Board response to animal-services policies and preparedness

Response says

The County agrees that a complete manual is needed but disputes the claimed effect on accountability.

Audit analysis

It identifies the disputed proposition and explains that existing job descriptions provide accountability. The named job descriptions supply a checkable basis for the explanation.

Response says

The County promises completion by June 30, 2027.

Audit analysis

It identifies consultation with Human Resources, County Counsel, and labor organizations as necessary steps. The promised date is later than the jury’s December 31, 2026 deadline.

Response says

The County promises implementation by June 30, 2027.

Audit analysis

The response accepts distribution and signed acknowledgement and supplies a date, with the same consultation requirements as R1a.

Response says

The County acknowledges outdated descriptions but denies that they have caused delays or confusion.

Audit analysis

The disputed consequence is identified, but no reason or supporting record explains its denial.

Response says

The County says outdated job descriptions will be updated.

Audit analysis

No implementation date or schedule for the specific positions is supplied.

Response says

The County partially disagrees, recognizing evaluations as a channel for communication while disputing the relationship to staff cohesion.

Audit analysis

The response does not clearly resolve whether evaluations were conducted regularly or explain the disputed effect on cohesion. It supplies general reasoning without a checkable evaluation record.

Response says

The County states that the recommendation has been implemented.

Audit analysis

The implementation assertion supplies no dates, review frequency, or explanation of how regular evaluations are maintained.

Response says

The County partially disagrees and describes training, equipment, vehicle purchases, and assistance from the Sheriff.

Audit analysis

The response supplies dated equipment assertions and operational detail, but the scope of partial disagreement and the status of written safety and use-of-force guidance are incomplete. The related policy remains prospective in R4b on page 4.

Response says

The County calls the recommendation implemented and describes enrollment in CalAnimals training with staggered participation.

Audit analysis

Enrollment and ongoing training do not establish completion of all recommended instruction. No completion schedule is supplied.

Response says

The County promises a use-of-force policy by June 30, 2027 and reports that safety equipment has been provided.

Audit analysis

The response distinguishes an existing equipment claim from a dated policy commitment.

Response says

The County calls this implemented, describing checks and repairs while formal protocols remain in development.

Audit analysis

Operational checks address part of the recommendation; the response does not establish completion of a formal inspection and maintenance protocol.

Response says

The County agrees and attributes the backlog to staffing constraints and competing emergencies.

Audit analysis

It addresses the finding with a concrete prioritization explanation, but identifies no dated complaint inventory or staffing record.

Response says

The County commits to the analysis and projects completion by June 30, 2027, citing resource constraints.

Audit analysis

The response accepts an in-house veterinary cost analysis and gives a projected completion date later than the jury requested; it does not claim the analysis has been performed.

Response says

The County disagrees and cites a $175,000 California for All Animals grant, more than 1,000 vouchers, and an ASPCA grant application.

Audit analysis

Specific amounts, the August 2024–June 2025 voucher period, and the June 25, 2026 application date provide a checkable basis for the complete disagreement. These are agency assertions, not verified outcomes.

Response says

The County calls this implemented through an ASPCA grant application.

Audit analysis

Page 6 describes an application in process, while page 5 says it was submitted June 25, 2026. Both engage the funding recommendation; neither establishes that a grant was awarded.

Response says

The County agrees with the finding.

Audit analysis

The explicit agreement covers the finding but adds no reasons or supporting records.

Response says

The County calls this implemented and describes screening protocols and an approved rescue list.

Audit analysis

The described screening practice does not establish adoption of the formal policy the jury requested.