The ‘Updated’, but still nonsense Bylaws
Have a seat. Grab some popcorn. Settle in.
The Saddleback Road District Board, consisting of Bob Hummel, Crystal Farrokhi, and Matthew Christensen, somehow created this set of Bylaws, outside of an open meeting. Fascinating. The Bylaws are now 6 pages.
Six pages of the Board, and certain other nameless individuals, going on and on but not really accomplishing anything. Both through these bylaws and their numerous statements at the meeting, it is clear that I have quite a following.
Unfortunately, given the choice between reading this blog and changing their ways to be a law-abiding and honorable entity, or reading the blog to learn how to be more secretive and get away with their unlawful actions… these folks chose the latter.
So, let’s get started. We will go through the new bylaws page by page.
Article I is still superfluous. However, it is one of the very few statements made in this mess that is fairly accurate, so not surprising they want to hang on to it.
Article II, same concept. This one though could have used more clarification. As suggested in the other post on the previous bylaws, this could have more details regarding meetings, but since they added over a page of nonsense concerning just meetings, we can wait till then.
Article III- section 3.1, accurate. Now if we could just get the board members to read that chapter.
Section 3.2 – These bylaws represent regulations for the conduct of business of the Road District, and its members, and the Board of Trustees.
I’m pretty sure that the bylaws of a road district are not incumbent upon the members. I know the rogue district trustees would like to believe what they have written here has ANYTHING to do with the members, and in particular me… but I don’t think they do. I’ve not looked into this particular statute, so I’ll let you know when I do. Honestly, it’s not at the top of my list of concerns.
Section 3.3 – The Road District is a nonprofit organization/government entity and is not organized for the private gain of any person.
Uhm…. no. No it isn’t. I know words are hard, guys. However they really do have meanings. And when you purposely misuse a word, it could be criminal offense. Yet another one.
We look to this chapter because the Board referred to this chapter in their upcoming (and ongoing) nonsense.
A road district is not formed under any of those chapters. As correctly stated in “Section 3.1 – This Road District is an organization created and governed by the laws of the State of South Dakota under §SDCL 31-12A .”
I know… words are hard.
The Road District is a governmental entity, but it is not a nonprofit organization.
Let me guess. Dale?
Section 3.4 – The Road District shall maintain and repair the roadway, install appropriate safety signage and provide snow removal service on the Public Right-of Way roads for safe vehicular travel within the geographical boundaries approved by the Custer County Board of Commissioners.
This one is interesting. By stating ‘…and provide snow removal service…’, the rogue district has stated that snow removal is not ‘maintenance and repair.’ And since a road district can ONLY construct or repair roads, the rogue district has just stated that it cannot lawfully provide snow removal.
Section 3.5 – The Road District has voted to fund operations through an annual flat per landowner tax levy in Special Assessment District 113, collected by Custer County, due no later than April 30th of each year.
This one definitely sounds like a Dale-ism.
First, no. No it didn’t. The road district did not vote, ‘to fund operations through an annual flat per landowner tax levy in Special Assessment District 113…’
There is a resolution, which I have published here on this site, which clarifies what we voted for, or what we thought we voted for. As our Concho neighbor Steve tried to tell you, it was never meant to be what you made it. We have a copy of that resolution. A resolution that says that changes to the fee would be put to a vote of all members. It is no wonder that you don’t share those early documents. But they are here. If I can, I’ll link those posts to these key words so everyone can easily see what is going on.
This run-on sentence actually made me chuckle. Once again, the rogue district seems to believe that if they throw enough words at it and put it in writing somewhere, that it gives it validity.
Uhm…. No. It’s still nonsense.
The Board later states the powers of a road district board. It may impose a levy or a special assessment, or both. But they are not the same thing, and each has a process you must follow. I already went into this on the last post concerning bylaws.
Section 3.6 – The Road District shall operate on a calendar year budget. All unexpended funds in a budget line item shall be automatically rolled into the same budget line item on January 1st of the new calendar year.
<shrug>… this is another spot where the board tries to sound like they know something about budgets. If only it were true.
Article IV – Membership
Section 4.1 – Membership: All landowners of record of any real property lying within the described boundaries of the Saddleback Road District shall be considered members eligible to vote and participate in the affairs of the Road District.
The Board REALLY likes to interpret statute. However, since the Board sucks at interpreting law, I’ll go to the original.
