Annual Meeting Minutes
Well, these Minutes are about as you would expect; misspellings, incorrect statements, and spin.
Well, they don’t have everybody listed that attended the meeting. Makes you wonder just how accurate the rest of these notes might be.
The Annual Meeting Agenda was approved by the sitting trustees- so that’s Bob Hummel, Crystal Farrokhi and Matt Christensen- for the record (since clearly you cannot get a full record from these people).
Since no new agenda was mentioned, this must refer to the agenda they stated in the notice. Let’s take a look at that agenda.
So the entire agenda is:
Agenda for the meeting
Bylaws for the Saddleback Road District (these have been updated and will be voted on by the entire district at the meeting)
Beth Pope – candidate resume for the Treasure Trustee position
Dale Ruzicka – candidate resume for the Treasure Trustee position
<SMH, the word is treasurer… not treasure, and even that is incorrect, because as I have stated numerous times, you don’t run for a position, just an office. That position can change every year>
So, the agenda is to vote in the bylaws and a trustee. That’s it. So, let’s see what else they did at this meeting that was not on the agenda.
Well, they had a secretary’s report. They apparently presented some meeting minutes from a meeting they had on April 7, 2025. And they then had those minutes approved. None of that was on the agenda.
They had a budget approved for 2025-26. That wasn’t on the agenda. Additionally, they state it was “approved by all present at the meeting.” They have used phrases like this many times in the past, and it is clear now, because our people were there with the directions to record the entire thing, that it is nonsense. Nothing was agreed to or approved by all who were at the meeting. Nothing.
They did not take the nay votes for each subject… It appears they just counted how many were in favor, it was a majority, and it passed. However, if it were supported by every person in the meeting, it would be unanimous. But simply counting who was in favor is a FAR cry from passing unanimously. I guess I have to provide another definition.
‘If a group of people are unanimous, they all agree about one particular matter or vote the same way, and if a decision or judgment is unanimous, it is formed or supported by everyone in a group…’ Cambridge Dictionary.
There were several people there that disagreed with EVERY SINGLE THING this rogue district is doing. They in NO WAY voted for any of it. So, once again, we can clearly show that the board is making false statements. In other words, lying.
Moving on to page 2.
Ah, a treasurer’s report by Crystal Farrokhi. Not on the agenda. And I just gotta say, with an eye roll, that if this is how she kept the books, no wonder everything is a mess.
Let’s just walk through this together.
January 1, 2024, Account Balance $6,757.34
December 31, 2024, Account Balance $6,196.26
2024 Deposits $16,544.96
2024 Disbursements $17,106.04
May 6, 2025, Account Balance $7,5430.32
At the beginning of last year, the balance was $6,757.34. and deposits of $16,544.96. We add those together and we get $23,302.30. Now according to Crystal Farrokhi, they spent $17,106.04 which leaves $6,196.26 .
I hear you asking what the problem is. Well, glad you asked. The problem is we don’t know where that money was spent. We’ve asked. They refuse to tell us. We asked for proof that the money was spent on ANYTHING road district related, and not just a kickback… but they refuse to provide access to these records.
THAT’S the problem. That’s the continuing problem. Do you really think that any of these records will be more accessible with Dale Ruzicka involved?
Also, why would you put the ending balance before the deposits and disbursements? <SMH>
So, the ending balance of 2024, was $6,196.26 . And the balance on May 6, 2025 was $7,5430.32
So… $75,430.32
Yes, I understand this was a typo. One of many. Because they simply do not take the moment required to correct the typos and make sure they are reporting the truth.
So, let’s try to reconcile that number. Just which digit is the extra one? Well, since there is NO notation of any deposits, it should still be $6,196.26. I uh… I don’t see ANY numbers that are correct there.
But somehow, we arrive at $24,000 even. These are the magical accounting methods of Crystal Farrokhi, but I’m sure they’ll continue with Dale Ruzicka, considering the history.
Was there more than $24,000? Who knows. You can see what/whom we are dealing with here.
