It is indeed unfortunate that Dr. Citron had such an unsatisfactory experience on the 2004-2005 Grand Jury that it fostered his cynical, and inaccurate, view of the importance of “civil” grand juries (“Phase out civil grand juries”, July 13).

The experience of the members of the 2007-2008 Napa County Grand Jury was the exact antithesis of his in virtually all respects. Our grand jury worked extremely hard to be thorough in our investigations, to earn the trust and respect of those who work at the agencies we investigated, and to make workable, useful recommendations. The positive results of our efforts are already manifesting themselves. But even more important than the results is the necessarily constraining influence on government of having a citizens’ group, under the supervision of the courts, closely observing whether or not the government is properly carrying out the public trust.

Recalling Abraham Lincoln’s famous dictum, that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” there is nothing more consistent with that phrase than the grand jury system in California. The fundamental source of a California grand jury’s authority is the California Constitution, which requires each county have at least one grand jury. Since the California Constitution is silent on what grand juries are supposed to do, the California Legislature has passed statutes, now in the Penal Code, which authorize grand juries to engage in various activities to protect the citizens. The scope of a grand jury’s work is not as limited as Dr. Citron implies. In addition to reviewing governmental agencies’ budgets, operations and effectiveness, grand juries are directed by the Penal Code to do a number of other things, including to “inquire into the willful or corrupt conduct in office of public officers of every description within the county.”

Like most endeavors, what one puts into them dictates how good the results will be. As the Register’s editorial (“Grand jury an important part of Napa”, April 1) so aptly stated, “While the grand jury has no enforcement muscle to initiate government action in wake of its reports, the hard work that has gone into this year’s grand jury reports and the clarity that has come out of them should force leaders to take heed.” The Napa Valley media has been very supportive of this grand jury’s work giving voice to the grand jury and thus the citizens of Napa County. One can hardly seriously argue that the citizens should not have a means to assess Napa County governance. I suspect that even those who Dr. Citron refers to as “bureaucrats,” and we refer to as the “many dedicated and intelligent people who serve the public in their jobs every day” would neither agree with his premises nor his conclusion. And even the foreperson of his grand jury acknowledges “the historic role of the Grand Jury — to protect the interests of the citizens of Napa County.” The 2007-2008 Grand Jury has set a new standard for Napa County grand juries, and thus perhaps Dr. Citron should apply again.

(Trautman is foreman of the 2007-2008 Napa County Grand Jury.)D