Section 4.1.1 – Membership Eligible Voter: An owner of land within the road district is entitled to only one vote in road elections regardless of the number of parcels of land owned within the district. † per SD Attorney General Opinion No. 23-03
Another one that makes me chuckle. First, the addition of an Attorney General Official Opinion dated from 2023, makes it sound like this is something new AND that these maroons are right on top of it. The only reason they know about this AGOO, is because WE sent it to them when we were telling them to stop breaking a particular law. This was a certain law in a long list of other laws they continue to break. The second reason this makes me chuckle is the use of a dagger († ).
Dagger † symbol is used to indicate a footnote if an asterisk has been already used.
However, it seems to make them feel smart. Let’s give it to them.
Section 4.1.2 – Membership Good Standing: An owner of land within the SBRD is in Good Standing when; the SBRD annual flat per landowner tax levy in Special Assessment District 113,due annually on or before April 30th and collected by the Custer County Treasurer in the current or any previous year, is (are) not currently delinquent.
This is the one we were waiting for. So happy to see they put it in writing. It will make it a lot easier to prove to the court. This one will be shown with another one they include a bit later. Hang tight. We’ll get to it.
Page 2!
Section 4.2 – Member Responsibilities: Water run-off and road safety
- Water runoff from the landowner’s property shall be directed away from the SBRD Public Rightof-ways and toward natural terrain drainage or into the road edge drainage easement.
- Grading or alteration of the Public Right-of-Way road surface by a landowner requires prior
approval from the SBRD Trustees. - Driveway approach culverts and access grade from the SBRD Public Right-of-ways shall be
maintained by the landowner to the Custer County standards at installation. - Vehicles shall reduce speed during adverse road conditions or in the presence of authorized
maintenance personnel/equipment, or when pedestrians or horses are in the Public Right-of-Way.
Numbers 1 and 2, I will look at a bit more closely, a bit later. I don’t think they are legal demands. And the last two directives are just restating statute. So, basically this is just more nonsense. What is funny here is the inclusion that approaches will be the responsibility of the landowner, which is exactly what we said the law was when Dale told us to our face that the county told him that perhaps the road district would be held financially responsible for landowners with incorrect approaches. Hmm… isn’t it interesting how so many of our responses to their nonsense suddenly become doctrine.
And now we move on to the real gut busters. It is clear from the inclusion of this entire section that not one person on the board or advising the board back there, understood ANYTHING that was said concerning Open Meeting Laws, either in the many links we provided or the cut and paste or the letter from the Custer County State Attorney.
When I forwarded these bylaws to various offices and departments, I drew particular attention to this section. It is simply fraught with issue. Once again, the board interprets (incorrectly) the Open Meeting laws and restates them, rather than simply copy and pasting the actual statute.
Article V – Meetings
Section 5.1 – Meetings: Meetings of the SBRD shall be held in accordance with §SDCL 1-25-1.
- All meetings shall be called and directed by a quorum of the three SBRD Trustees.
- The Secretary/Treasurer shall ensure records of proceedings of annual and Trustee Board
meetings, proceedings, ordinances, orders, resolutions, rules, and regulations are kept in
accordance with §SDCL31-12A-20. - Meetings may be:
a. Open
b. Ministerial
c. Executive - Special meetings of the Board for any purpose may be called at any time by the president, or a
majority Trustees. - Quorum. A majority of the Board present at a meeting shall constitute a quorum, for transaction
of business.
Let’s just start with a link to the chapter- SDCL 1-25, MEETINGS OF PUBLIC AGENCIES (Open Meeting Laws).
And then let’s include the brochure written in Layman’s Terms.
The above and what follows is simply the board’s attempt at chaff and redirect. They use a lot of words that sound important, and most people just assume they know what they are doing. The rest of us read their gobbledygook and see that they are just doubling down on their meaningless jargon. At the same time, they leave out what is really important to the members, which is our rights.
This entire section, as the rest of these bylaws, reads as if someone is simply trying to keep members from partaking in local government. “This is what we can do and you are not part of it.” “We don’t have to do ANY of this, that you might think we have to do, but we don’t…” This entire document reads like a journal of a power tripper. Hmm… who does that sound like?
These are not the words of people who are here to serve us. These are the words of people in position to serve themselves. People who want to keep secrets. People who like to scurry about in the darkness.
You know… cockroaches.
