Grand Jury Website: Board Response

Response says

The Board wholly disagrees, citing “What to Expect in a Civil Grand Jury Interview” and its structure, duration, confidentiality, and follow-up guidance.

Audit analysis

A whole-disagreement position and a named website section directly address the finding. The described content and service agreement are checkable bases, not an independent archived-site comparison.

Response says

The Board wholly disagrees, citing the landing page’s explanation of what a jury is, its role, and how it operates.

Audit analysis

The named landing page and content-change agreement support the explanation. The response addresses role and operation but does not separately explain the finding’s authority and comprehensiveness concerns.

Response says

The Board wholly disagrees, citing eligibility requirements and disqualifications in the “Apply to Join” tab.

Audit analysis

Whole disagreement, the specific location, and eligible/ineligible content address the finding. Page 3 continues the IT posting process. This score does not verify the website at the time investigated.

Response says

The Board partly disagrees: application information is posted during the open period, but application-procedure timelines are absent; jury-service term dates are present.

Audit analysis

The accepted timeline gap and disputed absence of application information are distinguished, with a named tab and open-period condition. The explanation directly covers both propositions.

Response says

The Board wholly disagrees, naming contact and complaint tabs with phone, mailing, email, and submission information.

Audit analysis

Named sections and contact modes supply specific reasons and a checkable basis. The response identifies existing guidance, while inviting requests about alternative placement rather than independently establishing prominence.

Response says

The Board wholly disagrees, citing a separate “Resources” tab and the established process for adding content.

Audit analysis

The separate section directly contradicts the alleged absence, and the named tab is traceable. Resource contents are not detailed, limiting explanatory specificity rather than the position elements.

Response says

IT will meet the incoming foreman after onboarding to review the website-change service agreement; the jury may request changes during its term.

Audit analysis

The response selects future implementation and supplies an onboarding trigger. It does not expressly commit to the recommended joint consultation with the Court or an annual substantive website review; reviewing the service agreement is narrower.