Local Government Bodies Face Reprimands After Violating Open Meetings Laws
In a critical decision on Monday, South Dakota’s Open Meetings Commission found multiple violations of state transparency laws by local government bodies. The violations, which stem from improper executive sessions, public notice failures, and other breaches, led to reprimands for five local governments. However, the commission did not find a violation in one case and postponed a ruling on another, signaling the continued vigilance of the commission under new leadership.
Violations in Executive Sessions
The commission’s findings largely focused on violations related to executive sessions—closed-door meetings meant to discuss sensitive issues like personnel matters or legal consultations. Under South Dakota’s open meetings law, these sessions must be strictly controlled, with clearly defined agendas and specific purposes stated at the outset.
The Pennington County Commission was found in violation during a November 2023 executive session that drifted from the stated purpose of discussing an employee’s performance. Instead, the board discussed compensation comparisons with other counties, a topic not covered by the agenda or the reason for entering the executive session. This straying from the agenda was deemed a breach of state law.
Additionally, when the Pennington County Commission returned to open session and voted on a salary increase denial for an employee, the agenda did not include this action, which was another violation. The commission had failed to follow the required procedure for properly notifying the public about the issue being voted on.
Similarly, the Sturgis City Council faced two violations. On May 6, 2024, the council entered a closed session without providing a clear statement of purpose. Another violation occurred on February 16, 2023, when the council discussed the merits of a city manager versus city administrator role in a closed session, a matter not permitted to be addressed privately under the law.
Public Notice Violations
Other cases before the commission focused on public notice violations. Under state law, agendas for public meetings must be posted in advance to ensure transparency and allow the public to participate or provide input. The Carlyle Township Board of Supervisors in Beadle County was found to have violated this requirement in October 2023 by failing to post an agenda before a meeting. Similarly, the Charles Mix County Commission failed to post an agenda for a meeting held on May 23, 2024, which also violated the law.
The Tripp City Council in Gregory County was cited for a similar infraction when it failed to post an agenda before a special meeting where the resignation of a police officer was accepted. Although the city attorney acknowledged the error, the vote was retaken at a subsequent meeting where it was properly listed on the agenda.
No Violation Found in Lead City Case
Despite several findings of violations, the Open Meetings Commission did not find fault in a complaint filed against the City of Lead Commission. The complaint, which centered on the wording of an agenda item related to a community center update in January 2024, questioned whether the public was adequately informed about a pending vote. The commission determined that the agenda item was sufficient and no violation occurred in this case.
Ruling on Green Valley Sanitary District Postponed
The commission also deferred its decision on a complaint against the Green Valley Sanitary District in Pennington County. The complaint alleged that three trustees secured a $200,000 loan for the district without a public vote. The district’s attorney contended that open meetings laws may not apply to sanitary districts. As the commission continues to investigate, a final ruling on this case remains pending.
The Role of the Open Meetings Commission
The Open Meetings Commission plays a vital role in ensuring that public bodies across South Dakota remain accountable to their constituents. The commission, which consists of five state-appointed attorneys, had been inactive for several years under the previous attorney general, leading to a backlog of cases. However, the recent meeting marked the commission’s first gathering in nearly four years, highlighting the renewed commitment to enforcing transparency laws.
These findings serve as a reminder of the importance of open meetings and the need for government bodies to adhere to the letter of the law. As the commission continues to review complaints and hold local governments accountable, it remains an essential mechanism for safeguarding public trust in South Dakota’s local governments.
Comments