I had previously noted a story where the Flandreau City Council is getting crabby with news reporters who wanted to tape and broadcast public meetings:

I believe the South Dakota Newspaper Association got into it with them, and it’s currently being quibbled over. But I was given some of the information surrounding the city’s basis for refusing to allow it, some of which sounded downright bizarre:

The City’s position: any reporter’s recordings and notes, if just for their own use, are fine. But should someone choose to broadcast and/or live stream the recordings, The City Atty contends the newspaper is creating a public record, and in doing so the reporter would need to properly maintain those records in accordance with SDCL Ch 1-27.

WHAT!?! How on earth does a private citizen create a public record by taping a meeting? Or, how does government assert a copyright of a public meeting?  I have the feeling that any such assertion would be utterly, and embarrassingly shredded in a court of law.

Not to mention that if what the city of Flandreau was spouting was even remotely correct, state law provides open inspection and copying of public records, and puts nearly no limitation on their use, absent federal copyright laws.

With the controversy raging, I thought I’d ask our own State’s Attorney General, Marty Jackley about it.

I noted to Marty:  There’s an open meeting controversy raging in Flandreau right now where the Flandreau City Council and their attorney have threatened a city newspaper reporter with legal action for wanting to record and broadcast open, public meetings for the public to view in order to know what goes on in those meetings.

The meeting is open, but is the law definitive on the legality & allowance of recording devices in those situations?  Statutorily, does the city commission have a leg to stand on?    Do they have every right to block any video recording and/or live streaming? Or is that area murky in state law?

Attorney General Marty Jackley’s Reply?  “State statutes are silent on the right or limitations to audio and/or video recording of public body meetings.  In the first instance, it is up to the legislature to enact laws that either allow or prohibit the recording of public meetings by members of the public.  Absent controlling state statutes, the Court may through interpretation of the overall statutory scheme address and define such a right.  Until such time, it would appear the public body is responsible for the conduct of their meetings and for maintaining the decorum of their proceedings.”

Wow.  State law is absolutely silent?  And I’m no closer to any answer as to “Can you tape that public meeting?”

As I found, and you’ll note, the answer is a little more complicated than you think. South Dakota courts have so far been silent on it.   And as you can assume from the fact there are no laws on the books, there’s no legislative guidance on the topic, either.

However, in Florida, the issue did come up, and was taken to court.  According to the Digital Media Project:

At least one court has held that there is no federal constitutional right to make a video recording of an open meeting, at least not when other methods are available for compiling a record of the proceeding, such as written and stenographic notes or audiotaping. Whiteland Woods, LLP v. Township of W. Whiteland, 193 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 1999). Government bodies may therefore place reasonable restrictions on the use recording devices, including a ban on certain devices, in order to preserve the orderly conduct of its meetings.

and…

Even when no state open meetings law affirmatively gives you the right to record, many state statutes permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded.

Read that here.

That’s not exactly comforting. In another state, there are “reasonable” restrictions. But, who decides what’s reasonable?

As I understand, in addition to Flandreau, there may be similar controversies in Hartford and Harrisburg surrounding parties wanting to record open meetings.

South Dakota is a conservative state. However, we always believe that our government should be as close to the people as possible.

When a city council believes that having their decisions recorded on video tape is problematic, it might be time to guarantee that the open meeting is fully open, and any possible restrictions to making a recorded record of what took place at the meeting are declared null and void.

As noted by the Attorney General, South Dakota has no legislative or judicial guidance on the topic.  As the 2016 Legislative session approaches, it might be time to memorialize what has been a long standing practice by most public boards, and put it into writing in our State’s law books: That private citizens have a right to record and rebroadcast the proceedings of public meetings.

And let no crabby city council members stand in their way.

First we had the “senate spoiler” who isn’t exactly enamored with Catholics, Kurt Evans, making noise about running as an independent in the US Senate Race against John Thune.

Now, it looks like we’ve got another fringe candidate seeking attention for themselves.

Apparently, after talking about it a month ago, Mike Myers, the push-ups guy, is still making noise about jumping in the race too, claiming he’s looking at it and will make a decision by Jan 1.

With a huge void created by the dysfunction and inability to field candidates on the part of the Democrat party, has the ‘independent fringe candidate’ become the new normal in South Dakota politics?  Are we going to soon get our own blood-drinking pagan making an announcement for US Senate?

I’m sitting at my desk this morning contemplating my experiences with former Governor Walt Miller. Unfortunately, my wife is on an out-of-state work trip, so I couldn’t attend the services yesterday.  And that was too bad. I consider Pat Miller as a friend, and the same went for her husband, who I knew less, but I always thought well of.

During my tenure with the SDGOP in 1988 & 90, you might say I was “low man on the totem pole,” but nonetheless, it was still fun participating in all the behind the scenes activity.  On one occasion, I was asked to give the then Lt. Governor Miller a ride back to the Mickelson re-election campaign headquarters from an event.

Having just called an auction to raise money at the event, in the car, he and I had a nice conversation about the history of why auctioneers have the honorary title of “colonel.”  And he remembered that as we ran into each other along the campaign trail

At the time, it was a brief chat, but it impressed me that one of our state’s highest elected officials took a few moments with me, and despite being a college kid of not much consequence, remembered who I was.

And maybe that’s the best tribute of all that we can give to one of our past leaders – Someone who rose by chance or by fate to serve in our state’s highest office, who took the time to know the people he met on the way up. Someone who was, at the heart of it all, a good man.

From the Argus Leader:

A Hughes County grand jury has charged former Attorney General candidate Chad Haber with violating election laws in connection with his wife’s 2014 Senate campaign.

Haber spoke out against the two felony charges in a press conference Monday saying the charges were unfounded and that Attorney General Marty Jackley was out to get him.

Read it here.

