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

The Board created an exemption to the limit set in Ordinance 963 by adding section 4(f), which states “the beneficiary of an independent expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)” will allow “all other candidates running in the election for that same county elective office to be exempted from the campaign contribution limits of this section 4(f) for that election as well.” This nullifies the limit outlined in sections 4(a) and (b), which set the limits for campaign contributions.

What should residents consider about Finding BOARD-F2: The Board created an exemption to the limit set in Ordinance 963 by adding section 4(f), which states “the beneficiary of an independent expenditure of more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)” will allow “all other candidates running in the election for that same county elective office to be exempted from the campaign contribution limits of this section 4(f) for that election as well.” This nullifies the limit outlined in sections 4(a) and (b), which set the limits for campaign contributions., 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; says the exception has limited triggers and does not generally nullify the ordinance.

Audit analysis

Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(f), independent expenditures and specified election conditions explain the disputed effect. The reply does not deny the existence of the exception.

Finding-response score

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

10/10

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

Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(f), independent expenditures and specified election conditions explain the disputed effect. The reply does not deny the existence of the exception.

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