Madison City Commission candidate Ashley Allen bristles at backrooms deals in local government. In a Facebook post this week, Allen cites a blog post by Madison Daily Leader correspondent Chuck Clement (wait: did I just use blog post and Chuck Clement in the same sentence?) pointing out the oddity of state open meeting laws that allows local governments to shut out the public when they discuss economic development.
Clement knows his open meeting law; he knows that SDCL 1-25 doesn't mention economic development as a topic our local leaders can keep secret. But he discovers cities and counties are granted secret-keeping authority over economic development schemes by SDCL 9-34-19, an open meeting exemption tucked away under municiapl trade regulations:
Right among the state laws -- for pool rooms and bowling alleys, junk stores, scalpers, employment agencies, public dances, skating rinks, and tattooing and body piercing -- were the rules for closing public meetings to discuss economic development.
Either our lawmakers have a really bizarre sense of humor or they really must not want South Dakotans or anyone else to know much about government involvement in economic development. I will continue to wonder why anyone wanted to hide 9-34-19 among the rules for "Municipal regulation of food sales."
Oh, but there is one set of rules in the same chapter that fits with hiding the regulations for executive sessions - it's 9-34-16, the state's rules for "Mindreaders and fortunetellers" [Chuck Clement, "Tattooing, Junk Stores... and Economic Development?" Madison Daily Leader, 2014.03.20].
Dang: unleash Clement from the formal reporter's beat, and he brandishes a singular statutory wit.
Allen says he would like to repeal SDCL 9-34-19. Repealing state law is a bit tough from City Hall, but opening economic development discussions could happen without a legislative change. Notice that SDCL 9-34-19 says, "Any discussion or consideration of such trade secrets or commercial or financial information by a municipal corporation or county may be done in executive session closed to the public." May. We find the same non-mandatory permission in SDCL 1-25-2: "Executive or closed meetings may be held...."
State law does not order city commissions to go into executive sessions. It gives them the option, upon a majority vote. If you want an open discussion of economic development issues on a five member board, you need to get two other people to agree with you, and that discussion remains open.
So does anyone among Allen's candidates and among the commissioners they will join in City Hall share Allen's zeal for openness on economic development?