COLUSA, CA (MPG) — The Colusa City Council has postponed sending its formal response to the 2024–2025 Colusa County Civil Grand Jury after several members said the draft came across as disrespectful.
The decision came during the council’s Aug. 5 meeting, where members discussed whether the city’s proposed reply, which disputed all five grand jury findings, adequately represented the city’s position and progress.
The grand jury report alleged the city was not following California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) procurement thresholds, lacked clear financial reporting, and had insufficient controls over check signing. It also criticized the city’s recordkeeping, including incomplete meeting minutes and poor-quality recordings, and recommended specific policy, training, and technology upgrades.
Councilmember Greg Ponciano said while he disagreed with portions of the report, the city’s response letter should address each finding individually and document corrective actions taken.
“I think we missed the mark,” Ponciano said of the draft. “It comes across to the grand jury as disrespectful and defiant, and I don’t think that’s how we want to be represented. We have an opportunity to diplomatically address the findings and illustrate the measures we’ve taken to comply.”
Councilmember Dave Marks agreed, noting that the city has implemented changes not reflected in the letter.
“It kind of sends a message that we really don’t care what they think, since it’s been a repeat, two grand juries in a row,” he said.
Mayor Ryan Codorniz, who helped draft the original letter, defended its intent, saying it was not meant to be dismissive. He said many of the issues cited had already been resolved, including updates to the purchasing policy and the implementation of new financial software.
“I’ve never been disrespectful to anyone,” Codorniz said. “I just felt like a lot of the things they brought up had already been changed or fixed. We’ve taken great steps forward, and every time there’s a grand jury, it feels like it takes us two steps back.”
Councilmember Daniel Vaca said he also questioned the thoroughness of the grand jury’s investigation, noting he had been scheduled for an interview that was later canceled.
“If you’re not investigating everybody involved, that’s a major problem for me,” Vaca said. “Some of these findings were already addressed months ago.”
Councilmember Denise Conrado said she was never interviewed and questioned why former staff members were.
“We should have included what has been done that they’re saying we haven’t done,” she said.
Several members agreed the revised letter should acknowledge where the city disagrees with the findings but also outline completed and ongoing corrective measures. Ponciano said at least three of the five findings have already been addressed.
During public comment, resident Cynthia White, encouraged the council to use its response to show the public what has been accomplished.
“If you can make it sound like and show them what you’ve done, you can go 100 miles further,” she said.
Resident Don Bransford echoed that sentiment, saying the narrative should serve both the grand jury and citizens.
“They need to understand the progress that’s being made,” he said, while emphasizing the need for consistent transparency in city processes.
The council agreed to delay sending the letter so staff could add details about completed actions and compliance measures. No date was set for final approval.