Response says
MJUSD disagrees, describes director/sergeant dual oversight and will formalize existing roles with law-enforcement partners within the next fiscal year.
What should residents consider about Finding MJUSD-F4: Oversight and regulation of the SRO program are decentralized, and the Sheriff Department identified the need for additional supervisory structure to support program coordination, consistency, and oversight., and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
MJUSD disagrees, describes director/sergeant dual oversight and will formalize existing roles with law-enforcement partners within the next fiscal year.
Audit analysis
Page 92 specifies the next MOU revision, documented command loop and monthly leadership briefings. The relative fiscal-year timing is preserved without inventing a calendar deadline.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
4/6
Public usefulness
Explicit disagreement and specific supervisory roles explain the dispute, but the Sheriff’s reported need for additional supervision is not reconciled. Named officials are assertions rather than a cited current supervisory record.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Public participation
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.