Cameraman Bruce contributed to this post
South Dakota Supreme Court has made it official, unethical behavior is acceptable in South Dakota. This case had half of the Wall City Council making decisions on zoning a new business out of the fine “city”. Of course it is a silly thing to expect ethics to be considered because we learned a few years ago when the legislature threw out the weak ethics initiative passed by the voters, their reasoning was South Dakota doesn’t need ethics laws because we have the most ethical elected officials in the country.
I also look at all the individuals who have pleaded with the state for their individual rights (the prison and CO2 pipeline come to mind) with no response. Now the courts are in bed with business. You would literally have to be a rotting wooden fence post not to see that the ENTIRE council was unethical in their ruling against LOVE’s.
On top of that, why would an entire city council vote against economic development and jobs!?
I have felt our courts in South Dakota are questionable (you know, like if legalizing MJ meant legalizing all forms of it) and now the highest court in our state sides with the politically connected, even those who have a dust mite invested bump in the road tourist attraction.
Factual and Procedural Background
“[¶3.] Loves is a privately owned corporation that operates 24-hour truck stops across the United States. One Shot, L.L.C. (One Shot), a South Dakota limited liability company, owns real property located in the southwest corner of the City. Loves entered into an agreement to purchase a 13-acre parcel of land (the Property) from One Shot, conditioned upon obtaining City zoning and permitting approvals to develop and construct a new travel stop on the Property. At the time, the Property was located within the City, but had not been platted or designated to one of the four established zoning districts in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
“The City Council is comprised of a six-member panel. At the outset of this case, Rick Hustead, Jerry Morgan, Stan Anderson, Mike Anderson, Dar Haerer, and Dan Hauk all served on the City Council. 2 Hustead is the owner of Wall Drug Store, Inc., a popular rest stop and tourist attraction located within the City. Hustead also owns the Wall Auto Livery gas station and convenience store. Mike Anderson is the owner of a Dairy Queen franchise in the City, and Welsh owns a local motel.”
[¶15.] The City appeals and raises two issues:
1. Whether the court erred in holding the City in contempt of its mandamus order.
2. Whether the court abused its discretion in ordering the City to issue Loves a building permit as a remedy for its finding of civil contempt.
[¶17.] A party seeking civil contempt must prove four elements: “(1) the existence of an order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability to comply with the order; and (4) willful or contumacious disobedience of the order.” Id. ¶ 20 (quoting Keller v. Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 9, 660 N.W.2d 619, 622). “The purpose of the civil contempt is ‘to force a party “to comply with orders and decrees issued by a court in a civil action[.]”’” Taylor, 2019 S.D. 27, ¶ 39, 928 N.W.2d at 470-71 (quoting Sazama v. State ex rel. Muilenberg, 2007 S.D. 17, ¶ 23, 729 N.W.2d 335, 344). [¶18.] The City does not contest the first three elements. Thus, the only issue is whether the City “willfully or contumaciously disobeyed” the circuit court’s order. To make a finding of a “willful or contumacious disobedience” of an order, the order “must state the details of compliance in such clear, specific and unambiguous terms that the person to whom it is directed will know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed upon [him].” Id. (quoting Keller, 2003 S.D. 36, ¶ 10, 660 N.W.2d at 622).
[¶24.] The City Council scheduled a separate meeting to identify any conflicts of interest prior to considering Loves’ application. The minutes from the meeting show that the City Council discussed whether any member had a direct pecuniary interest. The City attorney also advised each member to conduct a “self-analysis” for any conflict of interest they may possess.