The entire section, is willful misinterpretation or utter incompetence. My suggestion is to just read the statutes and the brochure. And pay attention for upcoming formal complaints concerning Open Meeting violations.
Page 3- The Meetings section continues.
Again, I’ve already gone into meetings repeatedly. Just go check out SDCL 1-25, and the brochure, both of which I’ve linked to several times. This entire section is one big issue.
Article VI – Board of Trustees
Section 6.1 – Initial Election: On January 10, 2016, an initial election was duly conducted for the purpose of electing three (3) trustees to serve on the Board of Trustees of the Road District. The initial Board of Trustees shall serve staggered terms of one (1), two (2) and three (3) years.
This is another one of those times they included something fairly innocuous with no real meaning. There is no reason to include this section. But it takes up space and sounds good.
Section 6.2– Election of Officers: Future Trustees shall serve three (3) year terms upon their election in accordance with the provisions outlined in SDCL 31-12A-16. Nominees for each Trustee officer position shall meet the qualification standard for an active Trustee to serve in that office:
Uhm… no. Once again, the Board is purposefully misstating the statute so that the board can decide who is elected. If the Board really wanted to be transparent (a word they apparently learned from me, but has been misusing ever since) they would simply quote the entire law, without adding random phrases such as “…shall meet the qualification standard for an active Trustee to serve in that office…”
Including it here makes it sound like this is law. But No, it isn’t. Simply more obfuscation from the Board which will do whatever it can to hold onto the control of the district.
The actual statute is : 31-12A-16. Election of trustees at large–Terms of office–Annual elections.
There shall be elected from among the eligible voters of the district at the first election of a road district, held pursuant to § 6-16-5 or 6-16-5.2, three trustees at large, who shall respectively hold their offices, one for a term of one year, one for a term of two years, and one for a term of three years. The person having the highest number of votes shall serve for a term of three years, the person receiving the second highest number of votes shall serve for a term of two years, and the person receiving the third highest number of votes shall serve for a term of one year, and such persons shall be declared elected to such offices. Thereafter, in accordance with §§ 31-12A-15 and 31-12A-15.1, there shall be elected annually one trustee for a term of three years. The judges shall subscribe and certify a statement of the persons elected to fill the offices of trustees in the road district and file the statement with the county auditor within ten days after the date of the election.
Again, let’s just stick with the actual statute and not the willful or incompetent misinterpretation of it.
Page 4-
This is the second part of that section 6.2.
- Section 4.1.2 membership in good standing,
- No history of actions that intended to cause harm to SBRD operations,
- No actions/activities which present a conflict of interest,
- The ability of such perspective officer to perform duties in accordance with applicable statutes, bylaws, and procedures.
No. Just No. Not lawful, but so glad they put it in writing. I also have our statements to the Board clearly stating these are unlawful well before they made them bylaws. I’m hopeful that showing this action is wanton will increase fines. And let’s face it, that’s the only thing these people and their followers will listen to.
Section 6.2.1- Terms of Officers: Officer Trustees shall serve staggered three-year terms and until their successors are elected. If an officer’s position is vacated prior to the end of their three-year term, the successor to that office shall serve until the end of the vacated officer’s term and until their successors are elected.
This is again a restatement of law. Why not just share the law, instead of their interpretation of it? Well, perhaps because they don’t want you to know what the actual law states. The actual law, like most of them, is for OUR protection, and not the Board’s.
The actual chapter is SDCL 3-4 VACANCIES IN OFFICE. I have already copy and pasted the statutes that pertain to us, possibly a few times on this site. The most important parts here and elsewhere, are that trustees are considered officers, officers cannot be ousted by the other trustees, and IF an officer left office before their term was up, that office must be filled unless less than 30 days to the regular election.
Which is why Crystal Farrokhi is still a target for a lawsuit. As much as they want to impress upon us that we cannot sue her (or every single one of them individually), it’s simply not true. We can. And we will. But I’ll get to that ridiculous bylaw in a minute. This one and the one above, just shows quite clearly the stranglehold the board is trying to place on anybody else running for office. They have made this a closed system. Anybody THEY deem to have caused harm, cannot run for office. This is completely unlawful. No question. The law states you simply must be a landowner within the district.
Section 6.3- Positions on Board of Trustees: The officers of the Board of Trustees shall consist of three positions: President, Secretary and Treasurer.
Another useless bylaw. But it sounds innocuous and takes the brunt off the others.
