Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

County and Healthcare District responses to reporting and contracts

The County disputes the absence of whistleblower and contract procedures and proposes training and contract review. The Healthcare District accepts the whistleblower finding but disputes the contract finding and reports procedure development.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by Mariposa County Board of Supervisors and John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors

3

Addressed

5

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

1

Implemented

3

Will be implemented

0

Requires further analysis

0

Will not be implemented

0

Unclear

How to read this audit

This review assesses the response document, not independently verified implementation, factual accuracy, or legal compliance. Each audit identifies its respondent and letter date. Page citations refer to the assembled response packet.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

3

Extracted commitments

0

Definite or bounded timing

0

Conditional timing

3

No timeframe

R1 — Board · No timeframe stated

Develop training on existing grievance, whistleblower, and non-compliance procedures.

No target date stated

R2 — Board · No timeframe stated

Conduct a review of County contracts through the County Administrative Office.

No target date stated

R1 — Healthcare District · No timeframe stated

Create staff non-compliance reporting procedures through the compliance officer.

No target date stated

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 8 of 8 items

finding · F1 — Board

County whistleblower procedures

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors: Disagrees, citing a whistleblower form posted in County breakrooms and verification by labor unions.

Audit analysis

The response explains its disagreement and identifies a checkable form and posting locations, but a posted form does not fully explain the clarity and usability of reporting procedures.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The response explains its disagreement and identifies a checkable form and posting locations, but a posted form does not fully explain the clarity and usability of reporting procedures.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 3Response page 16
Discuss finding and response

finding · F2 — Board

County consultant-contract controls

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors: Disagrees, citing a 2022 purchasing policy amended in 2023 and County Counsel/CAO review.

Audit analysis

The response identifies a policy and review roles but does not engage the finding’s specific claims about delays, unmet deliverables, and excessive costs.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The response identifies a policy and review roles but does not engage the finding’s specific claims about delays, unmet deliverables, and excessive costs.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 4Response page 16
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R1 — Board

Training on reporting concerns

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors: Agrees and promises training on existing grievance, whistleblower, and non-compliance procedures.

Audit analysis

The response proposes training rather than new procedures and gives no schedule or scope for delivery.

Extracted commitments

Develop training on existing grievance, whistleblower, and non-compliance procedures.

Responsible party
Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 4Response page 17

recommendation · R2 — Board

Strategic consultant engagement

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

Mariposa County Board of Supervisors: Agrees and says the CAO has been tasked with a robust contract review.

Audit analysis

The response identifies a review owner but not its scope, timetable, or mechanisms for checking project delivery.

Extracted commitments

Conduct a review of County contracts through the County Administrative Office.

Responsible party
Mariposa County Board of Supervisors
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 4Response page 17

finding · F1 — Healthcare District

District whistleblower procedures

Audit: Addressed

Response says

John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors: Agrees and says its compliance officer is establishing policies and procedures.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement covers the District’s part of the finding and describes work underway, without an identified policy record.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

4/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
1/2

Explicit agreement covers the District’s part of the finding and describes work underway, without an identified policy record.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 3Response page 22
Discuss finding and response

finding · F2 — Healthcare District

District consultant-contract controls

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors: Disagrees and says clear contract procedures already exist.

Audit analysis

The disputed claim is identified, but the explanation merely restates the opposite conclusion. No procedure is named and the alleged delivery and cost effects are not addressed.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

1/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

The disputed claim is identified, but the explanation merely restates the opposite conclusion. No procedure is named and the alleged delivery and cost effects are not addressed.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 4Response page 22
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R1 — Healthcare District

District non-compliance reporting

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors: Says the compliance officer is already creating procedures.

Audit analysis

Work in progress engages the request but supplies no completion date or explanation of the reporting route.

Extracted commitments

Create staff non-compliance reporting procedures through the compliance officer.

Responsible party
John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 4Response page 23

recommendation · R2 — Healthcare District

District consultant engagement

County: ImplementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

John C. Fremont Healthcare District Board of Directors: Says existing practices cover negotiation, timely project review, and post-contract review.

Audit analysis

The response asserts existing implementation across the named stages, but identifies no policy, example, or review record.

Report page 4Response page 23