Make public the calendars and appointment logs of statewide public officials.
Summary
Senate Bill 9 would change South Dakota’s open records law to make calendars and appointment logs of statewide public officials public records for calendars and logs created on or after July 1, 2025. The bill amends the list of records exempt from disclosure in § 1-27-1.5 by narrowing the existing exemption for correspondence, memoranda, calendars, appointment logs, working papers, and telephone records of public officials and employees. Under the new language, the exemption would no longer apply to calendars or appointment logs for a person holding statewide office, while other personal records and documents would remain protected.
The measure is aimed at increasing transparency around the schedules and meetings of statewide elected or appointed officials. It would not broadly eliminate confidentiality for all government records; instead, it creates a targeted public-access rule for a specific category of records while leaving the rest of the state’s exemptions intact. The bill also preserves the existing protections for personal correspondence and other private records of public officials and employees, but carves out calendars and appointment logs for statewide officeholders from that protection going forward.
Impact
SB 9 would amend South Dakota Codified Laws § 1-27-1.5, the state’s public records exemption statute, by narrowing one exemption and adding a new section to chapter 1-27. The practical effect is that calendars and appointment logs created on or after July 1, 2025, for statewide officials would become subject to public disclosure, while similar records for other public officials and employees would remain exempt unless otherwise required to be disclosed by law. This would affect statewide officeholders, their staff, and records custodians responsible for responding to open records requests.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have mixed but meaningful support for government transparency, as reflected in the legislative votes. One vote deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day by a 7-2 margin, suggesting some support in committee or early consideration, while a later vote to place the bill on the calendar failed 16-18, indicating significant resistance or uncertainty among legislators. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows procedural movement but not detailed debate.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between transparency and privacy for public officials. Supporters likely view public calendars and appointment logs as basic accountability tools that let the public see who statewide officials meet with and how they spend their time. Opponents may be concerned that disclosure could expose sensitive scheduling information, chill candid meetings, or create administrative burdens, especially because the bill singles out statewide officials while leaving other officials’ records protected. The narrow scope and the effective date also suggest lawmakers were trying to limit the reach of the change, but the close and conflicting votes indicate the issue remained divisive.