Response says
Partially disagrees, citing County Charter Article VI, Section 21 and separate attorneys and ethical walls; does not specifically resolve the alleged investigative delays.
What should residents consider about Finding F1.4: F1.4: County Counsel simultaneously represents the Board of Supervisors, LASD, and the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission., and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
Partially disagrees, citing County Charter Article VI, Section 21 and separate attorneys and ethical walls; does not specifically resolve the alleged investigative delays.
Audit analysis
The conflict concern and proposed safeguards identify the disputed scope and reasons. Charter authority is traceable, but alleged effects on investigation timing receive incomplete coverage. Report physical PDF page(s) 84; County response physical PDF page(s) 6. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
5/6
Public usefulness
The conflict concern and proposed safeguards identify the disputed scope and reasons. Charter authority is traceable, but alleged effects on investigation timing receive incomplete coverage.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Public participation
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.