WILLIAMS, CA (MPG) – The Williams City Council has formally pushed back against most of the findings and recommendations in a sharply critical Colusa County Civil Grand Jury report that questioned the council’s oversight, financial decisions and governance practices.
The council approved the city’s official response to the 2025-26 Grand Jury report on Aug. 19 on a split vote after it was presented as written correspondence prepared by City Attorney Andreas Booher. There was no discussion despite Mayor Kate Dunlap welcoming comments from the dais and the public. Councilmember John Troughton Jr. casting the lone dissenting vote.
The Grand Jury investigated city operations after concerns were raised about governance by the City Council and city manager. Its report identified 11 findings, including employee furloughs, declining revenue, employee morale, potential conflicts of interest, interference with oversight, procurement practices, possible Brown Act concerns and what jurors described as inadequate council oversight.
Williams disputed most of those conclusions.
The city partially disagreed with the Grand Jury’s finding that employee furloughs were imposed while executive compensation increased, stating that difficult budget conditions left the city considering either furloughs or layoffs. According to the response, unions selected furloughs and the city implemented a 10% reduction for all employees, including the former city administrator. The furlough was discontinued in January when finances permitted.
The city also partially disagreed with a finding that declining revenue was ignored. While acknowledging that revenue reductions were reported, the response said Williams curtailed spending in several ways, including delaying the hiring of a new public works director and leaving that position vacant following a resignation.
On employee morale and retention, the city rejected the Grand Jury’s conclusion, stating that only two employees had left city employment during approximately seven months following the furloughs. The city also rejected findings involving an alleged conflict of interest and procurement violations.
The city wholly disagreed with the Grand Jury’s finding of possible Brown Act violations involving three council members observed meeting privately outside official meetings. The response said the presence of multiple council members at the same location does not constitute a violation and said the Grand Jury provided no details about what was discussed.
Williams also rejected the Grand Jury’s finding that council members lacked understanding of their roles.
“City Council members prepare for Council meetings in a variety of ways,” the city’s response stated.
The city also rejected findings that it failed to adequately vet executive leadership and that the council failed in its oversight responsibilities. The response maintained that the council exercises oversight of the city manager and city attorney, while management of city employees falls under the city manager.
Of six Grand Jury recommendations, the city said two had been implemented. Williams updated its credit card policy in March and said it already conducts background checks on new hires.
The city declined calls for annual governance and conflict-of-interest training, a comprehensive staffing and employee morale review and annual reporting on its progress.
“The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,” the city responded to the proposed governance training. The same rationale was given for rejecting the staffing review and annual reporting requirements.
The Grand Jury required the City Council to respond to all 11 findings and six recommendations under state law.