Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Brookings City Council Meeting: Conflicts of Interest Training - March 17, 2026

Meeting Portal — Tuesday, March 17, 2026

BodyBrookings, South Dakota

SessionMeeting Portal

DateTuesday, March 17, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 34:54

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:45

All right, call this meeting to order.

0:48

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

1:06

Okay.

1:07

Thank you all for attending tonight.

1:09

Will the clerk please take attendance?

1:12

Mr.

1:12

Mayor, there are five council members present.

1:15

Council members Avery and Tilton Byrne are absent this evening.

1:19

Okay.

1:20

Action to approve the agenda.

1:21

Entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

1:23

So moved.

1:24

Second.

1:25

Please call the roll.

1:27

Doran.

1:28

Aye.

1:28

Hager.

1:29

Aye.

1:29

Neemaier.

1:31

Specker.

1:32

Wendell.

1:33

Okay.

1:33

Item four open forum.

1:35

In order to provide equal access to all during the open forum and public comment portions of the meeting, each individual offering comments shall not exceed the allotted three minute period.

1:45

The podium light turns green, then to yellow where there is one minute remaining.

1:50

Your time for comment is expired when the codium light turns red.

1:55

Is there any member of the public who wishes to address the council on an item not listed on tonight's agenda?

2:04

All right.

2:31

So I cut and paste some of it into this presentation.

2:33

It was uh handy to have it available.

2:36

Excuse me, Vince.

2:38

Can you be a little more direct into your mic so we're sure to capture your how's that?

2:42

Thank you.

2:44

Okay.

2:44

And I will follow the lights, Mayor, if you need me to if you want to give me the hook.

2:50

Okay.

2:51

All right.

2:52

Conflicts of interest.

2:54

I'll go kind of fast through this and then I kind of want to spend most of my time on this uh flow chart that we created at the very end, and I think that might be where more representative questions might take place.

3:08

So when we talk about conflicts of interest from the municipal point, municipal point of view, we are talking about city council, but also school board, county commission, other officials, and uh the the layers of analysis through which you go when you're looking at a conflict of interest are constitutional, statutory, but then they set the floor and city ordinances can be more detailed and more stringent.

3:40

So I'll go into that later.

3:42

Um so those are the kind of the three the three layers from a constitutional consideration.

3:48

They uh the analysis stems from the Fifth Amendment.

3:54

No person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

3:58

And if there's a conflict of interest, um someone is deprived of of due process.

4:04

So that's where that comes from.

4:06

South Dakota's constitution has a very similar provision.

4:09

Article six, section two.

4:11

Again, no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

4:16

Um we've got a couple of cases here that I covered during the summer presentation that talks a little bit about it.

4:24

Um again uh the states may impose more rigorous standards.

4:30

Um the statutes largely talk about direct pecuniary interests for conflict of interest.

4:39

Um the statutes in South Dakota law also provide a fair amount of protection to its officials.

4:50

If you disclose a potential conflict of interest, the rest of the body can just first you can disclose it, and then you can say whether or not you believe it's a conflict of interest, and you can continue or you can not continue.

5:05

You can always recuse yourself.

5:07

That's a um a protection that you have.

5:10

So if there's any question in your mind, you're always free to recuse yourself.

5:14

But if you disclose to the body, describe the circumstances, say whether that you you think you can continue, two thirds of the body can vote to remove you and and not have you uh participate in it.

5:30

So if there's any question in your mind, you can always disclose, give the body the opportunity to remove you and move on.

5:39

Um direct pecuniary interest is not uh defined in South Dakota law.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Conflicts of Interest█████████████████████████████████████████████59%

Procedural████████████████████26%

Personnel Matters██████████13%

Tax Increment Financing██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Brookings City Council Meeting - March 17, 2026

The Brookings City Council met on March 17, 2026, with Mayor presiding and Councilmembers Doran, Hager, Neimaier, Specker, and Wendell present; Councilmembers Avery and Tilton Byrne absent. The primary agenda item was a comprehensive training presentation on conflicts of interest delivered by City Attorney Vince, covering state and municipal laws, relevant case law, and a procedural flowchart. A public forum and extended Q&A session followed.

