Our democracy depends on the concept of state and local governments holding open meetings. Open meetings depend on citizens being able to know that meetings are being held. The citizens also need to be able to know what their governments plan to consider at those meetings.

This is why a meeting agenda is such an essential and important part of our democratic process. The more detailed the agenda, the more knowledge the citizens have to decide whether they want to attend or at least keep track.

Earlier this month, the state Board of Water and Natural Resources met. The agenda didn’t make any mention of the Southern Black Hills water distribution project. Nonetheless, representatives for the project were invited to the meeting and made a presentation.

Advertisement

The reason was that officials at the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources wanted the board to approve submitting a funding request for the project to the Legislature for consideration in the 2010 session.

Nobody appeared to be trying to pull a fast one. Rather, DENR wanted to move fast to get Southern Hills on the 2010 list.

This is the time of year when the state board makes its annual recommendations for legislative funding. The state board’s members have been generally familiar with the Southern Hills project for some time and have supported the work so far.

Board chairman Brad Johnson, of Watertown, decided to put the brakes on. He said the public should have had the opportunity to know the board would be considering the project. He noted that the board would be asking the Legislature to commit to providing $12 million of state funding over the course of the remainder of the project.

His move stirred unease to his left and right among the board members. He said he supported the project but thought things were moving too fast. He said the project should have been specifically listed on the agenda.

The board has another scheduled meeting in early January. The legislative session opens Jan. 12. The board members eventually agreed to delay the recommendation vote until their next meeting.

At the same meeting, the board added or reinstated more than a dozen projects to the state water plan. While this didn’t commit the board to providing grants or loans to the projects, a project can’t qualify for a grant or loan unless it is on the water plan.

None of those specific projects was listed on the agenda either. They now are in line for millions of dollars in low-interest loans and grants from the board.

The point of this column today isn’t to pick on the Board of Water and Natural Resources or the department. The men and women have shown themselves to be conscientious and hard working. Of late, they’ve been even more hard working as they’ve handled dozens more projects than usual, often on short notice, because of the federal stimulus funding that is available.

The point is to show that even some of the best among our state and local governments can fall short when it comes to letting the public know what they plan to discuss at an open meeting. This is why we need to set a standard for what should be available to the public on the agenda.

The simplest way to correct this general situation is to require that boards and commissions at the local and state levels make available, prior to meetings, the entire packet of materials which is being provided to the members in connection with the agenda.

There could be an exception, of course, for documents which would fall under the executive-session protections for personnel, legal and other matters covered by our existing executive-session law.

The public packet could be made available in two ways. A paper copy could be available at the front desk of the government body or agency affiliated with the board or commission: city hall, county courthouse, state office, et cetera.

An electronic copy could be posted on the same government body’s web site on the Internet.

We have suggested this idea before. The South Dakota Newspaper Association board met with our state’s new attorney general, Marty Jackley, on Thursday. The concept was discussed by SDNA members and Jackley.

The state Board of Regents, whose members govern the state universities, adopted this concept a few years ago as a matter of efficiency. The regents had been providing a thick stack of materials to accompany its meeting agenda. The stack of paper would truly be a foot high, or taller, at times.

The regents’ central staff determined it would be simpler to put the materials on the web and send e-mail notices to all concerned that the materials had been posted on the regents’ site (www.sdbor.edu).

Cheaper, too.

The state Public Utilities Commission makes perhaps the best use of the Internet among all state government agencies. Not only are all filings on the PUC Web site (www.puc.sd.gov), but the PUC meetings can be heard live over the Internet. The broadcasts are digitally archived so you can listen later, too.

The state Game, Fish and Parks Department recently made a change that could work to the benefit of all sides. GFP now is presenting land-acquisition information in a more detailed format. The department and the Game, Fish and Parks Commission have come under scrutiny in the past for land deals.

Brad Johnson took an important stand. It didn’t sit well with some of the other members. But the delay likely won’t have any effect on the Southern Hills chances to get legislative funding. If anything, doing it right probably will help, as opposed to rushing it through and handing a reason to potential competitors to raise questions for the Legislature.

Ever practical, board member Dale Kennedy, of Beresford, asked what would be accomplished by waiting.

“What’s going to change between now and January?” he said.

“It will be on the agenda,” Jim Feenery, a DENR administrator, replied.

Exactly. Going the next step by requiring all of the information to be made available would solve many of these agenda and transparency issues.