Finally Got A Response From Bob Hummel

So much to unpack in this mess. Let’s start with the date of the mailing. It was sent to me on Jan 24, 2025. However, the letter is dated Jan. 5, 2025 (as you’ll see, hang tight).

Ok, the first page here is apparently a list of attachments.

It appears to be a list of meeting minutes and notices. However, they only pertain to annual meetings. This supports my contention that the board seems to believe that only the annual meeting falls within the realm of the Open Meeting Laws. Also, you can see that these attachments only go back to to 2021.

Wait till you read the letter and you’ll see why.

Let’s start at the top.

Bob Hummel is saying that since I was President from 2017-2020, I should already have the records I requested and therefore he has no obligation to provide them. I think he doesn’t quite understand the laws he will soon be referring to. Whether I have the records already or not is, of course, beside the point. In fact, the records I’m seeking are not records I would have had in my possession, as they are financials and minutes, neither of which I did anything with.

The financials, such as they are, would be in the possession of Crystal Farrokhi. While I had to formally request these records via Bob Hummel, pursuant to law, I know that it is Crystal who has the financials, even now.

Anyway, he has denied me those records for his own reasons.

Let me just restate that this letter was actually directed to Ms. Williamson of the Office of Hearing Examiners. Now, if you are scratching your head and wondering why this pertains to the Office of Hearing Examiners, you are thinking more clearly than Bob.

Granted, not a high bar.

In my experience with this board, I’ve learned that their go-to is chaff and redirect. They talk a lot but don’t really say much.

It’s mostly chaff. And redirect.

Concerning the bold “quote’ … here is the actual post. Bob Hummel can’t even copy and paste accurately. Dear Bob, you can’t use quotation marks if it’s not actually a quote, but instead your restating of something.

This statement is regarding the file we created and delivered to Matt (Matthew) Christensen. His name is misspelled in the above document written by Bob Hummel. I always find it humorous when they misspell their own names, or names of ‘fellow trustees’ or just simple names. Anyway, this ‘dossier’ he refers to was my brother’s idea. He felt that Matt would act honorably. I had my doubts. Unfortunately I was right.

The contents of that file, which I will soon publish here, so you all can see what was said, needed a meeting. I had expected that the trustees would each page through it and then discuss it. That would have been a meeting that members should have been notified about and invited to attend and also invited to provide comment.

Not only did none of that happen, but several topics in that file were referred to among the trustees and the lawyer to the court, however were not mentioned to the Board of Commissioners nor the members of the district.

Not sure what Bob Hummel thinks he is accomplishing here. First, let me remind you this letter was sent (supposedly) to the Office of Hearing Examiners. This is from their website.

I believe that Bob Hummel has denied my request, at least in part, by his own words- referring to my being a trustee and therefore already having these records. That’s a denial.

“…threatening actions and statements to increase this harassment, all to destroy the road district…”

A bit dramatic. And also BS. They may perceive my actions or statements as threatening, however I do not. I’ve simply stated what I intend to do.

According to a Reddit post: ‘A threat is talk about a future negative action. A promise is supposed to be a guarantee to actually carry out the negative action, as opposed to just talking about it.’

The board likely considers my actions to be negative. I do not. My immediate neighbors and I consider my actions to be positive. We did tell the board and the members that we wished to withdraw from this rogue run amuck district and until we could, we would hold them accountable for their unlawful actions.

“… and not pay the annual road district fee of $500…” So interesting he should bring this up the week of the court hearing. Bob has just stated, ignorantly, that the fee is not a levy. Everybody is paying $500 a year. That, Ladies and Gentlemen… is not a levy. I have a whole post concerning how a levy works and how a special assessment works, and this is not a lawful variation of either one. However, the Board has been using a special assessment form, to unlawfully impose this fee on each of us. Lots of posts on this topic, but just wanted to point out that he has admitted they broke the law. There will be more on this a bit later, on another page. Hang tight.

“… which the trustees of the road district ascertain is her ultimate goal.” Another example of the Board using words it doesn’t understand, such as ‘transparency’.

