Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F2-Stanislaus Council of Governments

One of StanCOG’s JPA requirements, the fidelity bond, was not implemented for years, but it is now.

What should residents consider about Finding F2-Stanislaus Council of Governments: One of StanCOG’s JPA requirements, the fidelity bond, was not implemented for years, but it is now., and the County’s response?

Stanislaus Council of GovernmentsAudit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussion

Audit context

What the response says and how it was assessed

Response says

Wholly disagrees; says it supplied evidence of a Crime Insurance policy in effect for at least seven years.

Audit analysis

Identifies a policy as support, but does not explain in detail why crime insurance satisfies the particular JPA fidelity-bond requirement.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
1/2
Support traceability
2/2

Whole disagreement identifies the disputed history and supplies a policy-based reason. The named Crime Insurance policy is checkable; the explanation does not analyze its equivalence to the JPA requirement.

Scoring confidence: high

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...
Open on Pol.is