The Government Operations and Audit Committee has introduced House Bill 1023 to address the EB-5 controversy in part that was brought up again and again during the last election cycle to prevent state employees from signing state contracts and then going to work for the people they’ve been signed with.
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit a state officer or employee from having an interest in any contract that the state employee or officer approved, awarded, or administered for one calendar year following termination of state employment.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 5-18A-17 be amended to read as follows:
5-18A-17. No state officer or employee who approves, awards, or administers a contract involving the expenditure of public funds or the sale or lease of property, may have an interest in a contract that is within the scope of the officer’s or employee’s official duties. This prohibition includes any state officer or employee who, in his or her official capacity, recommends the approval or award of the contract or who supervises a person who approves, awards, or administers the contract. This prohibition is in effect for one calendar year after the state officer or employee terminates his or her office or employment with the state.
Follow the bill here. The underlined part is the addition to the law.
The only problem with the measure? None logistically, but it could face amending because it’s a measured, reasonable, and sane response. A sane response to a ridiculously overblown issue that dominated the political scene for the last year.
Anyone care to speculate on how much showboating and grandstanding we’ll see on the issue?