I’ve been very clear about my/our ultimate goal, and it was not to avoid a fee. It wasn’t until later that we realized the extent of the unlawful actions, which includes the imposition of that $500 special assessment. The halting of this unlawful assessment is not the ultimate goal. It is simply one of many steps along the way. We assume that the Board will eventually start utilizing a levy, which is what we all assumed we were on from the beginning. Well, most of us assumed that. I’ve reason to believe that the previous acting president, Dale Ruzicka, and Crystal Farrokhi were aware we were on a special assessment. It’s entirely possible that both Bob Hummel and Matt Christensen are well aware of this, as well.

Ms. Arritola has used vulgar hand gestures toward the SBRD Treasurer Crystal F., in the presence of her young boys, and used profane language in social media posts…” I don’t remember actually giving Crystal Farrokhi the finger, but I’ve certainly thought about it a lot. Let me see, a person has been screwing me and my friends for 6 years, lied to us, broken laws, violated our rights and denied any wrong doing while she spins her actions and tries to make it look like we are the ones who are in the wrong. Yup, worthy of a single finger salute. As for being in the presence of her kids, now is a good time for her to tell her kids that as an elected public officer, especially one that is acting unlawfully, she is going to piss off the people she is supposed to be representing. They will speak up and redress their government in the only ways that government has left them. Consider this a civics 101 lesson. I’m glad I could offer you a chance to turn what you perceive as a negative into a positive. You’re welcome.

“Profane language in social media posts..” <Shrug> And?

Golly, Bob… you may have a point there. I mean, no civilized people would use profanity, right. Not decent honorable people. I should take my lead from you. So, just to be clear on what profanity is… is this what you mean?

That’s you Bob. 🙂

Moving on- It would appear that my first amendment right is just another of many that the board would like to quash. I’m not sure which posts they are referring to, since I’ve blocked them all and have not directed any of my posts to them for 8 months or so. So, if they are reading my posts, they are going out of their way to do so.

“… proving that any contact with Ms. Arritola is toxic and adversarial.” LOL… whatever. I didn’t start this saga. But I’ll help finish it.

Therefore the SBRD counsel for Ms. Arritola’s small claims suit, Matt Naasz, graciously offered to provide a neutral location so that Ms. Arritola could indeed view all pertinent public records and financial statements.”

Did he actually write this with a straight face?

Matt Naasz works at Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, in Rapid City, South Dakota. He is an attorney. He sent me a letter, a month after I requested the public records, and said I had to go through him… for public records. He said I would need to make an appointment with his paralegal, and deliver what he refers to as a President’s Binder. Bob mentions this again on another page of this letter. I posted about this already. But suffice it to say, there was nothing gracious about the letter, the ‘offer’ or any interaction Mr. Naasz has had with me. He also said that there would be no recording of the documents. Yeah, Mr. Naasz could use a refresher in SDCL 1-27 and 1-25.

“…both of which are always available to view at each Annual Road District Meeting, by the way.”

Well, golly, Bob… I guess I should just wait till then, huh? It doesn’t matter that the law says the records must be available in the district at regular business hours. Nah… whatever is most convenient for you, Bob. We are here for you, right?

Again, Bob has just volunteered to the office of hearing examiners what their usual course of action is and that they see nothing wrong with any of this. That I’m the problem because I’m requesting the Board follow the damn law.

This is the second page of drivel.

Bob starts this sentence on the end of page one, “Unfortunately, Ms. Arritola has chosen not to attend said public meetings for at least the past three years.” That’s correct Bob. Several of us stopped attending meetings when we recognized this board was off its rails. We collectively turned a blind eye to this district and just hoped it would either go away or just leave us alone.

I’ve posted before about electing someone we could trust, and who would represent our values, to the board and that Crystal Farrokhi and Allysann Harper ousted him. On their own. In another meeting that was not open to the members and a vote taken without their knowledge and also against the bylaws, which are secondary to State Law. Yeah, we stopped going to meetings and tried to get some distance between all of us and all of them.

Yes, Bob… after Dale Ruzicka was elected unlawfully and it was clear the Board would do whatever it wanted, with no oversight and damned the laws, we stopped attending meetings. And this was before we realized the extent of the unlawful actions of the Board.

Bob then mentions an attachment that shares a law governing the annual meeting. I’m getting the feeling that he is taking his lead from somebody else. Someone who downloaded laws and rules and suggestions and highlighted and took notes and then ignored them. Hmmm….

