Task Force Recommended South Dakota Commission Expansion
A state task force has proposed increasing the Open Meetings Commission to seven members including a citizen seat.
Updated on Sept. 24, 2026 in Legislative Policy
Live Poll
Should members of the public serve on local government oversight commissions?
A state task force voted to expand the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission from five to seven members. The proposal includes adding a seat for a member of the public to increase transparency.
Why it matters
The change aims to broaden representation on the commission that investigates alleged open meeting violations. Expanding the board could alter how the state handles complaints and oversight of public meeting laws.
The plan suggests shifting to four state's attorneys, two attorneys representing non-county governments, and one public member. Currently, the commission is composed of five state's attorneys or deputy state's attorneys.
The players
South Dakota Open Meetings Commission
This state entity investigates and issues written determinations regarding alleged violations of public meeting requirements.
South Dakota News Media Association
This trade organization represents the interests of news outlets and advocates for government transparency and public access to records.
David Bordewyk
He serves as a representative for the South Dakota News Media Association and advocated for the addition of a citizen seat to the commission.
The details
Under the proposed structure, the commission would retain a majority of legal professionals while introducing new government representation. David Bordewyk of the South Dakota News Media Association advocated for the inclusion of a public member to provide a non-governmental perspective on transparency issues.
Timeline
September 24, 2026: The task force voted to approve the expansion proposal.
November 3, 2026: Date for the South Dakota Attorney General election.
January 2027: Expiration date for the current attorney general's term.
2027 legislative session: Scheduled time for potential consideration of the changes.
Political Context
Opponents or skeptics of this expansion may argue that reducing the number of state's attorneys could dilute the legal expertise required to interpret complex open meeting violations. Others may push for ensuring that the public member seat remains truly independent from government influence to maintain the commission's impartiality.
If enacted, the change would grant the public a direct voice on the panel responsible for holding government officials accountable during public meetings. Residents may gain increased confidence in the oversight process if a non-government member is added to the commission.
The takeaway
This proposal reflects a growing push to balance professional legal oversight with community representation in state transparency investigations. Interested citizens should monitor the upcoming 2027 legislative session to see if the proposal advances into law.
What happens next
The proposal is slated for potential consideration during the 2027 legislative session, where lawmakers will decide whether to approve the commission restructuring.
Further reading
For more information on state oversight procedures, visit the Legislative Policy section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by KELO-LAND TV.
Live Poll
Should members of the public serve on local government oversight commissions?
