Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F21

Explanation of partial disagreement with prior Finding F-6-1

What should residents consider about Finding F21: Explanation of partial disagreement with prior Finding F-6-1, and the County’s response?

Tuolumne CountyResponse dated 2026-09-01Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussion

Audit context

What the response says and how it was assessed

Response says

The response disagrees but clarifies that it supports consistent department-head support while rejecting broader claims of differential treatment.

Audit analysis

The response states its 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.

10/10

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 County states disagreement, distinguishes support for department heads from disputed differential-treatment allegations, explains the specificity it considers missing, and identifies Penal Code section 933.05.

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