Quick no: House Bill 1144, promoting more secrecy in government!
Rep. Tim Johns (R-30/Lead) and Sen. Jim Bolin (R-16/Canton) seem to think our city councils, county commissions, school boards, and other governmental bodies don’t get to talk behind closed doors enough. They propose House Bill 1144 to at least clarify, if not expand, when your government can shut you out and talk in secret.
Now Johns and Bolin may just be cleaning up language. In the situations that SDCL 1-25-2 says justify going into closed session, HB 1144 adds “and deliberating” after “discussing”, “reviewing”, and “preparing”. So maybe some clever advocate for open government is gearing up to sue some school board by arguing there’s a difference between “discussing”—receiving information, asking questions—and “deliberating”—debating the language and merits of a possible motion, perhaps. Maybe there is no difference, and this part of HB 1144 won’t change any practices.
HB 1144 also sneaks in a curious strike: criterion 3 of current statute allows closed meetings for “Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing on communications from legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters.” HB 1144 adds “and deliberating” after “reviewing” and strikes “about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters.” That’s not good—the amended criterion suggests that any time the school board invites its lawyer to speak, it can close the doors. The county commission can ask the state’s attorney to weigh in on the legal and constitutional ramifications of a proposed ordinance—not litigation, mind you—and keep that discussion secret from the public. That’s not cool!
Local governments already operate in too much secrecy. They don’t need to close their doors more. Legislators who care about openness will Vote NO on HB 1144.