Response says
SacRT disagrees, distinguishing internal software procurement and emergency barriers from customer-facing consultation.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F2-board
The Grand Jury finds the District fails to obtain valuable insight from riders with disabilities on a timely basis, despite the District’s assertion that “established public procurement practices allow staff to gather input from stakeholders,” resulting in wasteful expenditures and damaged relationships with members of the disability community
What should residents consider about Finding F2-board: The Grand Jury finds the District fails to obtain valuable insight from riders with disabilities on a timely basis, despite the District’s assertion that “established public procurement practices allow staff to gather input from stakeholders,” resulting in wasteful expenditures and damaged relationships with members of the disability community, and the County’s response?
Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors; William Charles Johnson, MAC Chair (personal views)Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Named pilot testing and barrier adjustments provide specific context, but do not fully resolve whether rider insight arrived early enough or the claimed waste and relationship damage.
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
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 1/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
Named pilot testing and barrier adjustments provide specific context, but do not fully resolve whether rider insight arrived early enough or the claimed waste and relationship damage.
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...