Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding PROTEM-F2

Multiple sources have stated that the City of Banning may have transferred revenue from the BEU to the General Fund. These transfers would be in violation of Propositions 26 and 218 after Measure P was rejected by the voters in November 2018.

What should residents consider about Finding PROTEM-F2: Multiple sources have stated that the City of Banning may have transferred revenue from the BEU to the General Fund. These transfers would be in violation of Propositions 26 and 218 after Measure P was rejected by the voters in November 2018., and the County’s response?

See per-item agency attributionAudit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussion

Audit context

What the response says and how it was assessed

Response says

Partly disagrees; denies recent unlawful transfers and does not resolve every older year.

Audit analysis

Pages 23–24 distinguish current/recent practices from historical matters requiring further review. This limits coverage of the full period rather than proving legality.

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

Pages 23–24 distinguish current/recent practices from historical matters requiring further review. This limits coverage of the full period rather than proving legality.

Scoring confidence: high

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...
Open on Pol.is