Members of the Granite County Study Commission acknowledged the group is behind the timetable used as a template by other jurisdictions and agreed to request training and a document review from Dan Clark, the trainer who previously worked with other study commissions. The commission discussed errors in a sample timeline obtained from another county and resolved to proceed by drafting an inclusive first survey, then paring it back after Clark’s guidance.

Commissioners said the training will clarify what questions are legally permissible to include in a ballot-anchored process and to explain differences among the six constitutional forms of county government they are studying. Members said they had mixed experience accessing the online training materials; some members reported they had not yet received a second-step enrollment email required to access the course content and asked staff to follow up with the county liaison. The commission also agreed that an in-person training session may be useful after members review initial materials and a draft survey.

The group noted practical constraints: the commission is advisory, not decision-making, and any formal recommendation may still require the county commission to approve ballot placement and the county attorney to review ballot language. Commissioners asked staff to prepare materials that present each governance option in one or two plain-language sentences and to assemble examples (for example, Deer Lodge County’s city–county government) for the trainer to review.