Bob Mercer is noting this morning that two different parties are arguing over who is responsible for strengthening the state’s laws on precluding conflicts of interest for those having contracts with the State of South Dakota.
And it’s rendered more interesting, as the two parties are slated to be facing each other in the race for Governor in two years:
A deterrent stronger than a Class 1 misdemeanor is needed in state conflict-of-interest cases, Attorney General Marty Jackley said.
Jackley said a stronger deterrent is needed. He said he would be open to “triggering factors” and “aggravated circumstances” that call for higher levels of punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
Jackley repeated his statement made at the news conference in Platte last week that “an adult conversation” is needed regarding the penalties.
“Resolution would just involve the attorney general letting policy-makers know what additional tools he thinks he needs,” Mickelson said.
He offered it could start by the attorney general contacting the governor’s legal counsel, Jim Seward; or Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; or three of the lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Timothy Johns, R-Lead, Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, or Mickelson, the chairman.
“I drafted both bills with a lot of helpers and never heard a word from him,” Mickelson said.
Both Marty and Mark will be speaking at the Brookings County Lincoln Day Dinner at the SDSU Performing Arts Center here in Brookings coming up on April 1st. With the both of them having a difference of opinion on who needs to take the lead on penalties for the state’s laws on conflicts of interest – there could be some fireworks!
Mickelson is also appearing today on one of the Argus Leader’s on-line video programs this afternoon at 3pm, where we’ll probably hear more about it as well.