Response says
Disagrees; says moving a non-time-set item did not require the alleged motion.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding BOARD-F4
The chairperson moved an agenda item to the end of the agenda without a motion. This is contrary to Board policy and procedure A-2(10). Afterward twenty-two people, who wanted to speak on the item, did not do so.
What should residents consider about Finding BOARD-F4: The chairperson moved an agenda item to the end of the agenda without a motion. This is contrary to Board policy and procedure A-2(10). Afterward twenty-two people, who wanted to speak on the item, did not do so., 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
The Board cites Policy A-2 and distinguishes scheduling authority from other agenda changes. It cannot establish why twenty-two speakers did not speak and does not independently resolve participation effects.
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
The Board cites Policy A-2 and distinguishes scheduling authority from other agenda changes. It cannot establish why twenty-two speakers did not speak and does not independently resolve participation effects.
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...