Section 6.4 – Public property and accounts to be delivered to successor in office: Per §SDCL 3-14-2, at the expiration of term, death, resignation, suspension, or removal from office, a Trustees shall forthwith deliver to his successor in office all public money, books, records, accounts, papers, documents and property belonging or appertaining to such office.
This one made me chuckle again. When I left office in 2020, and Dale took it in an unlawful election, spearheaded by Crystal Farrokhi, he started creating folders.
Did you ever see the movie Inner Space? Do you remember the part where the two villains were shrunk down to 50% and he is standing on her shoulders and they are trying to make a phone call…she says something like, “all BIG men have credit cards.” That scene reminds me of Dale and Crystal.
Dale created folders because it’s something important people would do. So, he downloaded and printed a bunch of statutes, some chapters that had absolutely nothing to do with us, but were specifically for municipalities. Other things were Roberts Rules of Order, and some sort of handbook for municipalities… again, neither of which really correlate to us. I’ll tell you about Robert’s Rules later.
Anyway, the statutes he printed that did pertain to us, he made notes on. Again, I’ve already shared all that. What I find funny here is that our lawful president, Joel Bingen, mentioned them to me when all this hit the fan last year. He then gave me a copy to look through, and do what I wanted, as it was public record, or should be. And I copied it a few times and shared it here, to show just whom we were dealing with.
So, the knuckleheads have the shyster lawyer mention these folders, but call it a binder, and ‘demand the files from me.’ I had no legal obligation to give them anything, however, they did have a legal obligation to provide the records I was seeking. They also didn’t simply ask about the records. Nope, they tried to use public records as bargaining chip for copies of other public records that were already published.
At no time did they ever ask Joel about them after the blow up. They just kept poking me for them. And I kept chuckling and ignoring them. Then they finally pressured the state attorney to ‘demand those records.’ Whereupon, she learned that Joel is the lawful sitting president and that Bob Hummel is usurping the position, which is a class 1 misdemeanor.
In case you are rolling your eyes at that statement, 3-1-9. Falsely pretending to be public officer as misdemeanor.
Every person who shall falsely assume or pretend to be any public executive or administrative officer, or who shall knowingly take upon himself to act as such, or to require any person to act as such, or assist him in any matter pertaining to such office, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
And how does Bob know he is not the lawfully elected officer. Because we told him. Several times. Starting right after the unlawful election. So, he has continued in that position. I think that lawsuit, if we pursue it civilly and not file a formal complaint for criminal charges, would be after the Crystal Farrokhi. That legal action lays the foundation for the next one.
However, moving on. This one nearly had us rolling.
Section 6.5 – Immunity of volunteers of non-profit organizations and government entities: Per §SDCL 47-23-9, Trustees are immune from civil liability in any court in this state on the basis of any act or omission resulting in damages or injury if the volunteer Trustee was acting in good faith and the action was not caused by gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
Do you remember when I eviscerated the last bylaws in the section of “powers of trustees’, where they literally referred to a completely different statute that had absolutely nothing to do with powers of trustees? I had hoped that shining a light on that evidence of incompetence or laziness… or both, would inspire these people to try a bit harder. Clearly I gave them far too much credit. These are the same people that misspelled Joel.
This time they refer to SDCL 47-23-9, which has absolutely nothing to do with immunity of volunteers, blah blah blah. Nothing. Click it. See for yourself. It’s on voting procedure. Proxy Ballots.
Seriously!
Which statute might they have wanted… hmmm… let me do the thinking for them, since clearly they are not ready for such activity. Perhaps it was 47-23-29. Immunity of volunteers of nonprofit organizations, free clinics, certain hospitals, and governmental entities.
The key here is the second stipulation- gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. Hmm… what could that mean? I wonder if something like, and I’m just spitballin’ here, breaking the law might qualify as willful and wanton misconduct.
Oh, but I hear you cry, “They didn’t know!!”
And the resounding response is, “ignorance of the law is no excuse. It is their responsibility to learn what laws pertain to their actions, and then follow them.” Just like the rest of us out here. In fact, I’d say this burden is heavier for anybody in office. Anybody with the power to take people’s money and homes. And certainly anybody who had been told numerous times what the law was, directed to it, linked to it, shown screenshots of it, received copy/pasted text of it, should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us.
Moving on.
