Another Meeting.

From Matt Christensen-

Something to note here is that the agenda had only a discussion of a bylaw. Nothing else.

What seems to be missing here is… the discussion of a bylaw. And everything else the Board brought up… not ok to bring up. Yet another unlawful meeting (shocking, I know).

Concern Regarding the March 28, 2026 “Ministerial Safety Inspection” by the Saddleback Road District Trustees

The Saddleback Road District Trustees (Dale, Crystal, and Matt) conducted a walk of Saddleback Road on March 28, 2026, and labeled it a “Ministerial Safety Inspection.” They have published brief minutes stating that “no decisions were made” and that the findings will be discussed at the annual meeting on May 5, 2026.

While South Dakota law (SDCL 1-25-1) does provide a narrow exception allowing a quorum of road district trustees to meet without public notice when they are acting solely for one of three limited purposes — implementing previously adopted policy, carrying out ministerial functions, or undertaking a factual investigation of conditions related to public safety — the trustees’ own documented findings raise serious questions about whether this activity truly stayed within that exception.

Ministerial vs. Discretionary Actions

• Ministerial functions are generally limited to routine, non-discretionary tasks that involve little or no personal judgment — simply applying fixed, objective standards to observed facts (e.g., measuring a specific dimension against a clear code requirement).
• Discretionary actions involve judgment, evaluation, prioritization, categorization, or preliminary decision-making about what should be addressed, how, or when.

The trustees’ minutes go well beyond pure observation or fact-gathering. They include:

• Categorizing issues into “Safety Related” and “Annual Maintenance” — a judgmental distinction that affects how issues will be perceived and prioritized.
• Identifying specific problems and then directing future actions, such as:
  • “Have a conversation at the annual meeting to talk about marking each culvert for safety reasons.”
  • “Have a conversation with the landowner of 13731 Latigo as the trees are encroaching the right of way.”
  • “Have a conversation at the annual meeting regarding mag chloride and cost saving measures to promote safety of the road.”
  • Assigning responsibility: “Dale will check with the county to see if this is something they will work on…”
• Noting subjective or evaluative concerns such as “Instability identified,” “People driving over it,” erosion, washboarding at multiple locations, and encroachment issues.

These steps appear to involve exercising judgment about which issues warrant attention, how they should be framed (safety vs. maintenance), and what preliminary next steps should occur. That goes beyond a purely ministerial function or a simple factual investigation.

The exception in SDCL 1-25-1 requires the meeting to be solely for the exempted purposes. When a quorum of trustees walks the road together, discusses conditions, decides what to document as “safety related,” and outlines follow-up conversations or assignments, it risks crossing the line into deliberation or preliminary decision-making — activities that should occur in a properly noticed public meeting.

Why This Matters

Open meetings laws exist to ensure transparency and allow residents an opportunity to observe and participate when public business is being conducted. The Saddleback Road District has a documented history with the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, including a prior finding of violation for holding a meeting without proper public notice (among several). Residents deserve confidence that the narrow exceptions in the law are not being stretched to avoid public scrutiny on routine but important road maintenance and safety decisions that affect all landowners in the district.

The findings themselves — crushed culverts, washboarding, erosion, tree encroachment, ditch depths, and chemical treatment options — are exactly the kind of issues that impact public safety and property assessments. Landowners should have the chance to see the process in real time, not just receive a summary afterward.

Dale’s Slides…

Wondering why we are discussing CalMag yet again, after trying it twice and not being happy with it and dealing with all the issues and saying PUBLICLY that we would not do this again?

Cuz Dale-

While it is nice to see that some of our advice and suggestions were taken to heart, even though publicly scoffed upon, there is still need for work. Dale Ruzicka, Crystal Farrokhi, and Matt Christensen will continue to ignore or skirt the laws that were enacted to protect the people from abusive power, just as previous admins did… previous admins that were often the same people. The same people who live on part of the road where so much of the money is spent.

Ministerial vs Discretionary- even the state’s attorney Tracy Kelley said these folks did not have an understanding of the definitions and said so in an email published on this site.

And they will raise the fee, and call it something innocuous that has no legal foundation and they have no lawful right to impose, and since so many other road districts are doing it as well, nothing will come of it.

And people will continue to snicker and say that those of us who don’t bend a knee are just not wanting to pay any money for a road we use, and they will continue to ignore the many times we have stated we are perfectly fine with paying for road WE USE… not road that we don’t. And we are not ok with blindly throwing money at projects where there are purposely no public records, and there is no proof of expenses, and that clearly benefit a handful of people whose property values are influenced directly.

The road district has certain powers. That’s it. The fact that Dale wants to go talk to people about their driveway/approaches, is exactly what we’ve been warning you all about. They/he will take whatever power you hand him or allow him to take.

We were vindicated by our small claims case. You can read every filing here on this site. They clearly did not have a legal leg to stand on. They said it was NOT a special assessment, but a levy. (Said that 3 times). Then they said it was a Special Maintenance Fee, ‘which they can do because it is in the special assessment chapter of law.’ They pointedly refused to answer whether a special maintenance fee was a special assessment or a levy, which are the only two things they have the legal power to impose.

At the Open Meetings commission hearing, they said it was a special assessment.

They are following NONE of the laws required, and with the blessing of the auditors office of Custer County. The same office that in one breath said they are not lawyers and cannot give legal advice but also that the district did not have to have open meetings. We literally showed Dana Benjamin the statute and he said, “…oh…”.

And as we all know now that the OMC gave the Board a Public Reprimand for not having Open Meetings… just like we said they would… clearly Custer County also needs to be looked at.

Keep in mind that there is NO requirements for width which these roads must meet. NONE.

This was also proven BS, when the Board tried to show off to the county commissioners, and say they widened the road to meet county requirements, and we said our roads didn’t have to meet those requirements, because the roads were pre-2005, and the road district was incorporated in 2005. And the Board Members scoffed and said the district was incorporated in 2016, and we said “no… the road district was incorporated in 2005, and RENAMED in 2016.” (The Board then actually included the document they denied existed, as an exhibit for the small claims case they could not get dismissed no matter what they tried.)

This was one of many documents they filed as exhibits, apparently in the hope that we would fold… which we didn’t. Every single thing they filed proved our argument.

They moved on to stating the insurance company demanded the road be widened. But no… no they didn’t. We sent an email to them and asked straight up and they answered straight up. No… No they didn’t require the road be widened.

Who wants the road to be widened?

Dale-

And possibly anybody who wants to increase their property value. Gee… who could that be?

Protect yourself. Learn the law and stand on it.