Clean and Open government act makes the ballot

Almost as nutty as the JAIL-for-Judges amendment.

Oh. Right. Duane Sands is behind this one, too. The tin-foil-hat wearing dude running for congress in North Dakota.

If the gov would have just signed the (bipartisan) financial transparency bill there would be no issue.

smooooth move gov and cronies. have fun with this one.

#2, I’m curious how this initiative is in any way related to that bill. Please explain the similarities.

6:57 - They were almost finished collecting signatures for this before Rounds even vetoed that bill.

This bill is very bad for two broad reasons:
1 - The first part would cripple the ability of cities, counties, and school districts to advocate for their causes in the legisature. It makes sense to hire someone to be “your man” (or woman) in Pierre - to track what is going on, speak on your behalf, and ask members of your group (ie Commissioners) to come to Pierre when necessary.
2 - The state could probably consider some rules about state contracts and political gifts, but the language of this bill is so broad and sweeping that it will disqualify a high number of people from making political gifts. Supporting political campaigns is something that, generally, people should be able to do unless there is a good reason to disallow it.

You’re right guy/gal #3, “a simple, searchable website with information on all state contracts…” has no similarities to the website proposal from the legislature this year. The bill the governor vetoed, right?

This petition is a mess and will likely pass because our state government couldn’t throw the taxpayers a bone and tell us where they’re spending our money. Gov Mike and the infamous 12 or 13 deserve to have this petition slapped upside their heads, but not before they spend $650,000 trying to oppose it.

It would have been smarter to have signed the bill. Ask the pushers, maybe they wouldn’t have resorted to the petition which goes much further.

I think this would have been filed regardless of what Rounds did, because it is far more extensive and the pushers seem especially keen on the part that bans local units of government from hiring lobbyists.

It is something that will have to be opposed, but its title make opposition difficult to explain.

This is a stupid, over-reaching, and horribly liberal (command, control, and forbid) approach to open government.

We need to kill this thing and come back next session with the financial website and better open records (both if which WILL pass next year). Keep your eye on the ball, people . . . don’t get confused by the bright, shiny, and stupid object that is this initiative.

I should just say that this is a solution without the problem. Look at the release’s first three points:

*Taxpayer funds could not be used to lobby or campaign for partisan political agendas, including increased taxes.
*Legislators and their staff would be unable to use their legislative positions to secure a “golden-parachute”, state-contracted job.
*The “pay to play” system — where state contracts are traded for campaign donations — would be outlawed

All three statements assume problems that I don’t think are occuring. This means that the initiative takes very broad steps, which cause important practical disruptions to the functioning of our state government, without any positive result.

The best approach to contracts/donations is full open disclosure of both. That is already present for donations, and to the extent that it is not for contracts we should change it.

I agree this is bad deal. It’s far reaching and overboard.

It’s also in our lap, at least in part, because the governor’s office and a majority in the legislature have opposed open-government legislation.

It looks to shut down executive lobby-efforts. Don’t think that’s a direct poke at second floor & the establishment? People are pissed. That’s why we have this mess.

Who is actually behind this?

I am all for the web site but the rest of this bill is over kill.

Is this a part of the Sands-Breard-Gant Trioka?

troika

Anon Number 1 did you read Initiated Measure #10 and House Bill 1233? Anon 5 (perhaps thats 1 again) states they are not similar but then goes on to equate them again. I think the biggest problem is the public does not actually read these things or does not understand them. Then the black helicopter crowd and the media throw out a few catch phrases and that’s all the public can digest. The only similarity between IM10 and HB1233 are the words “simple searchable website”. IM10 requires the holder of a government contract to provide some info to the Secretary of State to slap on this website. If anything this will drive contract costs up because the bidders will add any perceived costs of this to their bid. People will argue it would be cheap, and maybe it would be. But if they added a half-penny of tax to your gasoline who do you think would ultimately pay it and do you think it would be only half-a-penny? HB1233 did not require contracts to be posted. It listed a whole bunch of other stuff. IM10 ignores all that other stuff and has a whole bunch of utterly insane goofiness slathered across the top, and will smoother to death under the weight of its own ointment.

