Response says
Acknowledges effects on testimony timing but disputes the characterization of bargaining; explains decision-versus-effects bargaining through Government Code Sections 3504 and 3505.
What should residents consider about Finding F1.6: F1.6: “Meet and Confer” negotiations between the LASD and its unions, who cannot strike, are used to balance the influence of management., and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
Acknowledges effects on testimony timing but disputes the characterization of bargaining; explains decision-versus-effects bargaining through Government Code Sections 3504 and 3505.
Audit analysis
Both accepted and disputed propositions are expressly separated. Specific bargaining reasons and named statutory provisions support the explanation without establishing its legal correctness. Report physical PDF page(s) 84; County response physical PDF page(s) 6–7. 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
6/6
Public usefulness
Both accepted and disputed propositions are expressly separated. Specific bargaining reasons and named statutory provisions support the explanation without establishing its legal correctness.
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.