Can the Shannon County Board of Commissioners conduct business if fewer than three of its five members attend a meeting, given the long travel distances to meetings in Hot Springs, and what options exist when assembling a quorum is impractical?
Plain-English summary
Shannon County (one of the geographically largest counties in South Dakota, overlapping most of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, with no incorporated municipality of its own) holds its commission meetings in Hot Springs, the county seat of neighboring Fall River County. The average one-way travel distance for each of the five commissioners is 78 miles. Getting three commissioners to show up at any given meeting is logistically hard, particularly in winter or during agricultural busy seasons.
The 1994 AG answered two questions.
First, can the board conduct business without a quorum? No. SDCL 2-14-15 establishes the default rule for public officers: "Words giving a joint authority to three or more public officers or other persons are construed as giving such authority to a majority of them unless it is otherwise expressed in the act giving the authority." For a five-member board, a majority is three. Three members are required to be present for a quorum, and three affirmative votes are required to take any official action. The 1994 AG drew on AGR 87-18 (the State Library Board) and AGR 89-34 as parallel applications of this principle.
If the board lacks a quorum at a meeting, it must reschedule. There is no shortcut.
Second, what options exist? SDCL 1-25-1 was the answer. The statute authorizes meetings of public boards "created by statute" to be held by teleconference, subject to specific procedural requirements (notice, public access, recording, etc.). For a board like Shannon County's where physical travel is a recurring obstacle, the teleconference option is the practical remedy.
The opinion ends with a warning. SDCL 1-25-1's procedural details exist to make teleconference meetings legal and to preserve the public's right to attend or follow. The Shannon County board must "adhere strictly to the requirements of the statute." A teleconference meeting that does not follow the statutory procedure is not a valid meeting and cannot produce valid official action.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. SDCL 1-25-1 has been amended multiple times since 1994 to address teleconference details (e.g., video conferencing, electronic posting, emergency procedures during public health events). Shannon County itself was renamed Oglala Lakota County in 2015. The quorum and majority-action principles from SDCL 2-14-15 have remained stable, but the technical requirements for teleconference meetings should be checked against current law before any modern county board relies on this opinion.
What the opinion meant at the time
For the Shannon County Board of Commissioners in 1994, the opinion gave a clear path: keep trying to assemble a quorum for important in-person meetings, and use teleconference under SDCL 1-25-1 for routine business when travel was impractical.
For other rural SD county commissions facing similar travel-distance issues, the opinion confirmed that teleconference was a legitimate option statewide, subject to strict procedural compliance.
For SD county states' attorneys advising boards on quorum issues, the opinion gave the structural answer: SDCL 2-14-15 sets the default, and that default has not been overridden by any county-specific statute.
For SD public meetings law watchers and citizens of counties with rural boards, the opinion reaffirmed that the public's right to know operates equally on in-person and teleconference meetings, with the procedural rules in SDCL 1-25-1 providing the access framework.
Common questions
Q: What is a quorum for a SD county commission?
A: A majority of the board members. For a five-member board, three. For a three-member board, two. SDCL 2-14-15 sets this default in the absence of a different rule in the county's organic statute.
Q: How many votes are needed to take action?
A: A majority of the board members, not just a majority of those present. For a five-member board, three affirmative votes are required regardless of how many members attend.
Q: Can a teleconference replace in-person meetings?
A: SDCL 1-25-1 authorizes teleconference meetings for public boards. The statute's procedural requirements (notice, public access, recording) must be strictly followed.
Q: Does teleconference work for sensitive items like personnel matters?
A: Open-meeting rules apply equally to teleconference and in-person meetings. Executive sessions, when statutorily authorized, can proceed by teleconference subject to the usual restrictions.
Q: What happens to a vote taken without a quorum?
A: The vote is not valid official action. The board would need to reschedule and re-vote with a quorum present.
Q: Can the Shannon County board move its meeting location to be more central?
A: That is a board-policy decision within the county's authority, not addressed by this opinion. The opinion's analysis assumes Hot Springs as the meeting location.
Q: Are there exceptions to the quorum requirement for emergency action?
