(Continued from page 18)

the open meetings law and make some government documents public. One recommendation would make police mug shots of accused criminals public.
• The task force's recommendations now go to Gov. Dennis Daugaard and Attorney General Marty Jackley, who appointed the panel to propose changes in laws dealing with open meetings and the availability of documents.
• Daugaard and Jackley will decide whether to introduce the panel's recommendations as bills in the next legislative session opens in January. Proposals rejected by the panel are also likely to be introduced by individual lawmakers, said Tony Venhuizen, chairman of the task force and the governor's communications director.
• "I think we've done some good work," Venhuizen told the panel as it wrapped up its work.
• Task force member Dave Bordewyk, general manager of the South Dakota Newspaper Association, said the panel made good progress in opening up government, but more remains to be done in opening government documents and making sure boards and commissions do not close meetings for illegal reasons.
• "One of the things from my perspective that came out of this is we have a long way to go in many areas," Bordewyk said after the meeting.
• The 33-member task force included representatives of news organizations, state officials, law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and officials from cities, counties and school districts.
• News organizations had sought to require government boards and commissions to record closed meetings. The recordings would have been sealed unless someone complained that a meeting had been illegally closed. A judge would then review the recording and determine if it could be made public.
• South Dakota's open meetings law requires state and local boards and commissions to give notice of a meeting and its agenda at least 24 hours in advance. Those meetings can be closed to the public only if the discussions are about personnel issues, student performance, litigation or contracts, employee contract negotiations, pricing strategies by public owned businesses, and certain economic development matters.
• The panel decided to abandon the proposal to record closed sessions after it became clear members were split on the issue.
• Supporters said recordings would provide the best evidence of whether a board or commission met in a closed session to discuss issues that should have been handled in public. But representatives of local governments said some boards and commissions would have trouble making such recordings, which would also discourage free-wheeling discussion.

(Continued on page 20)