Response says
The Board partly disagrees, citing Ordinance 9.02.070 confidentiality limits and support for clearer expectations and follow-up options.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F1
Communicating complaint resolutions
What should residents consider about Finding F1: Communicating complaint resolutions, and the County’s response?
El Dorado County Board of SupervisorsAudit assessment: Partially addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
An ordinance provides a specific reason for limiting disclosures, but the partial position does not clearly identify which part of the reported lack of routine resolution updates is accepted or denied. Explaining confidentiality is not evidence of current update frequency.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
3/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 1/2
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 1/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
An ordinance provides a specific reason for limiting disclosures, but the partial position does not clearly identify which part of the reported lack of routine resolution updates is accepted or denied. Explaining confidentiality is not evidence of current update frequency.
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...