Response says
The response disagrees that Supervisor Holland refused cooperation and describes the conduct as a good-faith request to address potential bias.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F4
Conduct surrounding a Grand Jury interview and juror-bias concerns
What should residents consider about Finding F4: Conduct surrounding a Grand Jury interview and juror-bias concerns, and the County’s response?
Tuolumne CountyResponse dated 2026-09-01Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
The response states its position and gives an explanation, so it directly engages the finding. This assessment addresses responsiveness only, not factual or legal correctness.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 2/2
6/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
The County expressly disagrees, describes the interview issue as a recusal inquiry rather than a refusal to cooperate, and identifies the Civil Grand Jurors' Association FAQ and Penal Code sections 911 and 924.1 as supporting references.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...