Open meeting laws back in forefront

The sometimes-flickering candle of open government in South Dakota brightened a bit recently when the state resurrected its Open Meetings Commission, which had been dormant for almost four years.
South Dakota Searchlight reported that the commission was established by the Legislature in 2004 as a mechanism to hear charges of local governing boards possibly violating open meetings laws designed to keep the public light shining on the workings of our elected officials. According to the attorney general’s (AG) website, the board is made up of five state’s attorneys appointed by the AG. The original intent was for the board to meet twice a year.
However, this board had not met since December 2020. It was discontinued while Jason Ravnsborg was attorney general, and current AG Marty Jackley said he wasn’t precisely sure why the board stopped meeting. (One might suspect that the COVID-19 pandemic may have been a factor in it, but that’s just a guess.)
Jackley vowed to change that. “This commission’s role is to bring transparency to government proceedings, and its work has always been invaluable,” he said in a press release. “It is my goal to make the commission active again.”
To deal with the backlog of filed complaints, the newly-revived board met twice in November, during which it passed rulings of wrongdoing in 10 of 12 cases it heard. Among those ruled in violation were the Charles Mix County Commission, the Tripp City Council and the North Sioux City Council, each of whom was found to have failed to post a meeting agenda in a timely fashion.
The rulings serve as a mild reminder to local governments to follow the correct procedures in keeping the public informed.
However, that’s about all those rulings do. The governing boards are reprimanded, which Searchlight columnist Dana Hess likened to “being stoned with popcorn.” Nevertheless, it tells local officials that the people are watching and can take some form of action to push back on any perceived missteps. (It would be regrettably interesting to see what happens if a board receives multiple such reprimands. More than an admonishment may be needed, but it’s not clear what that would entail.)
Searchlight reported that one of the difficulties Jackley had in re-starting the Open Meetings Commission was finding enough state’s attorneys to serve on the board. With that in mind, the AG persuaded lawmakers in the last session to expand the pool of potential members to include deputy state’s attorneys.
Hess presented a fair idea last week when he suggested in a column that the potential candidate pool could be expanded by possibly including non-attorneys. He pointed out that many journalists, for instance, are well versed in open meetings laws out of professional necessity. But it could be open to others. As Hess noted, open meetings laws are not complicated — in fact, they can be found on the attorney general’s website.
Meanwhile, on the other end of things, the South Dakota NewsMedia Association is proposing a bill for the upcoming legislative session that would require governments to have their attorneys offer a refresher course on open meetings laws to elected boards every year.
The overall goal is not only to ensure that the public is kept up to speed on what its governing bodies are doing but also for local officials to be aware of their responsibilities in regard to what they can and cannot do in their capacities.
We agree with Hess’s ultimate sentiment that, in an ideal world, the Open Meetings Commission may someday not be needed because there won’t be any complaints to hear. But until then, at least this mechanism is working again, and hopefully, it will help provide enough light to ensure openness in all governmental processes in the state.
—Kelly Hertz is the editor of the Yankton Press & Dakotan