Response says
The Manager disagrees, identifies iWorQ for receiving, assigning, tracking and closing requests, and says the unidentified complaint cannot be independently evaluated.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding MANAGER-F2
There is no centralized tracking system for recording, monitoring, and resolving street maintenance requests submitted by residents.
What should residents consider about Finding MANAGER-F2: There is no centralized tracking system for recording, monitoring, and resolving street maintenance requests submitted by residents., and the County’s response?
Marysville City Council and Marysville City ManagerResponse dated 2026-08-20Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
The paragraph continues on page 9. System existence and operation are agency claims; no request records are supplied for independent checking.
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
Whole disagreement, disputed scope and reasons are clear; the named iWorQ work-order system supplies an identifiable basis for all tracking stages.
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...