The idea that extremist will accept a half-loaf is ludicrous. They would only use it to justify “going all the way.” Rounds did the right thing to veto it and laid the political case that needs to be made:

We elect legislators to monitor the details. If they are failing, vote them out. We need to quit usurping their responsibilities if we want to expect them to do their job.

Troy,
How do we know if the legislature is failing if we can’t look at how the money is being spent? I’m sorry – it is my money, I deserve to know how the money is being used.

Your argument is much like stating that I’ve hired a stock broker to handle my money, and if I don’t like the way they are doing things, I can fire them…but that I shouldn’t be able to ask what stocks they are buying. This makes no sense. The state is spending my money; I should be able to quickly and easily see how, where, and when.

good point, mr. renli.

troy, i sure do respect you, but i hope you’re not calling somebody who supported hb 1233 an “extremist.”

what’s “extremist” about wanting to know how your tax dollars are being spent?

your point is a legitimate one, but is nearly impossible to uphold in the day and age of not just big but huge government. that might have worked when governments were small and workable, but not when were dealing with bloated budgets in the billions and trillions.

Mr. Renli,
I would just like to let you know that if you have a good legislature when you ask them how much of your money they spend on anything from the people who built the governors mansion to the people who do a great job plowing the interstate’s. I think we need to kill this bill, don’t get me wrong I think there should be a more modern way to get to what are taxpayer dollars or being spent on, but when your city or school board can’t lobby for some state funding for a project don’t come complaining to me when your taxes raise because they went through with a project that they couldn’t get part of the funding from the state. This is one reason the teachers recived a raise this year because the teachers lobbying, would you rather have a teachers strike? I guess if it was up to me I would rather have South Dakota’s kids in class learning, not seting around waiting for their teachers to stop striking. Lobbying by schools, and cities is something that should be supported by every citizen, and if you disagree with what your city or school is lobbying for please vote the people off the council or board. So please join me in voting against this bill and giving our cities and schools a voice.

Mr. Bryant, and the Anon responses above,

Have you read the text of Issue 10? Did you skip past Section 3 with the exceptions. Of course cities and boards need a voice, and of course the legislature needs information. Section 3 gaurentees that this will stil occur.

But what it also does is change the current system so that those cities and boards sending up a representattive to lobby for them will actually lobby for the position of the elected officials, and do hopefully do it so that the views of the elected officials on the legislation are public.

The current system makes big counties pay for lobbying efforts that they might be against when the association chooses the opposing side. The current system also hides the positions of the elected officials from the voters. Citizens who never know how the lobbyist for the elected official changed the course of a bill can not make an educated decision at the ballot box.

This will be a tough bill to go against, I think.

And telling people to just ‘vote the bums out’ doesn’t seem to be a particularly effective tactic, when it is so much easier to rally around something that sounds as simple as open government.

Melba Toast,

How could this ‘liberal’ petition have been successful in this Red State? ARe conservative Republicans that dumb?

Remli: you are so wrong I can’t help but laugh out loud.

Patti: this is not a bill

Yes I have read that but it is only valid if the state legislator invites cites or school boards to come speak on an issue. The way I look at Point 3 of Section 3 of INITIATIVE 10:
“(3)
Appearances and communications by a public officer or employee, pursuant to a request to appear before a public body to provide information;”

I look at this is appearances and communications be a public officer or employee (school board member, teacher, mayor, council person, etc.), pursuant to a request to appear before a public body to provide information.

This means if a public officer or employee goes in to lobby for higher pay, more funding for education, etc…Etc. This Public officer or employee receives a class 1 misdemeanor, unless they were invited by that public body.

