WILLIAMS, CA (MPG) – Williams Councilmember John Troughton Jr. has issued his own response to the Colusa County Civil Grand Jury, breaking with the majority and supporting several recommendations the city rejected.
Troughton submitted the five-page letter Aug. 20, one day after casting the lone dissenting vote when a split City Council approve a response prepared by City Attorney Andreas Booher. The council approved that response without discussion.
The difference between the two responses is particularly clear on governance training, conflict-of-interest enforcement and a comprehensive review of staffing needs and employee morale. The council rejected those recommendations as not warranted or reasonable, while Troughton supported them. He agreed with the council on stronger oversight of city credit cards and comprehensive background investigations for executive hires.
“I believe this training should remain mandatory so that elected officials clearly understand their responsibilities, limitations, and obligations to the public,” Troughton wrote regarding governance training.
Troughton also disagreed with the council’s rejection of additional conflict-of-interest training and enforcement. He wrote that robust ethics and conflict-of-interest training is necessary but added that training alone is insufficient without accountability when laws and policies are not followed.
His letter also challenged the city’s response to concerns involving the alleged personal use of a city credit card. Troughton wrote that after learning of an alleged approximately $750 personal charge by the public works director, he contacted the District Attorney’s Office and the Williams Police Department. He said he remains unaware of any record showing the matter was formally reported, documented or investigated.
“The use of public funds or a city-issued credit card for personal purposes is a serious matter and should be promptly investigated, documented, reported to the appropriate authorities when required, and addressed through appropriate personnel and financial-control procedures,” Troughton wrote.
On that issue, Troughton and the council agreed with the Grand Jury’s recommendation for annual review of credit card policies and use, followed by employee training. Troughton, however, went further by calling for regular audits of credit card transactions and independent review of the circumstances surrounding the alleged personal purchase.
Troughton was first elected to public office as Colusa County Sheriff in 1974. In the private sector, he operated his own trucking company and worked as a private investigator. First elected to the Williams City Council in 2008, he has served four nonconsecutive terms. While off the council, Troughton served as the city’s elected treasurer and frequently raised concerns about the city’s finances as a member of the city’s Finance Committee.
In his letter, Troughton said that in approximately May 2024 he warned the city about financial trends he believed were unsustainable. He said those concerns were consistent with concerns expressed by the finance director but were not adequately acknowledged or addressed by the City Council.
That experience also formed part of Troughton’s disagreement with the council’s rejection of the Grand Jury recommendation for a comprehensive review of staffing needs, employee responsibilities and morale. Troughton supported the review and argued that council members need appropriate access to department heads and accurate information to carry out their oversight responsibilities.
As previously reported by the Pioneer Review, Troughton reported upon his return to the City Council that personnel costs had jumped 39% in his absence, including a 52.9% increase for the public works director and a 22% increase for the city administrator in less than three years, and yet the renewal contracts carrying the increases were never discussed in open session as they had been in the past.
He said substantial administrative pay increases that ordinarily would have received financial scrutiny were instead taken by the city manager to the Personnel Committee, bypassing the Finance Committee and leaving him out of the review.
Troughton’s response to the recent Grand Jury report went beyond the jurors’ recommendations. He also asked for Grand Jury scrutiny of two previous City Council actions censuring him. Troughton characterized the censures as retaliatory and said they followed his efforts to raise concerns about city operations, public funds and administrative practices. He asked that the resolutions, evidence and related communications be considered alongside the Grand Jury findings.
Troughton said his actions throughout the period reflected what he viewed as the obligations of elected office.
“My actions were taken as part of what I believed to be my responsibility as an elected official to protect public funds, obtain information concerning City operations, and raise concerns when I believed misconduct or inadequate oversight had occurred,” Troughton wrote.