Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Allegation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Publisher alleges perjury, evidence tampering by Supervisor Kirk during public comment; chair halts remarks
Summary
A publisher accused Tuolumne County Supervisor Kirk of falsifying annual financial disclosures and tampering with evidence during public comment Monday; the chair interrupted the speaker and debate followed about whether remarks constituted prohibited electioneering. No formal response from Supervisor Kirk is recorded in the meeting.
Christopher Butner, publisher of calaveraswatchdog.com, used the meeting’s public‑comment period to allege that “Tuolumne County District 3 Supervisor Kirk’s public corruption are extensive,” saying the supervisor failed to disclose rental and real‑estate income on required forms and later tampered with records after being notified by enforcement authorities. Chair Griefer stopped Butner’s remarks and, amid objections from other supervisors, paused his microphone before the speaker finished.
Butner cited state law in his remarks, saying “California penal code section 118 defines the crime of perjury” and alleging multiple instances of false statements on annual statements of economic interest and “54 instances of evidence tampering.” The chair and several supervisors then debated whether the comments crossed the county’s electioneering rules; supervisors noted the polls were open at the time and said rules prohibit campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place.
Board members who spoke during the exchange differed on procedure. Several supervisors said they had not heard conclusive electioneering in the portions that were audible on the video record and urged that the speaker be allowed to finish; others supported pausing the remarks after a staff reminder about the polling‑place rule and because the speaker continued after cautions. The chair said the county counsel’s guidance on electioneering would be reviewed.
The board did not take any formal action or investigate the allegations during the meeting. No representative for Supervisor Kirk spoke in response on the record during the public comment segment, and the meeting record does not show any staff referral for immediate investigation. The board later noted it would address procedural questions about electioneering with county counsel at a later date.
Why it matters: Public accusations against an elected official trigger matters of public-record review, potential ethics or legal processes, and questions about how boards manage decorum and rules around elections. The allegations were aired in a public forum but were not adjudicated at the meeting. For readers seeking follow‑up, the county’s official minutes and any filings with the Fair Political Practices Commission would be the authoritative sources on enforcement steps.
