Last week I pointed out after seeing the city council’s informational meeting agenda on Friday afternoon that an item was removed by Monday (Mayor communications).
This Friday I noticed that the agenda was not posted by 5 PM. According to city charter;
§ 30.014 AGENDA.
   (c)   The proposed agenda shall be posted at the city clerk’s office and placed on the city’s website, with email notice sent to those persons who have requested notice pursuant to law by the close of business on the Friday preceding any meeting to take place on the following Tuesday. Proposed additions to the agenda, in their complete and final format, including a signed agenda approval form, shall be delivered to the city clerk’s office no later than Monday at 12:00 p.m. before the Tuesday meeting the next day. These items shall be listed as “Items added after agenda deadline†on a revised agenda which shall be posted, placed on the website and noticed at least 24 hours in advance of the Tuesday meeting to the council, the mayor, the directors and all persons who have requested notice pursuant to law. Any item to be placed on a revised agenda must be separately approved for the agenda by a vote of a majority of the city council members present in order to be considered that same evening.
As of Noon today, the agenda was still not posted, not even an amended one (I believe it is up now). This would be a violation of city charter by the Clerk’s office. But according to state law, there only needs to be a 24 hour notice;
The open meeting law is contained in SDCL chapter 1-25. Municipalities are required to hold open meetings. This includes any association, authority, board, commission, committee, council, or task force which is created by statute, ordinance, or resolution and is vested with the authority to exercise any sovereign power derived from state law (SDCL 1-25-1).
Prior to any city council, commission or board meeting, a notice including the proposed agenda must be posted in city hall in a place where it is visible, readable, and accessible for at last an entire 24 hours. The proposed agenda shall include the date, time and location of the meeting. The notice shall also be posted on the public body’s website upon dissemination of the notice, if such website exists. This requirement is mandatory for all meetings of the board, council or commission (SDCL 1-25-1.1).
When an entity is appointed by the governing body but does not meet the definition of an entity required to hold an open meeting, any report to the governing body must be given to the governing body in an open meeting. The governing body shall delay taking any official action on the recommendations, findings, or reports until the next meeting of the governing body (SDCL 1-27-1.18).
For special or rescheduled regular meetings, all bodies shall also comply with the public notice provisions of this section for regular meetings to the extent that circumstances permit. In addition, information in the notice must be given, in person, by mail, e-mail, or by telephone, to members of the local news media who have requested notice (SDCL 1-25-1.1).
So which is it? Good question. But I think if a city in South Dakota doesn’t follow it’s own Home Rule Charter there could be consequences, we will see.
UPDATE: Seems the city was a little worried about the misstep;
The proposed agenda shall be posted at the city clerk’s office and placed on the city’s website, with email notice sent to those persons who have requested notice pursuant to law by the close of business on the Friday preceding any meeting to take place on the following Tuesday.
They are now REQUIRED to cancel the City Council Informational meeting for tomorrow, Tuesday, April 21, 2015.
The same would be true for the regular 7:00 meeting if the proper notification was not provided.
If they choose to proceed with the meeting(s) tomorrow, they are in violation of South Dakota’s Open Meetings Law.
Kind of wonder if this ‘flub’ has anything to do with Items #26 & #30.
Did I hear it right, if the city proceeds with this behavior the state of South Dakota can rescind the Home Rule Charter?
Most city action is improper procedure. If the hearings process doesn’t allow appeals, all matters can be questioned. Home Rule charter is neither constitutional nor democracy. Councilor is but a status symbol. City director is a paycheck with gold benefits. There’s no checks and balances and (therefore) no compliance or corrective action. The mayor has full command and power such that he is (basically) a dictator.
I was surprised to see nothing posted Friday either, so I sent an email today and I got a response saying the agendas would be posted shortly. That was at 1:06pm Monday. Very shortly (minutes after) they went online, so it would have been around 1:10pm.
Having read the open meetings laws, I think they are OKin that regard, although cutting it close.
Based on the city charter you cited, it would appear they are in violation of their own laws. Which trumps? I’m not sure, but I would say in good faith if the city charter or ordinance says something, it should be followed by the city. Just like if the city ordinance says you have to shovel your sidewalk, you must or you will be fined. We can’t selectively pick and choose.
A city ordinance can’t explicitly allow what is disallowed by state law, or disallow something that is allowed by state law explicitly, but I believe we are free to add more regulation or make a law firmer.
So if your citation is up to date, I am thinking the open meetings law hasn’t been violated (state) but they are violating their own law. Now to whom does someone appeal that if it is a violation – I’m not sure. Circuit court? What would be the action? Just wondering aloud. Long story short, if that is the city ordinance it should be followed.
So they are using the special council meeting provision of 30.002:
30.002 SPECIAL MEETINGS.
(a) The mayor, acting mayor or six members of the city council may call special meetings of the city council whenever in its opinion the public business may require it.
(b) Whenever a special meeting is called, a notice in writing signed by the mayor, acting mayor or the council members requesting the meeting shall be prepared by and filed with the city clerk, or the city clerk’s designee, and served forthwith upon each member of the city council either in person, by e-mail, or other electronic means or by notice left at the city council member’s place of residence. The notice shall state the date and hour of the meeting and the purpose for which the meeting is called. No business shall be transacted at the meeting except such as is stated in the notice.
(c) No special meeting shall be held until at least 24 hours after the call is issued.
So the Mayor in his power declared a ‘special meeting’ attaching the exact agenda of the tardy regular meeting agenda. Perhaps it legally would fly – the wording gives the Mayor of 6 councilors pretty wide latitude it seems here, but it seems an end run and doesn’t seem quite right. Legal and right aren’t always the same. Does it meet the SPIRIT of the entire ordinance and our attempt to be as open and transparent as possible? Probably not.
Games. Games & More Games.
Is that seriously his signature!?!?!?!?
From the City Clerk’s office, ‘Due to difficulties’. Funny how once a complaint was called in, it only took a few minutes to post. This wasn’t technical, because if it was, they could have posted it to the main page of the city website without much difficulty.
Subject: City Council Agenda — Special Meeting
Please see the attached Notice of Special Meeting for the City Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 21, 2015, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting is to transact the business scheduled for the 7 p.m. meeting as attached. Due to difficulties, the agenda was not posted to SIRE on the City’s website on Friday.
Lorie Hogstad, CMC
City Clerk
City of Sioux Falls . Carnegie Town Hall . 10th & Dakota
235 West 10th Street . Sioux Falls, SD 57104
lhogstad@siouxfalls.org . 605-367-8081 Phone . 605-367-8070 Fax
The incompetence, AND arrogance, of this administration is astounding!
The Council needs to stop playing lapdog. MMM is taking them down a slippery slope.