Here is what I see happening with that. I see or legislator’s getting tired of hearing committee meetings and deciding to not invite anyone to discuss the issues and going into farther closed door discussions. Anyone who wants to lobby against them not inviting people to discuss issues and not decide the issue amongst themselves, well guess what they would receive a Class 1 misdemeanor. The reason is they weren’t invited to lobby, for them not deciding issues amongst themselves, by that public body. So if I don’t like how something is going at my city’s council meeting I better wait until the Mayor asks for public input because if I don’t I will be served a Class 1 misdemeanor. So what if the mayor doesn’t ask for public input, well there goes my voice in government. You may think that the partisan part of Initiative 10 would take care of this, but not if the members of the public body are of different parties.
I do support Open Government but when I read this bill I just see everyone who even asks a question at a public meeting being silenced with a Class 1 misdemeanor. This is why I use my real name and don’t hide behind Anonymous. This way people now where I stand, but if this Initiative passes I might have to because otherwise I might be served a Class 1 misdemeanor if Pat Powers gets elected, because I might be considered lobbying him without his invite. So I want open government that allows people to use the voice God gave them without having to worry about being served Class 1 misdemeanors. So we need to open the government but in a way it doesn’t silence the voting public.

I day has yet to come when I vote the way a “lawyer” wants me to. In fact it must be bad if a lawyer says it is good.

I will agree that (at first read) this particular initiated measure is bad – I have yet to take the time to read the measure in detail. I was for the most part responding to Troy Jones’ statement that it was a good thing that Governor Rounds Vetoed the law passed by the legislature setting up a website relating by which we could track government expenditures.

Anthony, maybe we are on the same side and maybe not.

I think there should be a way that voters can review expenditures in a summary fashion to assess priority and efficacy so that we can be informed in advocating to our legislators and in voting.

What I oppose is access to the minute detail of expenditures. On another thread, I described how when I was in State Government working for Governor Mickelson, my division employed an outside attorney who was a Democrat. My successor chose a different attorney who happened to be a Republican.

What I fear in this day of blogs and unrestricted access to the internet (especially when they can make anonomymous charges) is that both my decision to hire this attorney and the decision of my successor would have been fodder for criticism and debate on the internet because of appearance of political “wrongness”. In both cases, I believe that the particular attorney was hired for right reasons and ably served the people of South Dakota. To have to answer every single decision to “wronged” parties would render decision-making a distraction rather than an opportunity to serve the people.

Anthony, if you aren’t asking to be able to review the minute detail of expenditures, we are on the same side. If you are asking for the minute detail, we are not in agreement. My fundamental position is that state employees are accountable to their bosses and the budget priorities set by the legislators.

It is legislators and Governors who are accountable to individual taxpayers and voters. I adamantly disagree that individual state employees are accountable directly to taxpayers. In fact, most of the people who “opposed” actions of my division were those who had interests many times contrary to the public good. To allow them the ammunition to attack and criticize will actually lead to a less productive and effective government.

As a state employee, I made many public decisions that were not always well-recieved by those adversely affected. I deserved to have to take the heat for these decisions as it is part of the job. To give those wanting to destroy my credibility access to minute decisions does not serve the public interest. The best state employees would sooner determine that life in public service isn’t worth it.

We would be better served if state employees weren’t always thinking about the political implications of their decisions but instead focused on the best decision for the collective good. Let the Governor and Legislators take the heat for the political consequences.

This initiative, number 10, has NOTHING to do with that bill the Governor vetoed.

Can you people READ????????

troy, again with due respect, i would argue that anybody whose paycheck is funded by the taxpayers is accountable to the taxpayers.

i understand the chain of command, but ultimately it is we the taxpayers who are in charge of the government. we are the chairmen of the board.

if we want to know how much the state is spending on the “most romantic couple,” for example, then we ought to be able to find out, without hassle or delay.

you, or any other state employee, ought not take offense. it’s nothing personal. it’s just common practice, in most states and most companies — good ones, anyway.