The South Dakota Capitol grounds and lake in Pierre. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)
South Dakota’s Open Meetings Commission ruled Monday in Pierre that five local governments had violated open meeting laws.
The committee found no violation in another case and postponed a decision on another case. Written reprimands will be given for violations.
The commission consists of five members of the state attorneys general, appointed by the attorney general.
Last week, the commission met for the first time in nearly four years after a period of inactivity under a previous attorney general and difficulties in maintaining a full roster of commission members. During last week’s meeting, the committee violations detected in five of the six cases examined.
Board Session Violations
Some of the cases heard Monday involved closed-door meetings known as “executive sessions.”
Constitutional law only allows board sessions for certain topics, such as human resources, consulting with attorneys on lawsuits, and discussing contract negotiations. Public bodies must have the topic on the agenda, state the reason for attending the board meeting, make a motion to hold the board meeting, stick to the intended topic during the board meeting, and take any final action on the matter in open session. .
In Pennington County, two county commissioners filed complaints about board meetings against the rest of the county’s five-member commission.
The Open Meetings Commission found that the county commission violated open meeting laws on Nov. 7, 2023, when it held a board meeting on wage comparisons between counties. The board had strayed from the stated purpose of the board session, which was a discussion of the performance of a particular employee.
At the same meeting, the board violated open meeting laws when it returned to open session and voted to deny the employee’s request for a salary increase. The request was not on the committee’s agenda.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES IN YOUR INBOX
The Open Meetings Commission found no violation in a third allegation against the Pennington County Commission for a June 6, 2023 meeting. During that meeting, the county commission was in executive session while allegedly ordering an employee to conduct a pay study and market analysis for department heads to carry out. The complaint alleged that the action was inappropriate for a board meeting and should have been taken at a public hearing.
The Sturgis City Council was found to have violated board meeting laws twice. On May 6 of this year, the council went into closed session without specifying a goal. On February 16, 2023, the council improperly deliberated in private about whether a city manager or city manager was better for the community. The discussion was deemed inappropriate for a closed session as it concerned views in general and not an assessment of a specific employee.
Public Notice Violations
The Carlyle Township Board of Supervisors in Beadle County was found to have violated state law by failing to publish an agenda ahead of an October 2023 meeting.
The Charles Mix County Commission was found to have violated state law by failing to set an agenda for the May 23, 2024 meeting.
The Tripp City Council committed a similar violation when it failed to publish an agenda for a special meeting to accept the resignation of a police officer. The city attorney acknowledged the error and noted that the vote was resumed at a subsequent meeting, where it was listed on the agenda.
No violation found
The Open Meetings Commission found no violation in a case against the City of Lead Commission. The local government body voted in favor of legislation for a community center in January this year and allowed an employee to travel to Pierre to lobby for it. The complaint centered on whether the agenda item, titled “Community Center Update,” adequately informed the public about an upcoming vote.
Decision postponed
The Open Meetings Commission has postponed its decision on a complaint against the Green Valley Sanitary District in Pennington County. One complaint alleged that three trustees obtained a $200,000 loan for the district without a public vote. The prosecutor argued that open meeting laws may not apply to sanitary districts. The committee has postponed a ruling pending further investigation.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