Presented the 2025 Budget Line Items:
$17,000 – Gravel Addition and Labor including grading as needed
$4,500 – Operational Contingencies (Weather emergencies)
$500 – Signage
$1,500 – Savings / Legal
$500 – Admin / SDPAA
$24,000 – Total (This moves all money into the prospective Budget Line Items)
So, we still have no idea where this money is being spent. As was stated by the board in previous meeting minutes, the vast majority is likely still being spent on that back area that few of us ever see. It is funny though, that Crystal Farrokhi and Matt Christensen had what seemed to be a ‘scripted moment.’ It was great to see the pantomime of their, ‘I wish people could understand how much money is spent on this main road that everybody uses.’
Well, golly guys… what might be the answer?
Oh, perhaps when somebody asks for PUBLIC RECORDS that show WHERE the money was spent, you could actually provide them, rather than making the requester go through the Office of Hearing Examiners to force you to provide records, and then STILL withhold those records of which you speak. .
$500 for signage!!! Are you serious? Good grief!! Whose brother’s nephew’s cousin is in the sign business?
$500 for the BS insurance. Interesting since it was far less than that when I saw it on the records, that they worked hard to keep from the public eye. They tried to get the State Attorney to threaten Joel to ‘return’ them, so Joel went to the office and had a discussion with the state attorney explaining that legally, he still held that office, but in no way does Bob Hummel hold that office lawfully.
As we have said for a friggin year.
Ok, so again, the approval of this ‘budget’ was not on the agenda.
It is too funny how the board tries to use the meeting minutes to ‘make a point’ rather than just a record of events.
When they say “back on track,” they mean discussing only what they want to discuss and when they want to discuss it. Clearly they did not want to discuss the unlawful collection of ‘fees’.
President’s Report:
Discussed the Small Claims litigation filed against the Saddleback Road District.
Discussed the rationale of hiring an attorney to protect the district.
Discussed the outcome of the litigation, Dismissed without Prejudice as Small
Claims Procedure lacks jurisdiction for that which the Plaintiff is asking.
Discussed the outcome of the Complaint to the South Dakota Office of Hearing
Examiners
A president’s report. Well, since it didn’t come from Joel, it was not the president’s report. And, it was not on the agenda.
Discussed the small claims litigation. More doubling down on the ‘nothing to see here.’ No mention of the incredible efforts of the corrupt board and the shyster lawyer to keep this from being heard in the court. No mention that it clearly was not ‘frivolous and meritless’ as the board stated last August, when they said it would be dismissed. Yeah, just gloss right over that. Nothing to see here.
Discussed the rationale of hiring an attorney to protect the district. This is interesting. Clearly, they had a meeting where they discussed this, last year. I kept saying this. They had a meeting to discuss the lawsuit and they decided to hire a lawyer, and then they hired the lawyer. All of which should have been done in an open meeting.
aaaaannnndddddd… it wasn’t.
Discussed the outcome of the litigation, Dismissed without Prejudice as Small Claims Procedure lacks jurisdiction for that which the Plaintiff is asking. This was not really an outcome. This is still in the works. And the district will lose. Because they are breaking the law. And every motion they filed and email ever sent, is public record, and will prove our case.
Discussed the outcome of the Complaint to the South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners. This was humorous. This is where the board stands up tall and pretends they understood and it was a learning experience and that these new bylaws show they have progressed. When in fact, the new bylaws clearly show that the board either still does not understand or that they know full well they are breaking laws, but are betting the members just don’t care. Evidence goes both way on this one. Considering the highlighted and starred and notated documents that Dale provided … it seems clear he knew full well they were breaking numerous laws. Or he is an idiot. Again, evidence goes both ways here. I guess it could be both.
And… none of that was on the agenda.
Heated disruption from Sean Arritola. Mr. Hummel (President) made a Point of Order to direct the meeting back on track. Again, member wants to discuss something that the board doesn’t want to discuss. So the board revs it up a notch, bangs his gavel, yells something about order, egged on by the hand-picked audience… and it just continues. But they don’t respond to the questions asked. The members get no real answers. Just threats.
Discussed the outcome of the Open Meeting Complaints to the Custer County State’s Attorney
Again, there is yet to be an outcome, because it was only recently sent to the Open Meetings Commission. But we still see the board puff out their chest like they won something or learned something, when this entire meeting and the unlawful bylaws, make it clear they are doing business as usual. And, that was not on the agenda.
Heated disruption from Sean Arritola. Mr. Hummel (President) made a Point of Order to direct the meeting back on track.
The continued use of bolded copy and paste makes me chuckle. And again,the board avoided responding to the questions asked about the Open Meeting violations. No real answers, just more threats and avoidance.
