County Clerk Steve Dennison used the public comment period to place the county clerk’s formal response to an internal elections audit on the record and to criticize aspects of the audit process.

Dennison said the audit report contained inaccuracies and that he had submitted a written response for the record. He told the board he believed some phrasing in the final report had not been corrected by the auditor’s office and that unedited statements could damage public confidence. "This report ... underscores the need for auditing reforms to ensure accountability and fairness in county publications," Dennison said during his remarks.

Board discussion
Commissioners acknowledged the clerk’s concerns and described broader departmental unease about aspects of how performance audits are conducted and how the performance auditor interacts with county departments. Several commissioners said they support an empowered and independent performance auditor but also want to review audit code language and the audit committee’s role to ensure clarity and fairness.

Action requested and next steps
The board directed staff to schedule a work session before year-end to consider possible code language updates and to evaluate audit-committee oversight of the performance auditor. Commissioners emphasized they were not seeking to place the auditor under direct political control but wanted clearer policy language and committee oversight to guide interactions between audit staff and county departments.

Provenance
Topic intro: County clerk public comment and submission of written response to audit (transcript excerpt: "I just submitted our response to the audit, and that's before you you have it, in your hands.").

Topic finish: Board direction to schedule a work session on potential code changes related to audit oversight (transcript excerpt: "Staff will work on scheduling a board work session ... by the end of the year.").