Response says
Says longstanding partner participation and case-review practices preserve continuity, while agreeing formal governance, training expectations and documentation would strengthen it.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F6
The Sonoma County CDRT’s failure to identify a single leader, develop written bylaws and protocols, provide training for its members, and generate minutes of its meetings has impaired the development of institutional memory.
What should residents consider about Finding F6: The Sonoma County CDRT’s failure to identify a single leader, develop written bylaws and protocols, provide training for its members, and generate minutes of its meetings has impaired the development of institutional memory., and the County’s response?
Sonoma County Board of SupervisorsAudit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
Explains the disputed institutional-memory conclusion and acknowledges the proposed formal practices. The continuity explanation lacks specific examples or identified records.
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
4/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 1/2
- Support traceability
- 1/2
Explains the disputed institutional-memory conclusion and acknowledges the proposed formal practices. The continuity explanation lacks specific examples or identified records.
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...