Joshua Haiar, South Dakota Searchlight
South Dakota’s Open Meetings Commission decided Monday in Pierre that five local governments violated open meetings laws.
The commission found no violation in another case, and postponed a decision on another. Written reprimands will be issued for the violations.
The commission is a five-member body of state’s attorneys appointed by the state attorney general.
Last week, the commission met for the first time in nearly four years following a period of inactivity under a previous attorney general and problems maintaining a full roster of commission members. At last week’s meeting, the commission found violations in five of six cases considered.
Executive session violations
Some of the cases heard Monday involved closed-door meetings known as “executive sessions.”
State law allows executive sessions only for certain topics, such as personnel matters, consulting with lawyers about litigation and discussing contract negotiations. Government bodies must have the item on the agenda, state the reason for entering the executive session, pass a motion to conduct the executive session, stick to the intended topic while in the executive session, and conduct any final actions on the matter in open session.
In Pennington County, two county commissioners filed complaints about executive sessions against the rest of the county’s five-member commission.
The Open Meetings Commission found that the county commission violated open meetings laws on Nov. 7, 2023, when it conducted an executive session discussion about compensation comparisons between counties. The board had strayed from the stated purpose of the executive session, which was a discussion of a particular employee’s performance.
At the same meeting, the board violated open meetings laws when it came back into open session and voted to deny the employee’s request for a salary increase. The request was not on the commission’s agenda.
The Open Meetings Commission did not find a violation in a third accusation against the Pennington County Commission for a June 6, 2023, meeting. During that meeting, the county commission was in an executive session while it allegedly directed an employee to conduct a wage study and market analysis for department heads. The complaint alleged that the action was improper for an executive session and should have been taken in an open session.
The Sturgis City Council was found to have violated executive session laws on two occasions. On May 6 of this year, the council entered a closed session without stating a purpose. On Feb. 16, 2023, the council improperly deliberated in private on whether a city manager or city administrator was better for the community. The discussion was deemed improper for a closed session because it was about the positions in general, rather than a review 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 post an agenda in advance of a meeting in October 2023.
The Charles Mix County Commission was found to have violated state law by failing to post an agenda for its May 23, 2024, meeting.
The Tripp City Council committed a similar infraction when it failed to post an agenda before a special meeting where a police officer’s resignation was accepted. The city attorney acknowledged the error and noted that the vote was retaken at a subsequent meeting where it was listed on the agenda.
No violation found
The Open Meetings Commission did not find a violation in a case against the City of Lead Commission. The local government body voted in January of this year to support legislation for a community center and authorized an employee to travel to Pierre to lobby for it. The complaint centered on whether the agenda item, labeled “Community Center Update,” adequately informed the public of a pending vote.
Decision postponed
The Open Meetings Commission deferred its decision on a complaint against the Green Valley Sanitary District in Pennington County. A complaint alleged that three trustees secured a $200,000 loan for the district without a public vote. The district’s attorney argued that open-meetings laws may not apply to sanitary districts. The commission postponed a ruling pending further research.