Discussion Items

City Attorney Vince presented a detailed overview of conflict of interest analysis, including constitutional and statutory foundations, the distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial actions, and the protection afforded by disclosure and board disqualification. He reviewed South Dakota law, which sets a floor, and Brookings ordinances that impose more stringent requirements, including a direct personal or financial interest standard.
Vince referenced the Holborn case, where four board members had alleged conflicts but were not disqualified, illustrating the high bar for disqualification in quasi-judicial proceedings.
A conflict of interest flowchart was introduced to guide decision-making: identify conflict, disclose, state ability to participate, assess financial interest, then allow board to disqualify or proceed.
Public Q&A:
- A member from the audience (likely a planning commission member) asked: if they or their spouse work for a company applying for a TIF, should they recuse? Vince responded that if the outcome directly benefits the employer, it likely constitutes a conflict and recusal is advisable.
- Councilmember Specker questioned the definition of "direct criminal conflict of interest" in state statute; Vince clarified it refers to knowing misuse of public funds, treated as theft.
- Councilmember Merduran inquired about best practices for perceived conflicts, disclosure timing, and whether to leave the room. Vince recommended disclosing at the meeting before discussion, and leaving the room if recused (noting no direct authority but a recommended practice).
- Councilmember Wendell asked about state-level legislative discussions on conflicts for municipal officials; Vince said he was unaware and would follow up.
Future agenda items were announced for next week's regular meeting: bid award for construction manager at risk for police department building, first reading on amending Chapter 14 (animals), second reading on diseased trees, election agreement with the county, and city progress report.

Key Outcomes

The council and attending board members received updated guidance on conflict of interest procedures and the new flowchart.
No votes or formal decisions were taken during the open session.
The meeting moved into executive session under SDCL 1-25-2.1 to discuss qualifications, competence, performance, character, or fitness of public officers or employees.

Meeting Transcript

All right, call this meeting to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please take attendance? Mr. Mayor, there are five council members present. Council members Avery and Tilton Byrne are absent this evening. Okay. Action to approve the agenda. Entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Second. Please call the roll. Doran. Aye. Hager. Aye. Neemaier. Specker. Wendell. Okay. Item four open forum. In order to provide equal access to all during the open forum and public comment portions of the meeting, each individual offering comments shall not exceed the allotted three minute period. The podium light turns green, then to yellow where there is one minute remaining. Your time for comment is expired when the codium light turns red. Is there any member of the public who wishes to address the council on an item not listed on tonight's agenda? All right. So I cut and paste some of it into this presentation. It was uh handy to have it available. Excuse me, Vince. Can you be a little more direct into your mic so we're sure to capture your how's that? Thank you. Okay. And I will follow the lights, Mayor, if you need me to if you want to give me the hook. Okay. All right. Conflicts of interest. I'll go kind of fast through this and then I kind of want to spend most of my time on this uh flow chart that we created at the very end, and I think that might be where more representative questions might take place. So when we talk about conflicts of interest from the municipal point, municipal point of view, we are talking about city council, but also school board, county commission, other officials, and uh the the layers of analysis through which you go when you're looking at a conflict of interest are constitutional, statutory, but then they set the floor and city ordinances can be more detailed and more stringent. So I'll go into that later. Um so those are the kind of the three the three layers from a constitutional consideration. They uh the analysis stems from the Fifth Amendment. No person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. And if there's a conflict of interest, um someone is deprived of of due process. So that's where that comes from. South Dakota's constitution has a very similar provision. Article six, section two. Again, no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Um we've got a couple of cases here that I covered during the summer presentation that talks a little bit about it.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com