Chad called a press conference? For what? To claim it wasn’t his signature on the petition claiming circulation of the petition while he was in the Philippines? Somehow, I don’t think this is something he really wants to spend the money to fight.

But what do they say about people who represent themselves…..? (From KELO):

“When Annette had to go before the board, it was because no lawyer would touch it. It might be one of those cases again where no lawyer will touch this and so then it will be just me,” Haber said.

Haber says when he does appear in court, he won’t be as nice as when his wife took the stand.

Read it here.

Otherwise, despite the press conference, it’s pretty clear that the charges originate from Hughes County, and not the State of SD. Or the Attorney General.  (Which was reiterated when I contacted their office to ask about it, with them noting “this was Hughes County States Attorney.”)

But as for his puffing his chest up with false bravado, and saying “he won’t be as nice as when his wife took the stand….”   Why do I have the feeling his trial is not going to go well for him?

Fool for a client, and all.

From Tom Lawrence, former Mayor Sam Kooiker of Rapid City heads home to Iowa to become a city manager:

Kooiker, unseated this summer by former police chief Steve Allender, is departing from Rapid City and headed home to his native state of Iowa. He will remain in government, but not as an elected official.
It was announced Monday he will be the new city administrator in Cherokee, Iowa, as of Jan. 1, although he will work with the retiring city official starting in December.

and…

Kooiker had an interesting coalition of support in Rapid City, somehow combining social conservatives, Native Americans and small-government advocates. As he likes to say, he finished first in four of the six mayoral elections he was in and was undefeated in his council races.

Read it all here.

I had to chuckle – I actually know where that is! I drive through there every once in a blue moon when I go to Ft. Dodge to see relatives. I might just have to stop for a cup of coffee!

But, I’m also a little melancholy. There will be an open seat in his legislative district that I was sure he might have had his name ready to be stenciled on it.

But life is funny that way. Sometimes, as we muddle through our lives, as doors close, new and unexpected ones open. And we find ourselves going places we might have never expected.

Huge congratulations to Sam on his new position!

South Dakota might have thought it had bragging rights for the wildest circus-like candidacy of Annette Bosworth for US Senate last year.

But dammit. Florida just took that title from us, and spiked the ball:

“Yes, I Drank the Goat’s Blood,” Says Florida’s Pagan, Libertarian, “Genius-Level” Senate Candidate

Critics describe him as “a self-proclaimed fascist” and “absolute insanity.” One time, he killed a goat and drank its blood.

Other members of the Libertarian party, in an effort to disown Invictus and his calls for open revolt against the government, have repeatedly brought up rumors that Invictus participated in a pagan sacrifice. And now, according to the AP, he’s owned up to it: “I did sacrifice a goat. I know that’s probably a quibble in the mind of most Americans,” he said. “I sacrificed an animal to the god of the wilderness … Yes, I drank the goat’s blood.”

Read it all here.

I just received this in my mailbox, and as you can see, Senator Mike Rounds just did the below fundraising letter to presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee from his own campaign’s fundraising list:

Rounds fundraiser for Huckabee

Here we go again….

Apparently, Chad Haber has now been charged with offering a false or forged instrument,  after being indicted by a Hughes County Grand Jury.

According to what Gordon Howie has posted on his website, Haber was served papers from the Hughes County State’s Atty on Saturday, and is set to go to court three weeks from today.

Interestingly, it looks like the Grand Jury indictment was issued way back on the 11th/13th of August. I’m not sure if it took them until now to find Chad, or if they were waiting to see if the felony indictment against Annette stuck.

Interestingly, the character witnesses against Haber might take a darker turn, based on allegations going back nearly a decade over him obtaining a $200,000 loan, but “not having a time table for paying it back.”

I did ask the AG if they intend to do a release on it, and they pointed out it was the Hughes County State’s Attorney who brought the charge. But, somehow I question if Hughes County is going to prosecute it by themselves.

But anyway, sit back, and start popping that popcorn. Here we go again.

Gov. Walter Dale Miller is lying in state this morning at the State Capitol in Pierre. pic.twitter.com/ognHYydZhh

— Tony Venhuizen (@Tony_Venhuizen) October 5, 2015

Mark Winegar of Vermillion apparently announced this past weekend that it is his intention to run as a Democrat for the South Dakota legislature. 

He might be off and running for office, but a letter to the editor in today’s Argus Leader gives us a hint as to who he intends to represent if he wins. Not the citizens of his district, but the labor unions he demands dues for, whether people want to pay them or not:

The premise of the venomous Right to Work legislation is the mistaken notion that it is unfair to require a worker to join a labor union where one is present. However, non-union workers in a union shop benefit from the collective bargaining paid for by the membership dues of his/her co-workers.

Something for nothing is a seductive proposition, but there is a catch. Unions weaken as one after another worker takes advantage of free-loading. Eventually, the union is either nonexistent or too weak to negotiate.

And…

Unions have a legal obligation to fully represent all assigned bargaining unit employees, members and non-members alike. But with Fair Share, non-members pay a fair share fee in the amount of no more than regular union dues. This fair fee covers the cost of bargaining, implementing, and enforcing the contract. Fee payers are non-members so they cannot hold office in the union, but they share in the expense and benefits of collective bargaining.

Read it all here.

“the venomous Right to Work legislation..” “the mistaken notion that it is unfair to require a worker to join a labor union where one is present.” And “Fee payers are non-members so they cannot hold office in the union.”

“The venomous…?” How far off in leftist field IS this guy? How is it a mistaken notion to require someone to pay for something they do not want?  And the best part is that he wants to mandate that people pay for that thing they do not want, at full price, with no voice.
That’s not citizen or constituent representation. That’s lobbying for labor unions, and open disdain for anyone who disagrees.

And the voters in his district should take great heed.