See statements, below, from Legal Brief filed June 17, 2020 on behalf of David Tuntland Here. Also, find Notice of court hearing on Motions Here.
“…the 20-day Plaintiff {sic. Lincoln County} seeks to apply is only applicable to quasi-judicial decisions, and does not apply to legislative acts such as the Resolution here, where the Resolution affects “taxpayers or the public generally,” like Tuntland.”
Such quasi-judicial decisions (where the 20 day time to appeal applies) are county actions like tax appeals, conditional use permits, assessments, zoning decisions, etc.
“Tuntland’s expressed challenges to the Resolution are that it was not properly noticed, and it was not passed by a sufficient number of votes-a “super majority.” “
“The board did not have the “power” to pass a resolution as it did in this case-with only sixty percent-it needed “more.” Further, SDCL 6-8B requires approval by the “voters,” that is, the Lincoln County voters, and they have been denied an opportunity to vote on the Resolution. The running of 20 days from the date of publication of the illegal Resolution cannot absolve the illegal and void Resolution of its illegal passage.”
This is all important, because in this letter to the Commissioners of April 3, 2020, Tuntland’s Attorney reminded them that,
“SDCL §7-21-27 confirms:
“All officers, boards, and members of boards, employees, and all other persons authorizing, contracting, or incurring, or attempting to authorize, contract, or incur any indebtedness or liability for or in behalf of any county or any institution or agency thereof in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or auditing, allowing, ordering paid, drawing, or issuing warrants in payment of, or paying any claims or demands upon or against a county or any institution or agency thereof, for any liability or indebtedness attempted to be created or incurred in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be jointly and severally liable in person and on their official bonds to the county or to the institution or agency thereof of which they are officers or employees, to the extent of any payment or payments made on such void claims.””
{Bold face added}.
“The individual liability of the officers has been upheld by the South Dakota Attorney General. See, 1977 S.D. Op. Att’y Gen. 69 (1977) (upholding the specific ways in which the county can make obligations binding itself into the future through issuing bonds or other, and that when the county commissioners do not follow those procedures they are subject to individual liability).” {Bold face added}.
Tuntland further argues that his 1st Amendment rights have been violated when the county filed a complaint against him in court, merely because he wrote the majority Commissioners and asked them to pass such a funding Resolution in accordance with South Dakota law. This is wrong!
Meanwhile here are Lincoln County’s Briefs and Motions. Here Here and Here.