavioral health and the county’s code compliance division. 

Past follow-ups have been a mixed bag of criticism and/or understated confirmation that a government agency fulfilled its commitments. Tuesday’s version articulated a more celebratory attitude. 

“TRENDING NOW … Local agencies are getting it done!” the report begins. It then highlights that local governments have fulfilled 22 of the 25 commitments they made in response to that prior grand jury’s reports — from prioritizing cybersecurity investments in the county and its four cities, to reopening one of the county jail’s medium-security facilities, to expanding a mobile crisis response team’s capabilities. 

Many of the grand jury’s recommendations are often flatly rejected by the government. These follow-up reports do not analyze rejected recommendations, and instead focus on those which the county or city government said they would work, or were already working, to implement. 

Weatherford’s team then went another step further and produced something no previous grand jury has done in at least 15 years: a list of “commendations,” eight pats-on-the-back that highlight areas of government that impressed them. 

The report commended the county information services offices for regularly attending a statewide trade conference to stay up to date on government information technology and forming a related working group, and the City of Santa Cruz for hiring a cybersecurity IT manager and creating a “comprehensive cybersecurity plan.” The jury also commended the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office for the “vast services” provided at the Blaine Street women’s jail facility, and for recognizing the need for dental services at the Rountree jail facility. 

Weatherford was quick to reject the idea that the grand jury was trying to appease some of its critics. 

“I think the jury was really impressed with many people in local government and how they are looking out for the best interest of the constituency,” Weatherford said. “But sometimes they get caught in whatever bureaucracy is created by regulations.” 

However, Weatherford did confess that there was some intention behind the tone.  

“It was a little bit of, well, sometimes we make recommendations and they are ignored, and we really appreciate that in some cases they aren’t ignored,” Weatherford said. “What’s that saying? You attract bees with honey?”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.