WILLIAMS, CA (MPG) – The Colusa County Civil Grand Jury delivered a blistering assessment of Williams city government, concluding the City Council failed in its fundamental duty to oversee executive leadership, allowing what jurors described as widespread failures in governance, oversight and accountability that contributed to financial instability within City Hall.
While several of the city’s top management positions are now held by different employees than during the period examined by the Grand Jury, the elected City Council responsible for overseeing city administration has remained the same.
“Warning signs were ignored, oversight was neglected, leadership failures were tolerated, and employees suffered while upper management received increased compensation,” jurors wrote. “Until accountability replaces complacency the same problems will continue but under different headlines.”
The report is based on interviews with City Council members, city administrators, staff members and union representatives, along with reviews of procurement records, personnel and hiring information, public records, internal communications, council meetings and newspaper articles.
Jurors identified 11 findings ranging from the city’s financial crisis and employee furloughs to procurement concerns, potential Brown Act violations, declining employee morale and what they described as a failure by the City Council to properly supervise executive leadership. The report also cited a 50% salary increase for the city administrator over three years during the city’s financial struggles, along with concerns about the city’s decision to bypass competitive bidding on a roadway project, allegations of a hostile work environment and plans to move forward with projects despite worsening finances.
“The evidence reviewed by the Grand Jury demonstrates not a series of isolated incidents, but a systemic failure of governance, oversight, and accountability within the city,” jurors wrote.
According to the report, the City Council serves as the governing authority and direct supervisor of the city manager, making it responsible for fiscal oversight, ethical governance, compliance with California’s Brown Act and adherence to public contracting laws. Jurors concluded those responsibilities were not adequately carried out.
The report stated testimony and evidence showed some council members appeared to lack a basic understanding of their supervisory role. At least one council member reportedly was unaware the council held authority over the city manager and was responsible for addressing mismanagement. Multiple sources also expressed concern that some council members may not have reviewed agenda packets before meetings, raising questions about their preparedness to make informed decisions.
Jurors said that lack of engagement created an environment in which administrative actions went largely unchecked. The report also alleged the city manager directed finance staff not to communicate with a city official about city business, a directive jurors said interfered with oversight and transparency.
Jurors also found the city failed to adequately vet executive leadership before hiring a director, concluding officials proceeded despite prior employment concerns and exposed the city to foreseeable risk.
The report devoted significant attention to the city’s finances.
Jurors found employees were furloughed in July 2025, reducing wages and work hours by 10 percent, while executive compensation increased during a period of declining sales tax and gas tax revenues. The report also stated employees were required to purchase basic office supplies with personal funds without reimbursement after items such as hand soap and paper towels were discontinued.
The Grand Jury also described deteriorating employee morale, increased staff turnover and dissatisfaction after cost-of-living adjustments were not restored following the furloughs. According to the report, employee unions reported workers were pressured to accept furloughs or face layoffs, while a vote of “no confidence” in a department director was ultimately disregarded by city management.
Jurors also raised concerns about ethics and procurement practices.
The report questioned the use of an emergency declaration to avoid competitive bidding requirements for a roadway project despite what it described as the road’s longstanding deterioration. It also cited concerns over a director’s use of a city-issued credit card for personal expenses that were repaid only after finance staff identified the charges, along with the awarding of a contract to a company employing someone with a close personal relationship to that director without sufficient public disclosure.
The report also stated three City Council members were observed meeting privately outside noticed public meetings on multiple occasions, raising concerns about potential Brown Act violations.
Despite the report’s criticism, jurors highlighted one city program as a positive example. They praised the “Jackets at City Hall” initiative, begun by a former mayor and continued by the current mayor, for introducing local high school students to careers in local government and encouraging future civic involvement. Jurors described it as a valuable effort to engage the next generation in public service.
Among six recommendations, the Grand Jury called for mandatory annual governance training for City Council members, annual reviews of city credit card use, stronger conflict-of-interest training, more rigorous executive hiring standards, a comprehensive review of staffing levels and employee morale, and public progress reports as each recommendation is implemented.
Jurors ultimately concluded the City Council “failed in its fundamental duty to supervise executive leadership and protect the public interest.” The Williams City Council was directed to respond to all 11 findings and six recommendations within 60 days. Responses from the city manager and city attorney were invited within 90 days.
858 Words