Discussed the Adoption of the Saddleback Road District Bylaws.
Questions and discussion on why updates were needed per recommendations taken from South Dakota Office of Hearing Examiners, Custer County States Attorney, and the
cont’d on page 3- Attorney retained from previous litigation. Many times, throughout the questions and conversation there were disruptions from Sean Arritola and Joel Bingen that targeted to derail the constructive and productive conversation. Sean Arritola disparaged the reputation of the SBRD attorney, Matthew Naasz of GPNA, calling him a shyster lawyer. Mr. Hummel (President) many times made Point of Orders to keep the conversation on track. At one point, the conversation got out of head where calling the Sheriff’s office was stated by one of the district members. Mr. Christensen (Secretary) intervened and fostered an understanding that we can agree to disagree and move forward. The disrespectful comments from Mr. Arritola and Mr. Bingen were not productive and needed to cease. Productive conversations are welcome.
This is Page 3, and we’ll return to this point.
… disruptions from members… that targeted to derail the constructive and productive conversation.
No, these are members who are calling out the unlawful actions and continued BS from a proven to be corrupt board. You may not like it, but it is what it is. You keep banging that gavel and pretending you are putting the meeting back on track, but we were not the only ones to recognize exactly what was really going on. Just because you don’t want to discuss something doesn’t mean it is not productive or constructive. Two more words which you folks have no idea of the meaning.
“At one point, the conversation got out of head where calling the Sheriff’s office was stated by one of the district members.” And members stated very clearly “Please Do!!! call the sheriff.” And Dale huffed and puffed and said “don’t you think I won’t!” And the members responded, “Do!!!”
He didn’t.
Can you imagine how the board’s actions would have to change with that sort of oversight? But the kicker here is that this is exactly what we stated to Matt Christensen and Bob Hummel at the unlawful secret meeting they held on our road, after they destroyed it. We stated we would not attend meetings on their private properties because they could trespass us for any reason (lawful or not) and our security clearances would be in jeopardy.
Both Matt and Bob said they would never do that.
Yet… the first meeting the board had in the open since saying that, and we are being threatened. Just shows how dishonorable these people are. They threaten our properties, our rights and our livelihoods. When we stand up to defend ourselves, they bang the gavel and change the subject to something safer.
“Mr. Christensen (Secretary) intervened and fostered an understanding that we can agree to disagree and move forward.” No, we do not agree to just disagree. This is not simply a disagreement of buying this gravel or that. It is a disagreement about following the laws. We DID want outside witnesses to the shenanigans of the board. We still do.
The disrespectful comments from Mr. Arritola and Mr. Bingen were not productive and needed to cease. Productive conversations are welcome. They were productive… just uncomfortable for the board. And this is a public meeting. They have a first amendment right to redress their government. However, this would not be the first time, or unfortunately the last, that the board tried to silence members and violate their constitutional rights. The stealing of our money without any of the steps required is unconstitutional. Whining to the court about this website is an attempt of a government entity to silence the people.
Mr. Hummel (President) was able to obtain meeting order and proceeded to request a vote to adopt the updated bylaws. Mrs. Kim Stewart made a motion to approve the updated bylaws, seconded by Mrs. Jo Musumeci. No further discussion was conducted, and the vote was carried with all but one vote approving the motion. Motion carried with adoption of the updated bylaws.
Seriously, do we need to read ‘president’ every time we see that usurpers name? He is not the president. Saying the word every single time you use his name is just silly, even if he was. And this statement makes this dishonorable imposter sound noble to people who don’t know better. However, many of us do know better. It’s just chaff and redirect.
Also interesting how they actually note a dissenting vote. One. There were many, but only one that yelled it. That is clearly the only way to be heard by these crooks. There were several ‘votes’ counted as ‘everybody agreed’ when in fact, no they did not. Just a heads up, these people will testify to that. Unlawful elections/voting is kind of a big deal.
Election of New Trustee (Treasure)
Mr. Christensen (Secretary / Election Clerk) explained the process where each candidate was being offered a brief time to speak of their qualifications, reasons why they wish to run for office, and to address anything that was brought up during the meeting so far.
No note of taking nominations from the floor. So, that would be another violation of election law. And just what is a “brief time?” More loose terms with no meaning.
