Response says
Partially disagrees: accepts previous inadequacy but describes increased enforcement, the May 5 ordinance, May 19 plan and June 11 funding announcement; page 9 adds the June 12 budget.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F26-8
Enforcement adequacy
What should residents consider about Finding F26-8: Enforcement adequacy, 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
Clearly distinguishes past conditions from claimed improvements and supplies dated ordinances, plan and funding events.
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
Clearly distinguishes past conditions from claimed improvements and supplies dated ordinances, plan and funding events.
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...