Response says
Agrees about inconsistent systematic tracking.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding BOARD-F1
The Public Guardian does not regularly or consistently track in-person visits in a systematic manner to ensure that all conservatees are visited at least once every ninety days.
What should residents consider about Finding BOARD-F1: The Public Guardian does not regularly or consistently track in-person visits in a systematic manner to ensure that all conservatees are visited at least once every ninety days., and the County’s response?
See per-item agency attributionAudit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Pages 4–5 accept the documentation issue without asserting that every undocumented visit failed to occur. The finding concerns reliable tracking, not automatic proof of missed visits.
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
6/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
Pages 4–5 accept the documentation issue without asserting that every undocumented visit failed to occur. The finding concerns reliable tracking, not automatic proof of missed visits.
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...