Response says
Agrees and attributes low collections largely to disconnected citation records, describing planned integration of tablets, software and Finance collection work under the action plan.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F26-16
Penalty collection
What should residents consider about Finding F26-16: Penalty collection, and the County’s response?
City of Oakland City Administration and City CouncilResponse dated 2026-07-31Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Explicit agreement, specific causal explanation and an identified action plan; collection improvement is not verified.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 2/2
6/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
Explicit agreement, specific causal explanation and an identified action plan; collection improvement is not verified.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...