Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F1

Timeliness and wording of the prior-year response

What should residents consider about Finding F1: Timeliness and wording of the prior-year response, and the County’s response?

Calaveras County Water District Board of DirectorsResponse dated 2025-09-04Audit assessment: Not addressed
Participate in this discussion

Audit context

What the response says and how it was assessed

Response says

The letter does not state a position on the finding about the prior-year response’s timeliness and required wording.

Audit analysis

The introductory thanks and discussion of Proposition 218 concern other matters; they do not supply a position, reasoning, or evidence for F1.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

0/10

0/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
0/2
Applicable disagreement elements
0/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

The introductory thanks and discussion of Proposition 218 concern other matters; they do not supply a position, reasoning, or evidence for F1.

Scoring confidence: high

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...
Open on Pol.is