Board of Supervisors response to agricultural operations

Response says

The Board partially disagrees. It cites commissioner discretion and 3 CCR section 6130(d), which requires consideration of relevant facts, severity and compliance history, and says every NOPA penalty section explains the classification and amount.

Audit analysis

The response provides a specific regulatory basis and describes existing notices, but does not identify exactly which portion of the finding it accepts or disputes. General regulatory factors and an asserted factual explanation do not directly resolve the jury’s concern about a clear standard for selecting amounts or the clarity of the notices it reviewed. No particular NOPA is supplied. This assesses engagement, not the legality or accuracy of the fines.

Response says

The Board partially disagrees, saying insufficient circumstances are given to distinguish daily work, assisting licensed colleagues or vacancy coverage. It says biologists’ duties can shift seasonally across more than 20 state programs within their job descriptions.

Audit analysis

The response explains why task variation may fall within normal duties, but does not specify the accepted and disputed portions of the compound finding. It does not resolve the reported bypass of supervisors or identify a policy, duty statement or assignment record for the instances discussed. The audit neither confirms the staff reports nor treats disagreement as a failure by itself.

Response says

The Board says the first part is implemented through existing NOPA explanations under 3 CCR section 6130(d). It says the second part will not be implemented as unwarranted because regulations do not require it and violations differ. It also describes a June 12, 2026 DPR notice of proposed enforcement-response amendments.

Audit analysis

Both source components receive explicit but different dispositions: the standard is claimed implemented, while a procedure explaining the final dollar amount is declined. A single whole-item disposition cannot represent that split, so “unclear” retains it rather than asserting complete implementation. The proposed DPR amendments are context, not an adopted county commitment or proof of completed action. The response gives no promise to implement the second component by the jury’s January 31, 2027 deadline. No original NOPA examples are attached, and implementation is an agency claim, not independently verified.

Response says

The Board says implemented. It reports that management reviewed procedures, individual functions, the organization chart and job descriptions, consulted Human Resources, and found existing procedures followed and appropriately communicated. It emphasizes staff autonomy unless management directs otherwise and notes 10 of 11 biologists were in the advanced journey-level III classification.

Audit analysis

The response directly states a disposition and describes a management/HR review supporting it. It asserts existing practice rather than promising a future change by October 31, 2026. Review records and examples of assignments are not attached, and the treatment of specific staff-reported incidents is not demonstrated. “Implemented” records the Board’s claim; it is not an independent verification that every assignment follows policy.