I also get the feeling that the board collectively wishes to give the impression that they believe that only the annual meeting must be open to members. I view this as another CYA move so that they can use the excuse of ‘Good Faith’ effort. There has been no good faith effort from the Board for many years.

I’m thinking we have different definitions of “pertinent.”

Take note of what he has bolded. And then take note of what is not. “Publicly adopted policy” is the phrase that has been ignored. I believe this document proves my contention that the Board has been acting on its own and has created policy and made decisions with no input from the members- no public comment.

The only public records he has included here are those pertaining to the annual meetings. He does quote SDCL 1-27 and 1-25, so that will make escalating this complaint that much easier.

Again, it appears Bob needs to read the definitions pursuant to this chapter. I never asked for “Drafts, Notes, recommendations and memoranda etc…” The thing is, I think he knows this. I think this is chaff and redirect.

Again, Bob… try to focus. IF these were ministerial functions, then there would have been a previous meeting, with the public being notified (that’s what seems to get ya’ll confused) and whatever you were wanting to do would have been discussed… IN PUBLIC. Did I lose ya there. Yeah, I went too fast, again. Basically, Bob… those laws do not apply. And I think you know that.

What you have described there is discretionary. Ministerial would be based on a rule and there is no discussion or option. For example, if it snows X inches, we have the road plowed. Period. That would be ministerial. However, deciding if it has snowed enough to have the road plowed is discretionary.

I really need to start charging for these consultations.

Although he does say “most all”… which means not “all”… so, where are THOSE minutes, Bob?

Again, these are just the annual meeting minutes. He claims the financial statements are included in one attachment. I want to see the checks. Cancelled/cashed checks. Considering the other unlawful actions we know about, I don’t trust them to not simply be taking out money. This is why we have the ability, by law, to check on the money. Simply writing down that they paid so and so, is not a record. I guess, for these people, it could be considered a record, but in my opinion if it would not stand up to an IRS audit, it’s not a record.

A bit more on discretionary vs ministerial. I did a quick search of South Dakota Supreme Court opinions/decision, and found McGee v. City of Austin, 1:23-CV-00820-DII, se

This case discusses the difference between ministerial and discretionary. It clarifies that what the board does is not ministerial.

“Had her trusted goal been to actually view all those records herself, she could have easily seen them at the office of Mr.” Matthew Naasz of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP, “Legal offices on 506th St. Rapid City, again in a neutral site, given her slanderous statements and aggressive behavior towards the trustees.”

Well, that was what I wanted and still want. I know you don’t have the records. That’s what I intend to prove. The longer this drags out the more I anticipate made up records, but it still won’t work. You cannot prove that those meetings (not the annual meetings) were open to the public. And they have to be, by law, Bob. You will eventually be told by an authority that the meetings you guys are having and making decisions and voting and spending money… have to be open meetings. I know I and others have already told you guys this dozens of times, but you refuse to abide by the law.

Somewhere along the way, this post went from an FYI to other people to an FYI to the rogue board. <shrug> But you regular folk get the idea, anyway. This is possibly what/who you are going to be dealing with, as well.

A law office is not a neutral site. More like the antithesis of a neutral site. Plus, the attempted extortion from Mr. Naasz to allow me access to the records. The public records. The public records that the law says, stick with me on this, the public has a right to access. Full Stop.

Another humorous moment here – “506th St.” This is the type of shoddy records we are dealing with here. The address is 506 6th St.

“…slanderous statements and aggressive behavior towards the trustees.” They like to throw that word around. I’m going to say this again for the slow learners- Slander is oral- ‘false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another.’ They seem to gloss right over that ‘false’ part.

LIBEL is written and likely what they are trying to say, since I write this blog and don’t talk much about them. Again, though… it has to be false. They continue to misuse these words, but it doesn’t hurt my head as much anymore. I actually posted about these words in the hopes they might figure this out, but here we are.

And so far, the only ‘aggressive’ behavior has been the filing of a lawsuit and the demands to have my rights not violated. Yup, that’s what these yahoos consider aggressive. I consider it assertive, but to each their own. This simply shows you where their collective head is at. If you stop rolling over and peeing over yourself and you start to stand up straight and say, “no… that’s not ok,” you will be labeled aggressive. Or bitch. <shrug>

I’m hoping this gets mentioned in court. I’m gonna leave it for now. I might do a separate post on it later. It might get titled “The President’s Binder.” LOL…

But I will address the ‘hypocrisy’ statement. Bob seems to be a bit confused as just whom here has the duty to report and allow access. You=generally accepted elected official (public officer). Me= regular person.

