At a special called meeting, the Camden County Board of Commissioners briefly adopted the agenda, moved into an executive session to discuss litigation, then reconvened and took no public action. During the final public comment period, two residents raised sharp concerns about how a tentative millage rate was handled and called for greater transparency.

Dawn Gray, speaking during public comment, said she was reading from court filings and questioned the county’s explanation of events leading to a public notice about the millage rate. Gray said the filings refer to a "motion to dismiss part 2" and that a court hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Monday. She asked how a "tentative adoption" of the millage rate could occur without a formal vote and whether a series of individual phone calls between the chairman, the county administrator and commissioners amounted to a serial quorum in violation of the Open Meetings Act. "Was it as the result of those phone calls ... which in my mind is a serial quorum," Gray said.

Rick Manning of Bullhead said the public knows the meeting was called because of the pending litigation and urged commissioners to admit mistakes to regain trust. "What in the world is going on, folks? Mistakes were made ... Are we not man enough to swallow our bridal, tell these constituents ... that we made a mistake?" Manning said. An unidentified speaker responded, "I make them all the time, and I will the rest of my life," acknowledging mistakes but offering no further detail.

Procedurally, the board handled several brief motions. The chair requested and received a motion to adopt the special called agenda; the chair announced the motion carried but no roll-call tally or recorded votes were provided in the public transcript. The board then voted to adjourn into an executive session to discuss litigation; after the closed session the chair stated there was "no action needed to be taken" and reopened the meeting for a final public comment period. The meeting concluded after a final motion to adjourn, which the chair again announced as carried.

Gray’s remarks cited a published notice in the county’s legal organ and the court filing language that, according to her reading, stated public hearings were set "as statutorily required" to address the millage rate but that "no vote was taken to officially adopt any millage rate." She urged clarification about how a tentative rate appeared to have been set. The board did not provide a public response in the recorded meeting minutes to the specific questions about phone calls, notice publication, or whether the county’s actions triggered Open Meetings Act review.

The most immediate procedural development Gray referenced is a scheduled court hearing at 9:00 a.m. on Monday related to ongoing litigation; the board did not announce any internal follow-up or staff assignments on the record at the meeting.

The special called meeting of the Camden County Board of Commissioners convened, recessed into executive session for litigation and reconvened without recorded public votes or additional actions; public comment closed the meeting with residents pressing for clarity on the millage process and transparency around recent actions.