Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026_03_17 CC Mtg PresentationCITY OF BROOKINGS |Meeting Agenda | STUDY SESSION "We are an inclusive, diverse, connected community that fuels the creative class, embraces sustainability and pursues a complete lifestyle. We are committed to building a bright future through dedication, generosity and authenticity. Bring your dreams!" Tuesday, March 17, 2026| 6:00 p.m. | Community Room (Room 300) The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal management . Brookings City & County Government Center –520 3rd St. –Brookings, SD 57006 –Phone: (605) 692-6281 1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 2. RECORD OF COUNCIL ATTENDANCE - 3. ACTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA - Action: Motion to Approve, Roll Call 4. OPEN FORUM - Any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invitation, or request time on the agenda for an item not listed.Individuals are asked to state their name and city of residence for the record.Public Comment is limited to a maximum of three minutes per person. The speaker’s comments and views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the City of Brookings or City Council. 5. TRAINING - Conflict of Interest CONFLICTS OF INTEREST TRAINING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WHEN LOCAL OFFICIALS SHOULD DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Who are we talking about? •City Council •School Board •County Commission •Other Officials THE LAYERS OF LEGAL ANALYSIS 1.Constitution (State, Federal) 2.Statutes 3.Ordinance/Local Rules CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS •U.S. Constitution •5th Amendment “[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” •South Dakota Constitution •Article VI, Section 2 “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Miles v. Spink County Board of Adjustment Miles v. Spink Cnty. Bd. of Adj., 2022 S.D. 15 ¶ 14, 972 N.W.2d 136 •“the Due Process Clause demarks only the outer boundaries of judicial disqualifications.” •“states may ‘impose more rigorous standards’ to ‘provide more protection than due process requires.’ STATUTORY FRAMEWORK •SDCL 6-1-17 Official prohibited from discussing or voting on issue if conflict of interest exists--Legal remedy. •No county, municipal, or school official may participate in discussing or vote on any issue in which the official has a conflict of interest. Each official shall decide if any potential conflict of interest requires such official to be disqualified from participating in discussion or voting. However, no such official may participate in discussing or vote on an issue if the following circumstances apply: (1)The official has a direct pecuniary interest in the matter before the governing body; or (2)At least two-thirds of the governing body votes that an official has an identifiable conflict of interest that should prohibit such official from voting on a specific matter. •If an official with a direct pecuniary interest participates in discussion or votes on a matter before the governing body, the legal sole remedy is to invalidate that official's vote. •Source: SL 2005, ch 40, §1. DIRECT PECUNIARY INTEREST Direct Pecuniary Interest: Not Defined -South Dakota Supreme Court Has Suggested •“a direct pecuniary interest requires a showing that the property of the official will be benefitted, or that he or she will receive direct financial gain from a decision on the matter before the board.” •Holborn v. Deuel Cnty. Bd. of Adj., 2021 S.D. 6 ¶ 21, 955 N.W.2d 363 LEGISLATIVE VS. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION The legal standard depends on whether action is legislative or quasi-judicial •General applicability •Adopting a zoning ordinance •Passing a budget •Approving a tax levy •Enacting local laws/ordinances with general applicability •Specifically applicable •Approving a CUP •Hearing an appeal on a code violation •Revoking a license after a hearing LEGISLATIVE:QUASI-JUDICIAL: LEGISLATIVE VS. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION LEGISLATIVE? •Look to SDCL §6-1-17 •Step One –Use judgment to decide: should I be disqualified? •Step Two –Is there a direct pecuniary interest in the matter? •Step Three –2/3 of the body may vote to decide if there is a conflict. QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER? •§6-1-17 Still Applies •Step One –Use judgment to decide: should I be disqualified? •Step Two –Is there a direct pecuniary interest in the matter? •Step Three –2/3 of the body may vote to decide if there is a conflict. •Now Layer in SDCL §6-1-21 LEGISLATIVE VS. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION QUASI-JUDICIAL •§6-1-21. Grounds for disqualification of officer in quasi-judicial proceeding. •An elected or appointed municipal, county, or township officer may receive input from the public, directly or indirectly, about any matter of public interest. Such contact alone does not require the officer to recuse himself or herself from serving as a quasi-judicial officer in another capacity. An elected or appointed officer is presumed to be objective and capable of making decisions fairly on the basis of the officer's circumstances and may rely on the officer's own general experience and background. Only by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the officer's authority, statements, or actions regarding an issue or a party involved demonstrates prejudice or unacceptable risk of bias may an officer be deemed disqualified in a quasi-judicial proceeding. BREAKING IT DOWN… •May receive input from the public, directly or indirectly, about any matter of public interest. Such contact alone does not require the officer to recuse himself or herself from serving as a quasi-judicial officer in another capacity. •Life experience or knowledge •Chatter around town •An elected or appointed officer is presumed to be objective and capable of making decisions fairly. •This provides a fair amount of discretion BREAKING IT DOWN… •Only by showing of clear and convincing evidence that the officer's authority, statements, or actions regarding an issue or a party involved demonstrates prejudice or unacceptable risk of bias may an officer be deemed disqualified in a quasi-judicial proceeding. Holborn v. Deuel County Board of Adjustment 4 of 5 Board Members’ alleged conflicts: •Member had an agreement with wind company, company terminated once determined his land wasn’t needed. •Member had 2 agreements which member terminated because of his belief they would constitute a conflict on the SEP apps. Brothers had agreements with the wind companies. •Member’s employers had agreements with the wind companies. •Member invested in other wind projects. Had a business that may potentially have benefitted, and a business that had an agreement not to oppose wind projects. Holborn v. Deuel County Board of Adjustment •SDCL 6-1-17 did not support disqualification of any of the members •SDCL 6-1-21 did not support disqualification of any of the members BREAKING HOLBORN DOWN… •Rather, the statute requires “clear and convincing evidence” of actual prejudice or an “unacceptable risk of bias” •Under this standard, members are only required to be disqualified if they have a direct financial interest in the matter or where “the probability of actual bias rises to an unconstitutional level.” •This standard “is extremely high and should only be applied in extraordinary situation[s] where the Constitution requires recusal.” WHAT SHOULD AN OFFICIAL DO IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE A CONFLICT? •Disclose the potential conflict to the other council members, •Identify the nature of the potential conflict of interest, and •Indicate whether they believe they can impartially act on the matter. •Following the member’s initial disclosure, the other council members must be allowed to inquire further and recommend whether the council member should be permitted to participate in the matter. •If, after receiving feedback from the other members, the potentially conflicted member believes that a conflict of interest does not exist, they should re-identify the matter under consideration, the nature of the potential conflict of interest, and state why he or she believes they can participate in the matter fairly. •Following this conclusion, the council may proceed as usual. OR •If it is determined that the member cannot fairly participate, they will be disqualified from discussing and voting on the matter. WHAT SHOULD AN OFFICIAL DO IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE A CONFLICT? Remember: •If you’re not comfortable, you can always recuse yourself •Consult Legal Counsel in advance whenever possible TWO MORE POINTS ORDINANCES –Your Municipal ordinance may impose more strict requirements and contain more details or procedures than State Law. •Some codes are virtually silent •Some are much more detailed CRIMINAL LIABILITY SDCL §22-30A-46 states that “[a]ny public official who knowingly uses funds or property that has been entrusted to the public official in violation of the public trust and that results in a direct financial benefit to the public official commits a direct criminal conflict of interest. Any public official who commits a direct criminal conflict of interest is guilty of theft.” Questions? Contact Us Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C. 300 S. Phillips Avenue, Suite 300 Sioux Falls, SD 57104 (605) 336-3890 www.woodsfuller.com © 2026 Woods Fuller. All Rights Reserved. The information contained in this presentation is not intended to be a complete explanation of the material addressed herein. The information contained in this presentation is for discussion purposes only. Users of this information should always contact an attorney when determining how to manage employment law issues. 6. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER INTRODUCTION OF TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION. - Any Council Member may request discussion of any topic at a future meeting. Items cannot be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required which states the topic, requested outcome, and time frame. A majority vote is required. 7. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Pursuant to SDCL 1-25-2(1), for discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. The term, employee, does not include any independent contractor. Action: Motion to enter Executive Session, Voice Vote Action: Motion to exit Executive Session, Voice Vote 8. ADJOURN - Brookings City CouncilMayor: Oepke Niemeyer Deputy Mayor: Nick Wendell Council Members: Wayne Avery, Lisa Hager, Brianna Doran, Bonny Specker, Holly Tilton Byrne Council StaffPaul M. Briseno, City Manager J. Vincent Jones, City Attorney Bonnie Foster, City Clerk