No… it was at the lawyers office. Not within the district, as required by law. To say nothing about the fact that I had asked for it in early October. And you legally had 10 days to respond… and you didn’t. And then I asked again, and you had 10 days… and you didn’t respond. Just to say that when we are looking at a picture book (something you guys are likely familiar with) and you see the phrase ‘good faith effort’, that is not a picture of you.

Now if you see the words ‘politician’ or ‘dishonorable’… those could be pics of any one of you. We should get a group shot of the Saddleback Road District Board of disTrustees, and use that for some picture books. That way you guys could follow along.

“Levy” funding. Still using words they don’t understand. It’s not a levy. If it were a levy, you would not be getting sued. And you know it’s not a levy because you raised the fee 25%, which you cannot do with a levy. And each year the “special assessment” form was used, not the levy form. And, you were told it was a special assessment and not a levy in a packed commissioners meeting, by the auditors office. And still you double down and stick with the word levy.

“…accurate and timely record keeping and reporting…”

This is a whole lot of just made up chaff, but he does restate some BS that he said at the commissioners meeting, ‘maintains one of the lowest maintenance cost per mile in Custer County.’

Based on what?

And… he said the magic word of maintenance. As you may recall if you’ve read previous posts, a road district can only do construction or maintenance. It is not for improvement. This is another word we have tried in vain to get them to understand. It’s also what you would use a ‘levy’ for. Improvement is what you would use a special assessment for, but only imposing it those properties fronting or abutting or otherwise receiving some special benefit from that improvement. They know it is not a levy. They know I know it is not a levy. They know the auditors office knows it is not a levy. <SMH>

And then the statement about Jesse Doyle, the Custer County Highway Superintendent, acknowledging their work. As I stated in my op-ed piece in the Rapid City Journal, he certainly didn’t look right when he got to the top of second hill. The part where Concho Trail starts. Because there is no road. We literally now have a bump where the road used to be. It’s a drop of several very noticeable inches. And it’s been that way since mid May.

But yeah, you guys are very honest and honorable. (dripping in sarcasm with an eye-roll for emphasis) That part mentioning your ‘honorable’ military careers is laughable. And capitalizing ‘volunteer’… more laughter. Bob and Dale Ruzicka tried to make this a big deal at that meeting, too.

Yes, you are volunteers. As the law states you shall be. Trying to make this some sort of pat on the back moment is like trying to get accolades for driving on the right hand side of the road without veering into the left. You get the idea. They seem to think that that is a huge deal. Well, I never did when I had the position.

To hear Bob (or Dale) tell it, you can almost hear the trumpets in the background, and picture the American flag waving in the breeze. Brings a tear to the eye.

It’s voluntary. Little letters… 🙂

This is the third page of the letter (chaff and redirect and chest thumping).

I wondered when we would get to this. This is the Board’s attempt to CYA. They seem to think that if they find fault with me, they can claim ‘good faith effort.’ I’m more than happy to argue that in front of the hearing examiners or a judge, or both. They’ve not acted in good faith. I can show so many emails and minutes and reported actions, like the destruction of our road, to show they have acted in retaliatory fashion for quite some time. And again, we look forward to every opportunity to get this information out into the public.

From unlawfully ousting an officer, changing bylaws without public notice or input, electing officers without nomination petitions, unlawfully imposing a special assessment, secret meetings, not allowing the public access to PUBLIC RECORDS, purposely destroying our road, yada yada yada…

No, Sir. You have not acted in good faith. And I look forward to providing the documents that prove it. That’s assuming you are still in office when this goes in front of the examiners. The investigation for a quo warranto is underway. Just as we told you so many months ago.

Ok, that was the ‘letter’. The rest of the documents were annual meetings. There are issues with those, but I think you already know about most of them. The real issue is the ones absent from this answer.

Just wanted to share a link for those of you who actually care what the laws are and what our rights are, (I’m not talking to the Saddleback Road District, now). State of South Dakota Boards and
Commissions Meeting Guidelines. Enjoy and see ya later.