Sure they follow state law, a law that was hijacked. When our current open meeting laws were implemented they were originally written by a Democrat, Nancy Turbak. But instead of the SD GOP opposing her bill, Dave Knudson convinced them to work with her on the legislation, instead, Dave gutted it leaving it up to local governments to decide what is open and what is not, kind of like the fox watching the hen house. Just look at how our city attorney ‘interprets’ our open meeting laws in this presentation to council;
• If a quasi-judicial item, then the applicant is allowed a rebuttal following public input. (while I think it is fine for an applicant to have a rebuttal, that equal time should be afforded to the opposition. Not in Sux, business owner first, citizens dead last.)
• General Public input must be included on the agenda and is limited to topics which did not involve those agenda items appearing earlier. (As I have said in the past, the council can’t limit what you can say during general public input, it is a violation of your 1st Amendment rights).
• Can the public body discuss the issue(s) first raised by a General Public Input Presenter at the same meeting?
No.
Then it may become an agenda item which was not properly noticed. (this excuse made me chuckle. If a constituent asked the age of a city councilor while standing at the podium and that councilor answered, that is NOT a whole new item. What a ridiculous excuse. Constituents used to be able to question council at meetings but Mike had that rule changed. This has NOTHING to do with open meeting laws. The council knows they can answer a question they are just to scared of the city attorney.)
• Are email discussions an “official meeting”? Official meetings can be conducted electronically. “A quorum of a public body who discusses official business of that body via electronic means is conducting an official meeting.” (this would explain why Fiddle says we have 500 meetings a year, he thinks sending an email to the mayor is a ‘meeting’.)
If you review our current State Open Meeting laws you will see they grant massive power to local governments to self-determine what can and cannot be transparent, in other words LEGALIZED CENSORSHIP.