Section 6.6 – Powers of Trustees: Pursuant to §SDCL 31-12A-21 and 31-12A-22, the Board of Trustees
are empowered to:
- Appoint a treasurer and a clerk, an engineer, attorney, and other employees for the road district and fix their compensation. These Trustee/officers shall hold their respective offices at the pleasure of the board, and be bonded for the faithful performance of their duties as may be required by the board;
- Sue and be sued and contract in the name of the district;
- Adopt a corporate seal;
- Construct roadways and maintain them;
- Borrow money, levy taxes, and special assessments, and issue bonds pursuant to § 31-12A-23;
- Establish speed and weight limits and other restrictions on roads under the road district’s jurisdiction;
- Pass all necessary ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, and regulations for the proper management and conduct of the business of said road district, and to carry into effect the ordinances, orders, resolutions, rules, and regulations of said road district for the business for which such district is formed.
Well, clearly somebody has been reading this blog. They did make a couple of the suggested changes, however they still are only sharing what is in the board’s best interests and not the parts of statutes that protect our rights.
The key parts to note here are #4, Construct roadways and maintain them; because this does NOT include improvement. Every single improvement made was unlawful and they can be held liable. As we said… repeatedly. It’s on the list of potential legal action, but there is some low-hanging fruit to take out first. And as I corrected above, yes… yes you can be sued in your individual capacity if the action you took was outside the law… and let’s be honest. Just about every single thing this board has ever done has been outside the law. A large binder of most of those actions was filed with the formal complaint requesting the dissolution of the road district.
Next note is #5 Borrow money, levy taxes, and special assessments, and issue bonds pursuant to § 31-12A-23.
Yes. Levy taxes and/or special assessments. Clearly they are not the same thing. They are really struggling with this one, but so is the county. There are two forms. One is a levy and the other is a special assessment. Now let’s revisit this nonsense of the flat fee, which is neither a special assessment or a levy.
‘…SBRD annual flat per landowner tax levy in Special Assessment District 113.’
Again, I will say that it does not make sense that the SDCL 9-43 chapter goes on and on about steps necessary to impose a special assessment, however no rules whatsoever about a special maintenance fee, which is what they said it was in one of their numerous frivolous motions filed with the court. Also, if you go to the Department of Revenue site, they have a PDF download on the difference between a levy and a special assessment and how to impose each of them. But nothing about a flat fee.
Nope. Nothing.
The ‘issue bonds’ part is troubling because they do not follow ANY of the laws correctly and here they refer us to a statute which in turn refers us to another… whereby they can force any of us out of our homes.
“Oh,” I hear you say, “but there are statutes there to protect us from malicious action or unlawful process.
Yeah… there are. And after this many years, and THIS many pages of sharing their utter refusal to follow laws, and the fact that the county and state are incompetent in protecting us as well… do you see the concern? If you don’t, or you don’t care… I’m gonna guess you voted for ‘look at me Dale’.
Anybody can read the Board’s bylaws and interpretation of statutes and see that we residents are in danger and they are in this for themselves.
#7 Pass all necessary ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, and regulations for the proper management and conduct of the business of said road district, and to carry into effect the ordinances, orders, resolutions, rules, and regulations of said road district for the business for which such district is formed.
This is a can of worms. It is very clear that they pass whatever they want, with no notice or input from us. Just read through these bylaws, you can see it is not going to change. They will continue to do whatever they want. And it’s all ok, cuz they put it in a bylaw. That’s who we are dealing with.
This next one is very telling,
Section 6.7 – President: Subject to the control of the Board, the president shall be the general manager of the Road District and shall supervise, direct, and control the organization’s activities, affairs, and officers. The president shall preside at all Board meetings. The president shall have such other powers and duties as the Board or bylaws may prescribe.
“Control.” Yep. That about says it all. There is already a statute regarding the “powers of the president”, but it clearly did not provide the level of power these people seek. This is the statute.
31-12A-18. Trustees not compensated–Election of president. The members of the board of trustees shall serve without compensation. They shall organize by electing one of their number president, whose duty it shall be to preside over all meetings of said board and to call all special meetings of said board when he or a majority of said board deems such meeting necessary and, in case said president should fail or refuse to call such meeting or meetings, then such meeting or meetings may be called by a majority of said board.
This statute also clearly states that you don’t run for a position. The positions are figured out later and can change. That’s the way it is supposed to happen. We’ve said that several times. Still, they refuse to hear.
