Require the publication and review of an explanation of the open meeting laws of this state.
Summary
SB 74 requires the South Dakota Attorney General to publish an explanation of the state’s open meeting laws on the attorney general’s website each year before January 1. It also requires any state agency or political subdivision that must give public notice of meetings under the open meeting statutes to review that explanation, and any other open-meeting materials provided by the Attorney General, during an official meeting at least once each year.
The bill further requires the agency or subdivision to record in its meeting minutes that the annual review was completed. In practical terms, the measure creates an ongoing education and compliance step for public bodies subject to South Dakota’s open meeting requirements, while also formalizing the Attorney General’s role in providing public guidance on those laws.
Impact
SB 74 amends § 1-11-1 to add a new duty for the Attorney General and adds a new section to chapter 1-25. The legal effect is to require annual publication of an open meetings law explanation and to impose an annual review-and-minutes requirement on agencies and political subdivisions covered by the open meeting notice statutes. The bill does not change the substantive open meeting rules themselves, but it adds an administrative compliance obligation for public bodies and a public-information obligation for the Attorney General.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support for the bill at each recorded stage, with no recorded dissenting votes in committee or on the floor. The absence of committee transcripts limits insight into debate, but the unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as a straightforward transparency and training bill rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No specific points of contention are reflected in the available record. Because there are no committee transcripts and every recorded vote was unanimous, there is no evidence of organized opposition or disagreement over the bill’s requirements. Any potential concern would likely center on the added administrative burden of annual review and minute documentation for local governments and state agencies, but that concern is not documented in the provided materials.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.