Recording mandate for local meetings in South Dakota remains unsettled
Government transparency task force balks at scope of open government proposals
A government task force focused on improving South Dakota’s open meetings laws has declined to take immediate action on a proposal that would require certain local governments to record official meetings.
The South Dakota Advisory Task Force Committee on Open Meetings Laws met for the second time Tuesday, April 7, examining five new proposals to the state’s sunshine laws.
Among those was the decision not to take immediate action on an act focused on the recording and retention of meetings of political subdivisions.
The proposal, as written, would have required not only state entities, but county commissions and municipalities made up of 5,000 or more residents to create audio recordings of all official meetings and retain those records for an unspecified period of time.
Executive sessions would be exempt from the recording requirement.
The task force debated both the population threshold, as well as the retention period and which local entities the requirement would apply to.
McPherson County State’s Attorney Austin Hoffman said he’d prefer to see all county commissions included in the recording requirement, citing the technology availability already installed in county courthouses throughout South Dakota.
“I do think that this is a pretty light requirement in 2026,” added Clay County Commissioner Geoffrey Gray-Lobe. “... [A commission] that isn’t capable of figuring out how to audio record a meeting in 2026 —I think that indicates a level of inefficiency and kind of a refusal to grow with the times that is problematic.”
While the task force agreed upon requiring all counties to record their meetings, it struggled where to draw the line on municipalities. Various proposals aimed to keep the population threshold at 5,000, while others suggested reducing it to cities and towns of 500 people or more.
One member cautioned that some smaller towns throughout South Dakota don’t typically meet in the same location for every meeting, and that the burden of moving audio equipment between sites could be too great.
While the group appeared to generally agree on a threshold of municipalities with 1,500 people, and a retention period of seven years, debates over who exactly would be required to record was set for another day.
The task force struggled to determine whether committees or advisory task forces — such a cemetery board or museum board — would be required to record under the proposal’s wording, leading to the unanimous decision to table the item to seek improved, unambiguous wording.
It’s unclear when the task force will reconvene. Passage of any proposal through the task force is expected to be introduced to the South Dakota Legislature in 2027 for further consideration by lawmakers.
Public comment should begin meetings, task force advises
Beyond the issue of recordings, the task force took up multiple other proposals, including when public comment should be held during meetings of local government.
As the law stands, public bodies are required to offer a period of public comment at their meetings. Missing from the law is any requirement as to when.
Minnehaha County Commissioner Cole Heisey introduced a proposal that would require public comment be allowed before each individual agenda item, ensuring any constituent has the opportunity to speak immediately preceding any decisions or board discussion.
Multiple task force members agreed with the spirit of Heisey’s proposal, but contended that a single period of public comment was sufficient. Instead, the task force unanimously agreed to require public comment be had immediately following the approval of an agenda.
The issue arose from some public bodies who only heard public comment at the end of an agenda, after decisions had been made and votes had been recorded. Task force members agreed that such practices effectively rendered public comment moot.
The revised proposal does not restrict public bodies from offering additional periods of public comment during an official meeting.
Official action should require motion & vote
Another proposal previously tabled due to time constraints, the task force unanimously approved an item that aims to close a loophole regarding official actions.
The proposal dictates that official action by any public body must occur in an official meeting and be preceded by a motion, second and vote of the members of the public body present and voting.
According to Assistant Attorney General Beverly Katz, existing codified law does not specifically require a motion or a second to vote on an agenda item.
Most public bodies already follow Robert’s Rules of Order, the task force agreed, which does require a motion and second prior to a vote, but codifying such procedure closes any potential loopholes.
“This came up in the Open Meetings Commission. Nothing says Robert’s Rules has to be followed,” Hoffman explained. “This is really just to put it in [statute].”
After discussion as to the proposal’s specific wording, the task force unanimously approved the item. A criminal penalty for violating the proposal was removed by the voting body.
Timeline for open meetings complaints
Elsewhere on the agenda, the task force unanimously advanced a proposal that would establish how long after an alleged open meetings violation a complaint can be filed with a state’s attorney.
With minimal discussion, Hoffman proposed a 180-day limitation to formally file a complaint, indicating concerns that allegations of open meetings violations could be weaponized years down the road.
Other task force members felt the six-month timeline was too restrictive, and the board later settled on a one-year limitation.
Local governments to keep detailed minutes
Another proposal claimed at cleaning up the state’s code book saw approval in part by the task force, related to what government meeting minutes should consist of.
Tabled at the November meeting, the original proposal sought to change wording in one chapter of codified law to require all public bodies — both on a state and local level — to keep “detailed minutes” made available to the public pursuant to open records laws.
Concerns were identified related to the broad definition of the term “all public bodies,” which task force members contended could include, for example, local library boards and volunteer fire departments. Another concern focused on ambiguity with the definition of “detailed minutes.”
Hoffman explained that other chapters of South Dakota law already regulate which entities are required to keep minutes, but was concerned some entities would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Open Meetings Commission should a violation be reported.
The proposal was amended to only impact state entities, and not local governments. The proposal included a definition of “detailed minutes” as including each vote taken and how each individual member voted.
The proposal was advanced unanimously.
Content courtesy of SiouxFallsLive.com.
 | A guest post by
|
In 2026, wouldn't a phone be enough to record a meeting on? That comes with its on issues of course: is it a phone owned by the city/county/township, and who has access to the audio/video files on it? The idea that a small town or county needs "audio equipment" for meetings to be open (as required by law) seems disingenuous when anyone can put themselves online instantly.