Response says
Disagrees wholly with the claimed conflict with AB 571’s purposes.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding BOARD-F3
The exception created in section 4(f) of Ordinance 963 undermines the stated purposes of AB 571 and Ordinance 963 by allowing unlimited contributions which this report tries to resolve.
What should residents consider about Finding BOARD-F3: The exception created in section 4(f) of Ordinance 963 undermines the stated purposes of AB 571 and Ordinance 963 by allowing unlimited contributions which this report tries to resolve., 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 cite local authority and the distinction between a state default and locally enacted limits. The explanation addresses the premise without proving either legal interpretation correct.
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 cite local authority and the distinction between a state default and locally enacted limits. The explanation addresses the premise without proving either legal interpretation correct.
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...