STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 14, 1971

Robert L. Looby, States Attorney
Bennett County
Martin, South Dakota 57551

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 71-17

Publication of reports of county commissioners' meeting must be "full and complete" and within time contemplated by statutes SDCL 7-8-17, 7-18-3 and 7-18-5

Dear Mr. Looby:

You have requested my official opinion in answer to this question:

In view of SDCL 7-18-3 relative to publication of a report of the meetings, regular and special, of the County Commissioners (SDCL 7 -18-3 requiring such report to be published "as soon after any meeting as practicable," and SDCL 7-18-5 requiring the county auditor to transmit such report of the official newspapers of the county "within one week from the time such meeting is held") may the county commissioners approve the "official proceedings" prior to the time they are published?

I must asssume that your county commissioners, in pursuance to law, hold only quarterly regular meetings on the first Tuesday in January, April, July and October of each year as required by SDCL 7-18-4. Undoubtedly they may hold special meetings as in such statute provided.

The various statutes of South Dakota which require "full and complete reports" of the official proceedings of any public board have been considered on many occasions by this office. It has followed a consistent pattern in defining what is meant by "full and complete report." It has consistently abhorred any short or scanty published report. The published reports of county commissioners have been considered in 1919-20 AGR 127, 1933-34 AGR 504, 1933-34 AGR 505, 194344 AGR 17 and 1949-50 AGR 330. Published reports of other public bodies have been considered in 1919-20 AGR 339, 1929-30 AGR 127, 1935-36 AGR 192 and 1953-54 AGR 351. Your attention is called to these prior opinions of this office.

In 1933-34 AGR 505, my predecessor in office summed up what this requirement of the statutes means in this language:

The provisions of the law are not satisfied by the publication of such a scant report of the official proceedings of the Board as described by your inquiry. The phrase 'full and complete report of all its official proceedings' should be interpreted as though it provided for the publication of a detailed report. The purpose of these statutory provisions is to furnish to the public full and complete information as to the transactions of the Board, and I think that the published proceedings should show the names of all persons to whom payment is made, the amount paid to each and the purpose for which the same is paid.

I adhere to this statement of my predecessor and believe that it correctly summarizes the law.

Your attention is also called to SDCL 7-8-17 which provides:

Whenever any board of county commissioners shall act upon any petition,. adopt any resolution, make any appointment to fill any vacancy in a county office, or enter any final order in any proceedings pending before any such board, the members shall vote by yeas and nays and a record of such votes shall be kept by the county auditor who shall include the same in the published report of the minutes containing the record of any such action, resolution, appointment, or order.

This statute, in my opinion, requires the transcription of all action of an affirmative nature taken by the county commissioners to be recorded in the minutes of such meeting of such commissioners, and set forth in the published report of such official or special meeting of such board.

It is my opinion that SDCL 7-18-3 and 7-18-5, while using different language, are not repugnant one to the other. Rather, following the accepted method of statutory interpretation, which requires that all statutes relating to the same subject matter be harmonized, if at all possible, it is my opinion that these statutes, together, require the publication of the report of the county commissioners' meetings to be made "as soon as practicable," but that the county auditor should transmit to the publisher of such newspaper the copy of such report within one week of such meeting reported, to the end that such publisher may include such report in the next publication of the official newspaper of the county.

Your request for this opinion reveals that the county commissioners of your county, in some way want to approve the report of their meetings.

To my mind, such action on their part is one of futility. It would be illegal for the commissioners to expunge anything in such report referring to any affirmative action on their part, as the statutes require such recordation, with a showing of vote upon such proposal, and publication in the report of such meeting. A reading of the heretofore cited opinions of this office should reveal that an attempt to abridge or "streamline" the report of the meeting would be improper.

However, upon the assumption that the county commissioners read, study, and follow the directions of this office, as revealed in such prior opinions heretofore cited, and can approve the county auditor's report in time for him to transmit the same to the publishers of the official newspapers of Bennett County within one week of the time of holding such meeting, I can find nothing illegal in their insistence that they approve such minutes before publication.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Mydland
Attorney General