Woods County discussed how to manage a county-issued bank PIN card and moved to designate two initial cardholders while staff flesh out procedures.

Unidentified Speaker 3 told the meeting that anyone listed as a card user “have to go doing all the training with the bank” and that that training is online. Speakers emphasized that users must keep detailed logs and suggested consulting Oklahoma State University or another county for best practices. Concerns about vendor billing and charges that arrive before receipt of goods were cited as reasons to limit card use.

Unidentified Speaker 1 moved that Ashley and Reese be listed as cardholders and that staff be allowed to determine initial permitted uses until a formal policy is adopted. The motion was made on the record; the transcript later records voices saying “All in favor? Aye.” but a formal roll-call tally is not specified in the record.

Discussion at the meeting recommended minimizing the number of people with card access; Unidentified Speaker 2 said limiting users would reduce the risk of errors. Meeting participants suggested that the card be used primarily for lodging and travel at first, to reduce exposure to vendor-delivery issues, and that the office monitor vendor billing practices as the county gains experience.

Administrative details mentioned during the discussion included: the bank’s training is online; a subscription/service was handled yearly by a third party (Nextech billed annually after an initial monthly arrangement); and staff must maintain logs of card use. The county directed staff to set interim rules and to return with clearer procedures once the office has tested workflows and bank processes.

The next procedural step recorded in the transcript is the motion and apparent affirmation on the record; the transcript does not include a detailed vote tally or a written policy text for the card’s permitted uses.