Response says
Partly agrees and partly disagrees, explaining that third-party processors and Finance manage payments while IT should assist with assessment and security review.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F2-IT
IT participation in payment-card assessment
What should residents consider about Finding F2-IT: IT participation in payment-card assessment, and the County’s response?
Mono County Information Technology Director; Mono County Board of SupervisorsAudit assessment: Partially addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
The response’s engagement is evaluated independently of whether the County’s security measures are effective.
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
4/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 1/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 1/2
The partial position is explicit and the departmental explanation is concrete. It does not clearly identify whether the alleged attestation errors are accepted or disputed; support is operational assertion rather than an identified record.
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...