A: SDCL 1-25-1 has been amended over the years to address emergencies. The 1994 opinion did not separately address emergency action. Check current statute.
Q: Where can I find the procedural details for a valid teleconference meeting?
A: SDCL 1-25-1 itself, as amended. Counties commonly adopt internal rules implementing the statute, but the statute is the floor.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota counties are creatures of the state Legislature with delegated authority to govern within their boundaries. County commissions are the principal governing bodies, with member counts (typically three or five) set by statute and local conditions. The five-member board structure is common in larger or more populous counties; the three-member is common in smaller counties.
Quorum and voting rules across SD public boards default to SDCL 2-14-15: joint authority granted to three or more officers is exercised by a majority unless the granting statute says otherwise. This default applies to county commissions, school boards, state commissions, and other multi-member public bodies. The Legislature can override the default for specific boards (some boards require supermajority votes for specific actions), but the default holds where no override exists.
The teleconference authority in SDCL 1-25-1 was added to accommodate the practical reality of rural board membership. Many SD counties cover thousands of square miles. Requiring all members to physically assemble for every meeting creates real burdens that can deter qualified people from serving. The teleconference statute lets the board meet through technology while preserving the open-meetings transparency principles built into SD law.
The 1994 AG's analysis is short because the questions had simple statutory answers. The contribution is the application of the general rules to the Shannon County facts and the explicit recommendation to use the teleconference option.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 1-25-1 (teleconference meetings)
- SDCL 2-14-15 (majority rule for joint authority of public officers)
Prior AG opinions referenced:
- Official Opinion No. 87-18 (State Library Board quorum and voting)
- Official Opinion No. 89-34 (parallel application of majority rule)
Source
Original opinion text
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 94-15
Membership at county commission meetings
Dear Mr. Ginsbach:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office based upon the following factual background:
FACTS:
Shannon County has a five-person board of county commissioners. The board's meetings are held in Hot Springs, which represents an average travel distance of seventy-eight miles one way for each commissioner. Since it is a five commissioner board, three commissioners are required to form a quorum.
QUESTIONS:
-
Are the commissioners authorized to handle commission business if there is no quorum present, or must they continue to reschedule meetings until a quorum is present, regardless of how many trips it takes?
-
If the answer to Question No. 1 is "yes, they must reschedule meetings," do the members of the commission have any options?
IN RE QUESTION NO. 1:
A thorough examination of the South Dakota Code shows that no statutes related to county commissions specifically address any requirement that a quorum of county commissioners be present to conduct business. SDCL 2-14-15, however, generally addresses the matter for a wide range of public entities. It states, "Words giving a joint authority to three or more public officers or other persons are construed as giving such authority to a majority of them unless it is otherwise expressed in the act giving the authority." Consequently, as an initial point, at least a "majority" of the county commissioners ("public officers") must be present to conduct any official action.
The next logical issue is the number of votes necessary to make an official decision, once a quorum is present. Again, the statute requires a "majority" vote of the "public officers" (commissioners) in order to exercise their "joint authority." In Official Opinion No. 87-18, my predecessor examined the seven-member State Library Board. He determined that a quorum of that board "consists of four duly appointed and acting members" and, further, "there must be at least four affirmative votes in order for the Board to take any official action." See also Official Opinion No. 89-34. Thus, I conclude that three members of the county's five-member board must be present to form a quorum and, further, three must vote in agreement in order to take any official action.
The answer to your first question is "Yes, meetings must be rescheduled absent a quorum."
IN RE QUESTION NO. 2:
The problem faced by the Shannon County Board of Commissioners is not unique. In response to similar travel problems faced by many public boards and commissions, SDCL 1-25-1 now authorizes such meetings to be held by teleconference. The statute addresses, among various situations, "the official meetings of boards . . . created by statute." In addition to authorizing such meetings by teleconference, the statute also outlines particular details to be followed in order to make such meetings official and legal. I suggest that the public meeting teleconference provisions be utilized as necessary by the Shannon County Board of Commissioners and, further, that the Board adhere strictly to the requirements of the statute.
Respectfully submitted,
MARK BARNETT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MB/WAH/db