Response says
Agrees with the testing gap, describes existing 24/7 monitoring, and proposes additional testing and vendor relationships.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F5-BOS
Periodic external security testing
What should residents consider about Finding F5-BOS: Periodic external security testing, and the County’s response?
Mono County Information Technology Director; Mono County Board of SupervisorsAudit assessment: 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.
4/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 2/2
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 1/2
Explicit agreement covers the testing gap and risk. Existing monitoring and pursued services provide specific context, but no identified test record or funding document is cited.
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...