⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Did the agency’s response address the subject of the findings?
-
R2Did the agency attempt to avoid the issue(s) raised by criticizing the Grand Jury or by offering excuses?
-
R3Did the agency’s response indicate that it would take the necessary action to correct the problem?
-
R4Did the agency provide a specific date by which it would take the necessary corrective action?
-
R5Does the Response Committee find reason to request clarification of response(s) or reason to refer to the appropriate committee for follow-up or investigation. The responses to the findings and recommendations of the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Final Report are available for public review online at the Butte County Website. (http://www.buttecounty.net) Grand Jury link. The 2009-2010 Grand Jury wishes to thank those who responded to last year’s Final Report and recognizes their contribution to the community and to the Grand Jury process. The time and effort taken to review the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Final Report and to prepare and submit responses to the presiding judge are greatly appreciated. ! ! xx Clarification of Responses to 2008/2009 Grand Jury’s Final Report One of the Grand Jury’s responsibilities is to ensure that each organization or individual listed at the end of each Grand Jury Report submits an adequate response. In the process of performing this task, the 2009-2010 Grand Jury found the following responses needed clarification: Butte County Auditor-Controller Two responses were inadequate. Copies of the Grand Jury’s request for and the subsequent clarifying responses immediately follow. Butte County Public Works Department One response was inadequate. The Grand Jury was concerned about the Public Works Department’s clarified response. Although the Public Work’s response to the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report suggested that the Doe Mill Road was a viable option, if developed to standards, the clarified response instead suggested that the County was not seriously pursuing this option. Copies of the Grand Jury’s request for and the subsequent response immediately follow. Oroville Cemetery District This response brought some inconsistencies in the 2008-2009 Grand Jury Report to the attention of the 2009-2010 Grand Jury, and a report regarding this matter is included herein. (See .) xxi xxii (cid:1) xxiii (cid:1) (cid:1) xxiv (cid:1)(cid:1) xxv (cid:1) xxvi (cid:1) xxvii (cid:1) xxviii