Section 6.8 – Secretary: The secretary shall keep:
A) Books of meeting notes. The secretary shall keep the notes of all meetings, proceedings, and actions of the Board, and of committees of the Board. The minutes of the meetings shall include the time and place that the meeting was held, whether the meeting was annual or special, and if special, how authorized, the notice given, and the names of those present at the Board or committee meetings.
While this list sounds like a good start, it has no meaning when the Board doesn’t know what a meeting is, nor when it has to be open. Just refresh your memory and scroll up and re-read that section on meetings. This was written and voted on after the ‘investigation’ and the complaint was forwarded to the Open Meeting Commission. And these people are STILL are in denial. They are still telling members they were right. And the members don’t bother to click the links to the truth. It’s easier to live in that neighborhood if you just believe.
Page 5-
B) The Secretary shall serve as Election Clerk. For elections where the Secretary position is being filled, a Trustee, whose term is not expiring shall serve as the Election Clerk at the Annual Meeting.
Since the statute dictates that we are simply voting for trustees and not particular positions, this is some muddy nonsense. I know, they like to put their own spin on the law.
C) Notices, Seal and Other Duties. The secretary shall give notice of all meetings of the Board and of committees of the Board and of the general membership. The secretary shall keep the seal of the organization as well as any copies of the articles of incorporation and bylaws as amended to date.
<shrug> ok. When the secretary actually does this, I’ll do a jig.
Section 6.9 – Treasurer: The treasurer shall keep:
A) Books of Accounts. The treasurer shall maintain adequate and correct books and accounts of the Association’s properties and transactions. The treasurer shall send or cause to be given to the members such financial statements and reports as are required to be given by law, by these bylaws, or by the Board. The books of account shall be open to visual inspection by any member in good standing, at all reasonable times. No images shall be made or provided of the SBRD bank account number, Trustee signatures, proprietary information and information exempted from disclosure by §SDCL 1-27-1.5 through 1-27-1.10.
The problem with this one is the Board doesn’t know what is required. The part about being ‘in good standing’ is unlawful. The board cannot put more requirements on a person than the law has. Any member of the public can see the records. Period. The Board doesn’t know what is exempt. They just make up bylaws as they wish the state law really was.
But it’s not.
B) Deposit and Disbursement of Money and Valuables. The treasurer shall deposit all money and other valuables in the name and to the credit of the Road District with such depositories as the Board may designate, shall disburse the organization’s funds as the Board may order, shall render to the president and the Board, when requested, an account of all transactions as treasurer and of the financial condition of the organization, and shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board or bylaws may prescribe.
Again leaving off OUR rights. It should say- “…shall render to the MEMBERS, when requested, an account of all transactions…” But as we know, the last thing this board will ever accept is transparency.
I still chuckle when they try to use big words like that, and clearly have no idea as to their meaning.
Section 6.10 – Use of Road District Funds: Any expenditure of Road District funds must be voted on and approved by motion, by a majority of the Board members. This vote may be conducted via electronic communication. Receipts for said purchases will need to be provided to the treasurer.
Yeah… AND it must be voted on in an OPEN MEETING. They really are not grasping this.
Section 6.11 – Removal of Officers: Trustees must maintain Section 4.1.2 membership in good standing throughout their term or be removed or resign from office . Any Trustee/officer may be removed for cause, by a majority vote of the Trustees at a meeting of Board members. Cause includes actions by a Trustee that cause harm to SBRD operations, resulting in a conflict of interest, or the inability of such Trustee/officer to perform duties in accordance with applicable statutes, bylaws, and procedures.
Yeah… No.
None of this is lawful. This is just the board trying to control everything and everybody. The board is already in trouble for actions it has taken based on the above. Eventually, the members are going to realize that the trouble and expense of the district is not our fault but the board’s.
Article VII – Finances
Section 7.1—Bank Accounts: The Board of Trustees shall be allowed to maintain such bank accounts as it deems necessary and proper in order to carry out the business of the Road District.
This is rather vague. While any other district could be assumed to have a regular/single bank account, as this group of people have repeatedly proven themselves to be dishonest and criminal, I have to wonder just how many accounts do these people need? And we already know that if we ask for records, they will deny them. So, the only way to know what accounts they have would be to get on the board. And we can’t do that, because every single one of us who has ever asked for the Board to answer for themselves, is by the board’s definition, ineligible for office. See how that works?
