Story Time- Willow Creek Road District: Ousters and High Horses

This story takes place several months before the Open Meetings Commission hearing that eventually forced real changes. It is one of the many complaints Marla Voss filed over time—complaints that piled up quietly, like gravel in a low spot, until they finally triggered official scrutiny much later.

In the wide, wind-swept corner of western South Dakota, the Willow Creek Road District trustees—Harlan “Harley” Whitaker, Vernon “Vern” Pritchard, and Lyle “Ledger” Swanson—were still riding high on their own version of “efficiency.” They had just wrapped up a particularly satisfying “special meeting”, with no notice to anybody. The main order of business had been the quiet removal of their fourth trustee, Pete Hargrove.

Pete had been the odd man out from day one. He asked questions. He wanted receipts. He refused to vote yes on work orders that benefited only the trustees’ own stretches of road. After one particularly tense meeting where Pete had dared to say, “This doesn’t look proportional—shouldn’t we get an engineer’s opinion?” Harley had had enough.

At the next gathering, Harley called for a vote: “All in favor of removing Pete Hargrove for disruptive behavior?” Vern and Lyle raised their hands. Pete, stunned, abstained in protest. Two to zero (with one abstention) carried the day. Pete was out. The board was now a smooth-running machine again.

A week later, Marla Voss—whose house sat at the end of the worst stretch of gravel—heard the story from a neighbor who’d heard Harlan brag about the meeting. She fired off an email that same afternoon.

“Gentlemen,” it began, “I’ve been told that Pete Hargrove was voted off the board because he asked too many questions and wouldn’t rubber-stamp certain votes. How is this legal? SDCL does not allow trustees to remove a fellow board member by simple majority vote of the remaining officers. Offices are vacated by resignation, death, removal for cause through court action or recall election, or other statutory processes—not a quick show of hands because someone disagrees. Please explain.”

Harley read it aloud in the shed the following evening, boots propped on a toolbox.

“She’s got some nerve,” he said. “Pete was holding us back. We needed a board that could actually get things done.”

Vern leaned forward. “We can’t just say he was a pain. We need something that sounds… official.”

Lyle rubbed his chin. “How about ‘failure to attend meetings consistently’? He missed two in a row.”

Harley shook his head. “Nah, he showed up every time. People know he did”

Vern tried again. “What if we say ‘conflict of interest’? His property’s on the other side of the district—he was blocking improvements that didn’t directly help him.”

Lyle laughed. “That’s rich. We’re the ones pushing for our own roads.”

Harley snapped his fingers. “I’ve got it. We’ll say it was for ‘failure to uphold the fiduciary duty of the board’—he was obstructing necessary maintenance decisions that benefited the majority of the district. Sounds noble, right? Like we’re protecting the greater good.”

Vern grinned. “Perfect. High-minded. Hard to argue with ‘fiduciary duty.’

They settled on it. That became the official story.

The next day Harley sent Marla a short reply: “Pete was removed for failure to uphold his fiduciary duty to the board and the district. He repeatedly obstructed necessary maintenance decisions that would benefit the majority of residents. The action was taken by majority vote in accordance with board procedures. Thank you for your concern.”

Marla read it and rolled her eyes. She replied the next day with attachments: SDCL 3–4-1 (Events causing vacancy in office.).

“To clarify,” she wrote, “an elected office may be vacated by resignation, incapacity, removal for cause (via court order or recall), death, or other statutory means. It is not vacated by a vote of the remaining trustees because one member asks inconvenient questions or refuses to approve self-serving expenditures. ‘Failure to uphold fiduciary duty’ is not a statutory ground for removal by fellow trustees. Such an action could invalidate subsequent decisions made by the improperly constituted board and expose you to personal liability.”

The trustees gathered again, this time with a fresh pot of coffee and a growing sense of irritation.
Harley read the new email aloud, voice dripping with sarcasm. “Look at her, quoting chapter and verse again. Thinks she’s the district attorney.”

Vern waved a hand. “Ignore it. She’s got no standing. Let her file her little complaints. We’ll keep doing what needs doing.”

Lyle nodded. “Besides, Pete was obstructive. We’re better off. More efficient now.”

They dismissed her once more and turned to the next item on their informal agenda: how to respond to a sheriff’s complaint that had just arrived. Marla had pointed out several violations in a letter to the county sheriff: an unposted “emergency” meeting where they’d approved a budget shift, questionable use of district funds for “supplies” that looked suspiciously like barbecue gear, and—yes—the improper ouster of Pete Hargrove.

Harley rubbed his chin. “We can’t just say ‘sorry.’ Let’s get on our high horse. Tell the sheriff all the wonderful things we’ve accomplished.”

Vern grinned. “Start with the new gravel we laid last summer—did it quick, no bids, saved everyone time and money. Folks were thrilled.”

Lyle jumped in. “And that work order our contractor suggested. We voted on that from the floor. Fixed the flood-prone section right away—no waiting around for engineers or notices.”

Harley nodded enthusiastically. “Don’t forget how we streamlined the board by removing Pete for failure to uphold fiduciary duty. Got rid of all the endless questions and delays. Now we can actually make decisions and improve roads instead of talking them to death.”

They drafted the letter together, back-patting with every line:

“Dear Sheriff,
We appreciate your inquiry. The Willow Creek Road District has made significant improvements in recent months, including rapid gravel placement, swift response to drainage issues, and efficient use of funds to benefit residents directly. By streamlining board processes—such as removing a trustee who failed to uphold his fiduciary duty and obstructed necessary maintenance decisions—we have enhanced our ability to serve the district.

Unfortunately, constant complaints from certain residents, including Ms. Marla Voss, have created a negative atmosphere. As a result, we are seeing far fewer people interested in volunteering for the board. Who wants to step up when every decision is second-guessed and dragged through complaints?

We assure you all actions have been taken in good faith for the benefit of the district.

Sincerely, The Trustees”

They sealed the envelope, smug as cats with cream.

But the irony was thicker than the dust on Harley’s toolbox. The very “wonderful things” they bragged about—the shortcuts, the unposted votes, the barbecue “supplies,” the ouster of anyone who dared disagree—were exactly why no one wanted to join. Word had spread through the dozen households: Get on the board, and if you don’t play along, you’ll be voted out faster than a jackrabbit from a hawk. Marla’s complaints weren’t the problem; the board’s own antics were.

Marla, reading a leaked copy of the letter from a sympathetic neighbor, shook her head with a wry smile. She filed another complaint—this one attaching the letter itself—pointing out that this was yet another unlawful meeting- and waited.