Commissioners discuss Wildlife Advisory Committee governance, open‑meetings concerns and conflict‑of‑interest rules

Teton County commissioners spent substantial time on March 6 discussing the Wildlife Advisory Committee’s operations, membership and perceived conflicts of interest after months of public debate and written complaints. Commissioners and committee advocates agreed the panel should remain but urged clearer procedures, annual conflict disclosures and improved public postings of agendas and minutes.

Commissioner Ron Whitfield (identified in the record as a commissioner) said he does “absolutely no intention whatsoever of disbanding this committee” and described the committee as “a vital and important part of giving us advice” while urging procedural fixes including explicit conflict disclosures on applications. Commissioner James said the item has generated “65 emails” and many public comments and favored a town‑hall to let residents speak before any board decision.

Substantive concerns raised: resident Kurt Bailey and other speakers alleged that some committee minutes were not posted and that prior meeting notices contained errors; Bailey provided IT records contesting staff postings and asked the board to verify the public record. Commissioner Whitfield and legal counsel said staff had corrected postings and that many earlier complaints were beyond the statute of limitations; county counsel and multiple commissioners said legal counsel had reviewed the record and found the prior open‑meetings issues largely cured, though they acknowledged some staff posting sloppiness.

Conflict‑of‑interest and consultant list: the discussion repeatedly mentioned Jeff Klausman, a committee member and wildlife consultant. Commissioners and staff debated whether Klausman’s role on the advisory committee and his inclusion on the county’s list of approved wildlife consultants created an improper benefit. County counsel and commissioners explained that existing code provisions treat consultants as a class and that Klausman recused himself from drafting consultant qualification standards; several commissioners proposed adding an annual written disclosure and clearer recusal procedures for advisory committee members.

Data and recommendations: commissioners emphasized the committee’s data work — including collision mapping and a public app used to report wildlife vehicle collisions — and urged scaling those efforts into planning and road‑design processes as the county updates highways. There was consensus that the committee provides useful technical input but that its operations should be more transparent and that county staff should improve postings and application processes for committee membership.

Outcome: the board did not disband the Wildlife Advisory Committee. Commissioners directed staff and counsel to ensure meeting minutes and agendas are posted correctly, to refine conflict‑of‑interest disclosure processes for advisory committees, and to schedule public engagement (a town hall) to collect community input before further actions.