Beth Pope presented
Dale Ruzicka presented
It would seem Beth’s presentation was good. She talked more about what she could offer the district, and not so much trying to get accolades or attention.
And Dale? Well…
Heated disruption from Mr. Arritola during Mr. Ruzicka’s presentation regarding his candidacy The conversation was neither fact driven, productive, constructive, and VERY DISRESPECTFUL.
Very Disrespectful… in caps and bold. Oh, I guess you are serious. Golly, that won’t happen again.
And it was fact driven. Our facts are proven, repeatedly. What the board has is just drivel recited repeatedly by the board. And again, this is a public meeting. These are public officers. I’d like to say ‘elected’ officers, but I don’t think that is proven nor necessary. Basically it is a small group of like-minded people who groom each other in their echo chamber.
During this time, Mr. Arritola threatened to verbally accost the Road District’s Agent working on Concho Trail and complained about no work being done. He was then asked how work can be done when this is the approach he takes with the SBRD Agent.
Well, as the board has filed meeting minutes with the county (a YEAR ago) that state that nothing further will be done on Concho Trail, and since NOTHING has been done to repair it in that year, and since every single thing they have done with the road has been unlawful, this seems a moot point.
The guy was hired to destroy our road, that we had maintained out of our pocket for 9 years, steal the material, rip up yards and the board thinks we should be nice and respectful. Nice and respectful are obviously two more words they do not understand.
A list that seems to grow exponentially.
Mr. Bingen disclosed that he spoke with the Custer County States Attorney about his removal from office the previous year and disclosed that, Ms. Kelley allegedly stated “it is clear now who the real liars are.”
Disclosed? He said he talked to Ms. Kelley. There was nothing secret about it. It was not kept hush ’till now.’ Good grief, the board has a knack for just filling in details based on nothing.
The board also leaves out a lot of detail based on fact. Like Bob and Dale running on at the mouth but not letting members that they don’t like speak. When an opposing voice is raised, Bob says, ‘that’s your 3 minutes,’ as if there is some law that says people can only speak for 3 minutes, and even then, it was less than one minute.
But when Dale speaks, he just goes on and on… And this was before he was ‘elected’ (again in single quotation marks, since we don’t really know that he was). Imagine how much of him we get to hear now that he has an office again.
Just a heads up, guys… limiting the public comment period to a dubious time frame, with no previous discussion or vote on the matter and then trying to enforce that ‘executive decision’ with absolutely no time-keeping device, but simply a feeling that this person’s time is up…is begging for legal action.
Another list that grows exponentially.
Mrs. Beth Pope received 6 votes
Mr. Dale Ruzicka received 11 votes
Maybe. Maybe not.
Page 4-
Page 4 of 4
1 ineligible vote was received and rejected because a member cannot vote through proxy through a family member.
My how times have changed. Not so long ago, this board would take votes quietly via phone or email or passenger pigeon, if it suited their purposes. I’m gonna venture two possibilities here- one is that the proxy was for Beth. The other option is that if it was for Dale, which it didn’t sound like from witnesses, they already knew they didn’t need it. Wouldn’t it be funny to find out this was another scripted moment?
Mr. Dale received the majority votes. Tod motioned to accept Dale as the Treasurer Trustee position, seconded by Crystal. All voted to accept the finding of the Clerk and Dale was named as the Treasurer Trustee.
Mr. Dale.
Mr. Dale?
I simply never get tired of this gif.
And it’s just Tod… not Mr. Tod. Sorry, Tod.
Again, it’s just trustee. Not ‘treasurer’ trustee. These positions are fluid.
“All voted to accept the finding of the Clerk …” No, they didn’t! Are you seriously saying that the group of people in the back of the garage, who despise you and have argued with every single decision you’ve made since 2020, actually agreed with ANYTHING you’ve done in this meeting? They did NOT vote to accept ANY findings. They certainly would NOT accept THESE findings, where votes are secret and counted by the enemy. And they did NOT vote to accept any of the reports.
FFS. This is not just an inaccurate record (which is par for the course with these people), it is an outright lie.
I’m reminded of the meeting last year where they held a vote (not on the agenda) to determine whether Concho Trail residents could leave this bullshit, corrupt, rogue road district and the minutes said everybody agreed to keep us in the district. This was not the impression we had from everybody, and now that I see how they count and conduct a meeting, this is no surprise.
