A Word to the New Grand Jurors

We hope the new 1985-86 Orange County Grand Jury looks at the criticism that some county officials have been directing at the jury panel it replaced with curious detachment, and nothing more.

The first thing the new panel must realize is that criticism goes with the job. That some public officials didn’t like some of the 33 reports and letters on county government produced by the jury that finished its one-year term last month must not intimidate the new panel and make it timid in its approach.

Nor should this year’s jury become the revengeful child of its predecessor, which angered some county officials, including the county supervisors. In a parting shot, the outgoing panel criticized the board for being slow to resolve major issues and for commissioning so many outside studies that seemed to produce little action unless intense pressure was put on the board to act.

That kind of pressure, however, and the ability of a grand jury to bring it to bear and focus public attention on important issues is the grand jury’s real strength.

In its watchdog role of monitoring county government, the people’s jury is a catalyst. It has no power to make changes, only to prompt them. In response to grand jury reports, which, to be most effective, should be released to the public when completed rather than at the end of the term, the county board is only required to reply, not comply.

One reason many public officials give grand jury criticism little weight is their lack of confidence in the jurors’ ability to learn the complex workings of county government in a year of part-time service--and then to be able to offer incisive recommendations for improving it.

Some grand jury reports have been weak and poorly drawn, but through the years, grand jurors have worked hard to learn as much about the county system as quickly as possible and their work, for the most part, has been commendable.

Fortunately, most jurors quickly realize that to be effective, their recommendations must come out of selective study and thorough research. And that the grand jury is only as strong as the public’s reaction to its findings and the trust those it criticizes have in its accuracy.