Section 7.2—Account Withdrawals: On any such bank account as is allowed by this section, there shall be documented approval from two Trustees on all such instruments of payments or withdrawal on any said account. When two Trustees are unavailable to cosign on the actual instrument, the same may be accomplished by use of an email approval, which should be attached to the instrument by the Treasurer.
Yeah, they changed this several years ago, and it was a bad idea then. It just makes it even easier for individuals to withdraw money. Oh, but you say, “there still needs to be two signatures, so it is just as secure as it was.” Uhm.. no. That’s not true based on what this bylaw states. This is just a bylaw, which carries no legal weight. We need to know that the bank will require proof of two signatures. There is already concern that any one of these ‘trustees’ can simply a write a check for anything, because they refuse to provide access to actual public records. They literally print out a list of expenses THEY wrote up and call it good. No wonder they are doing all they can to keep us from office or getting records. They’ve actually written into the bylaws that we cannot see actual records.
Yup… nothing to see here. Move along.
Section 7.3 – Conflicts of Interest: Trustees shall abide by all requirements of SDCL 31-12A-24, which prohibit individual gain from Road District activities and financial disbursements.
Hmm… is that really what that statute says?
31-12A-24. Trustee and employee interest in contracts or other dealings of district prohibited–Exception.
No trustee or employee of a road district may be directly or indirectly interested in any contract, work, or business of the district, or the sale of any article, the expense, price, or cost of which is paid by the district, nor in the purchase of any real, personal, or other property belonging to the district, or which shall be sold for taxes or assessments, or by virtue of legal process at the suit of the district. No trustee may be a joint or co-owner of land in the road district with an employee of the same road district. This section does not apply to any trustee or employee of a district consisting of less than twenty-five residents for a winter road maintenance contract or work.
Interesting. Anybody who is no longer a trustee… can not benefit, but golly if you step down for a bit, you can pretty much do what you want. Then you could run again, and your buddies who are on the board are counting the votes, and one of them steps down…. I think I see a pattern here. And again, anybody THEY DEEM as having had any negative impact on the district, like a lawsuit, or calling the board out publicly, can’t run for office.
At least that’s what they want us to think. We know this is BS, and another lawsuit. A lawsuit the board would likely call meritless and frivolous and hire a shyster lawyer, in a secret meeting, and tell the members that this group of people over here are just trouble makers.
Certainly not the people continually breaking laws.
Section 7.4 – Liability Management:
A) Trustees will require all supplier/provider contracts or Statements of Work (SOWs) to contain a binding non-disclosure acknowledgement/agreement.
<chuckle> Clearly somebody is reading this blog. So, apparently it was not ‘scope’ of work. So, how does a non-disclosure agreement correlate to liability? Sure sounds important, though. Leave aside that the Board would, by law, have to provide access to all these documents, because… say it with me… they are public documents.
Page 6!!! Thank God… last page.
B) Trustees will require all suppliers/providers to provide proof of appropriate liability insurance, prior to formal engagement.
And… what might that ‘appropriate liability insurance’ be?
C) In the case of a liability incident, SBRD Trustees will make no public statements, prior to immediately contacting its 3rd party insurance provider for consultation.
Ok.
Article VIII – Parliamentary Authority
Section 8 – Rules of Order: The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Saddleback Road District in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules the Saddleback Road District may adopt.
<rolling of eyes> So, more words that don’t actually have meaning because when it comes right down to it, they mean whatever the board wants them to at any given moment. Much like the rest of this ‘document’.
Article IX– Amendment
These bylaws may be amended by the Board of Trustees from time to time in any fashion which the Board sees fit, in order to carry out the purpose of the Road District. Such Amendments shall become effective upon passage by a majority vote of the Eligible Voters at an Annual or Special Meeting of the Saddleback Road District.
And again, these bylaws should not amended by the board. It defeats the purpose of having them. I do find it interesting that after 4 years of the Board amending them at will, as they wished, with no notice to members, that they are finally bringing members back into the process (again, someone has been reading this blog and taking notes. Good for you), however, this entire document is clearly written by the board and for the board with no protection, or as little as absolutely possible, to the members. This document makes it very clear that board does not see our relationship as it should. That we are above the board. That the board answers to us. That it works for us. It serves us. That statutes and bylaws exist to protect us, not allow the board to continue as it wishes with no accountability.
However, bylaws that are not lawful by statute have no legal weight and simply are begging to be part of yet another legal action.
That list continues.