Bob addressed the district and opened the meeting for old business:
Not on the agenda, Bob. This is really super simple. If any of you had any leadership experience where you conducted lawful meetings, this would not be so difficult to grasp.
Road Condition Report – talked about the walk through with Cam and what the work going on the next projects including culverts, guide stones on the side roads, and safety signage.
When was this walk-through? Who was there? What was the decision making paradigm? Whose road is going to be destroyed with absolutely no reason or head’s up, this time?
Why is EVERYTHING such a secret? Why do these people do everything in their power to keep the members from attending any meetings, or having any knowledge, or having a voice? So much so that they actually write in unlawful bylaws so that they can keep everything to themselves.
Yup, nuttin to see here.
Crooked AF.
If you see Cam Miller, thank him for his work.
If Cam was not incompetent and creating unsafe road conditions, and didn’t have a hand and a bobcat involved with the complete destruction of our road, golly we might give him a wave with all 5 fingers.
Please share any feedback and remain respectful of those of us of differing opinions and everyone is entitled to their opinion as well as having respectful conversations.
It’s pretty clear that the board interprets ANY difference of opinion as disrespectful and not constructive. Again, they actually wrote an unlawful bylaw to silence people. Draw your own conclusions.
Crystal explained the difference between special assessment vs tax levy. Road districts in Custer county all road districts were put in a special assessment district, but we (SBRD) charge the flat rate not a special assessment based on tax property value. We all pay the same rate.
Crystal explained? There’s the red flag. The ‘trustee’ who had no idea what she is doing but was super excited to be doing it (just count all the exclamation points in every single one of her emails or meeting minutes), is going to explain how this fee works.
Did you notice that Crystal had no last name? Hmm… let me fix that. Crystal Farrokhi, the outgoing trustee who signed her name to many unlawful forms filed with the county auditors, and thereby having them steal our money, is gonna explain why there’s nothing to see here.
“…all road districts were put in a special assessment district.”
Uhm, no. They were not. I know this because I actually went down to that office at the start of this whole mishigas and saw, with my own eyes, filled out levy forms. Levy forms that were submitted as exhibits and would have been seen by the court… had the case not been kicked to circuit.
And did Crystal Farrokhi also explain why they filed a motion stating they had NEVER imposed a special assessment, but ALWAYS a levy?
“…special assessment based on tax property value…”
Wow. That is not how a special assessment works. That’s how a levy works. It’s been a year of this and it is clear they absolutely refuse to simply read a friggin statute or the ‘very simple-to-read, even Dale could understand,’ download from the Department of Revenue explaining special assessments and levies. The two things a road district can impose.
Levies are based on property values.
And it is the special assessment chapter where the special maintenance fee is mentioned. But ya’ll said you never imposed a special assessment, always a levy… which is based on property values, so please Crystal… explain just how that works?
And while you’re at it, explain why absolutely no votes, notices, open meetings, resolutions, or anything at all is required for you to take our money, when the entire rest of the chapter SDCL 9-43 is discussing the limits and requirements to impose a special assessment.
I’ll get some popcorn and wait.
Bob talked about the open meeting violations and the letter from Ms. Kelly, CCSA, stating her findings, the bylaws updates, and
Bob talked about something he clearly has no understanding of… which is pretty common, actually. We know this because the new bylaws stink of their collective ignorance, or willful abuse. Again, could be both.
“… and”
You know what I find so amusing about the endless typos, misspellings, errors, etc etc? It’s that last year, these people filed a meeting minutes with the county where they made a rule that no minutes would be published without being double checked and verified.
So they either lied last year (would be of no surprise), or 3 of these brain trust individuals signed off on these minutes.
Again… could go either way on this. Or both.
Adjourn Annual Meeting
Motion to adjourn by Ursula, and second by Dave Summers, all approved, No nays at 2142.
This almost reads like English As A Second Language.
Ursula is Ursula Hummel. Not sure why there is such disparity in format. It should be seconded in this use, or it could say, “There was a second by…” , but this is just incorrect as it is.
Then you would say there were no nays. It would be preferable if there really were no nays, but as we have seen there are often nays that they just ignore. So, we don’t really know if there were no nays and everybody approved.
THEN you would say the meeting was adjourned at 2142.
Sorry it takes so long to post these things, but they require so much correction.