Response says
Wholly disagrees. Respondents acknowledge locks but deny a seclusion purpose/use, cite supervision and a May 2026 hazard assessment, and describe replacement with door sensors.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F13
Door hardware and confinement risk
What should residents consider about Finding F13: Door hardware and confinement risk, and the County’s response?
Siskiyou County Office of Education and Siskiyou County Superintendent of SchoolsAudit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Pages 19–21 give a clear legal/safety rationale and acknowledged hardware. The finding concerns capability to confine, not only intent or past isolation; the response does not fully reconcile that distinction, so coverage is partial. A described hazard review and replacement program are not independent legal or completion findings.
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
Pages 19–21 give a clear legal/safety rationale and acknowledged hardware. The finding concerns capability to confine, not only intent or past isolation; the response does not fully reconcile that distinction, so coverage is partial. A described hazard review and replacement program are not independent legal or completion findings.
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...