Response says
The City disagrees and identifies meeting access, websites and online comment channels, while acknowledging no commissioner email accounts.
What should residents consider about Finding F1: The City Council and the SPD have not provided the Commission with the ability to have effective community participation, including a public-facing website, dedicated email or other digital presence that links to the Commission, thereby limiting public access to the Commission’s work and reducing transparency (R1), and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
The City disagrees and identifies meeting access, websites and online comment channels, while acknowledging no commissioner email accounts.
Audit analysis
Physical pages 1–3 give named URLs and procedures. The response does not fully supply the dedicated Commission email or explain equivalence for all requested digital access.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
5/6
Public usefulness
Physical pages 1–3 give named URLs and procedures. The response does not fully supply the dedicated Commission email or explain equivalence for all requested digital access.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Public participation
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.