SPEARFISH - After more than two years of waiting, Lawrence County officials got good news from the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission.

Greg Nepstad of the Nemo Fire Department challenged a 2005 county commission procedure when the commission dissolved the Lawrence County Fire Advisory Board. However, commission handed down a decision Aug. 4 that exonerates the county from any wrongdoing.

The commission - five state's attorneys from South Dakota - forms a consensus on the matters brought to them. The current members are John Steele, chairman, Aurora County; Lisa Rothschadl, Bon Homme County, Vaughn Beck, Edmunds County, Glenn Brenner, Pennington County, and Mark Reedstrom, Grant County. Assistant Attorney General Diane Best is assigned to assist the board with procedural matters.

The Open Meetings Commission said the county followed its legal obligations to keep the public informed of special meetings and allowed public attendance at all meetings in question.

Nepstad said the commission, led in 2005 by Bob Ewing, imposed a deadline for the county's fire departments to adopt commission-directed bylaws. Nepstad said the majority of the county departments disagreed with the county's rewrite of the bylaws and refused to ratify them.

The commission's deadline for ratification was April 26, 2005, the same day as the commission's regular meeting.

Nepstad said that without any formal listing on the county's meeting agenda, the commission voted to dissolve the fire advisory board.

Lawrence County deputy state's attorney Bruce Outka defended the commission's action, saying that the departments were aware of the deadline and the consequences of not adopting the new rules.

The decision for Lawrence County wasn't unanimous. Commissioner John Steele wrote a dissenting opinion, saying he was uncomfortable with the county's action because the county commission's agenda should have carried a specific item about the fire board discussion.

"I don't know of any reason why it could not have been on the agenda if it was going to be acted on," he said. "Perhaps it was just overlooked when the agenda was prepared. If that is the case, and there was no urgency in considering it, it should have been postponed to the next meeting and properly listed on the agenda for that meeting."