Commissioners reviewed a letter from the county auditor explaining why conflict‑of‑interest forms should be filed and kept in the clerk’s office. The auditor’s memo (read into the record) said auditors need access to those forms during audits so they can identify potential conflicts — for example, if a commissioner owns a business that receives county payments, the auditor needs to verify voucher approvals and recusal practices.

Commissioners emphasized transparency and argued that disclosures should be accessible to auditors; some commissioners said the information should not be treated as private because it helps the county detect potential conflicts when processing bills and vouchers. The commission discussed examples (family businesses and vendor relationships) and noted that small communities may encounter frequent overlaps between public service and private business interests; commissioners said the forms clarify roles and reduce audit risk.

Separately, the commission reviewed an email from an individual expressing interest in providing type‑25 patient transport services. Commissioners discussed baseline screening for such providers (insurance, liability coverage, requirements for a second attendant when transporting certain patients), whether state statute or agency rules govern private transport, and whether an internal county policy is needed. Commissioners asked staff to confirm state requirements for transporting patients, to check insurance and liability standards, and to communicate with the applicant to gather required documentation before any service agreement is pursued.