Response says
The response agrees that Supervisor Holland held both offices but disputes that the offices were legally incompatible or created an actionable clash.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F2
Potentially incompatible elected offices
What should residents consider about Finding F2: Potentially incompatible elected offices, and the County’s response?
Tuolumne CountyResponse dated 2026-09-01Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
The response states an agreement position and gives an explanation, so it directly engages the finding. This assessment addresses responsiveness only, not factual or legal correctness.
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
6/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 2/2
The response states a clear position, covers the finding, gives finding-specific reasons, and identifies a checkable law, policy, process, date, record, or action.
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...