Well, there went a productive session. Legislator to be investigated for conduct.

Pat Powers

Well, there went a potentially productive session. The House is convening a committee for purposes of investigating a Republican legislator for misconduct.

Members of the South Dakota House or Representatives on Wednesday called for the investigation of Rep. Mathew Wollmann, R-Madison, for allegedly engaging in sexual contact with a legislative intern in 2015 and 2016.

Rep. Lee Qualm and Rep. Kent Peterson moved to convene the Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion during the chamber’s floor session. Qualm said Wollmann admitted to him that he had had consensual sexual intercourse with an intern.

Read it here.

That’s all the detail that’s been provided at this point.  It’s too bad, as Wollmann has always been a pretty straight shooter, and honorable person, who was recently on Facebook celebrating his engagement to a nice gal.

We all probably need to wait and hear what the facts are before we pass judgement. But it is what it is, and there it is.

Update – One very important point in this, and one that has legal ramifications was brought up to me this afternoon. If the House is going to take issue with what happened between consenting adults, they should also be wary of how the standards of conduct are applied across terms of office, especially since the time frame is for 2015 & 2016, as noted in the news.

What little has been noted in the press all occurred during the prior term of office, not the current term of office Wollmann was just seated for.

If we’re going to look retroactively at Mat, why would he be the only legislator? There could be special committees convened for anyone who may have acted contrary to the rules in years past. A lobbyist today pointed out a couple to me just off the top of his head.

If you recall in the instance of Dan Sutton, it had been noted that even if they had expelled him, he could have ran again, and been seated, because the conduct he was eventually censured for was in that current term of office, and a new term is a new term.

At the very least, everyone should keep calm, and not be so ready to pick up a pitchfork.

91 thoughts on “Well, there went a productive session. Legislator to be investigated for conduct.”

  1. “Qualm said Wollmann admitted to him that he had had consensual sexual intercourse with an intern.” Argus article

    Was this or other interns minors?

    This is not good whatever the outcome is.

    1. I’ve never known an intern to be under 19, and most are in their 20’s. Interns are typically College Juniors, Seniors and graduate students.

    1. I think you need to be a full time college student so the age could range a little bit, but you’re most likely above the age of consent of 16

  3. These people look inept and corrupt in they just declared nationally that such conduct is prohibited. What the heck is going on with the GOP?

    How are they going to deal with the information that they covered this up?

    1. Guys we need to create some serious distractions. Time to introduce a series of culture war bills to put SD in the national news again and take the heat off of a few lapses in judgement in our legislature. Who should we go after? 🙂

  4. He should resign and spare everyone the drama. If he doesn’t resign, he should be kicked out to make it clear to everyone else that if you are in a position of power or authority, you shouldn’t be engaging in this behavior, whether the other person is of consenting age or not. Gov has dealt with the same stuff, and the Legislature should follow in the same manner.

    Wollman isn’t the only one — probably the first to be called out for it. It used to be much more rampant many years ago. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

    1. We should prohibit certain behavior between two consenting adults..? Using your position of power principle, should we outlaw such behavior in the private sector too? Why or why not?

      1. The point is whether you’re a legislator, a cabinet secretary, or even a college professor — you ought not be poking your staff or students. Just because it’s consensual, doesn’t make it right.

        1. a college professor and cabinet secretary hold way more power over their students and employees than does a single legislator over an intern… The intern is employed and supervised by the LRC for a defined period of time with no room for promotion. Its entirely possible for an intern to even be older than an legislator.

  5. It is unConstitutional to expect a good (R) with the power of “rep” before his name not to take advantage of that power and the powerless interns… Wasn’t there a (D) president that had a fling with an adult intern? What happened with that? Surely the Repugs didn’t throw a hissi-fit.

    1. And the outcome of that was what?? Zero. And he was POTUS, not a small state legislator. Neither is right but if it was consensual then is it Mat’s fault? Surely, he should’ve used better judgement but is it against the law? NO, presuming it was consensual. Someone is just needing to call out other R’s as he always does and what he lives for…

  6. Considering the intern is probably his current fiance, and the representative is 23 and not 65, if he has no direct supervision over the person, I see no issue with it considering these people are his peers who one would expect to consider for a relationship. Most inter-company relations are allowed, even with interns, as long as there isn’t a power structure involved. This seems like a political move to discredit Wollmann and to once again dive into the bedrooms of consenting adults. It’s a non-issue.

      1. I don’t care if it was 10 interns. He is not their boss so it is nothing more than co-workers in a relationship. If there is no power structure between the two, there is nothing wrong with it like in every other company in this country. These are consenting 20 yr olds, not a 50 yr old legislator preying on 20 year olds. Too many sexual repressed 50+ year olds that think it is their business what happens behind a closed bedroom door.

        1. Agreed! Inter-company relationships of all sizes always come to fruition. My first company’s phone list had same last names (female and male) over and over and over because they all got married…

  7. From the link in the article posted above–“A legislative panel voted down a proposed rule change Wednesday that would have explicitly prevented them from engaging in sexual contact with legislative interns and pages.”
    bwwwwwaaaahhhhhaaaaaahhhaaaaasnotetc.— Doesn’t get any more priceless than that

  8. Full blown ethics commission should be on its way as of today.

    Flat out sad for my state.

    1. What will this full blown ethics commission do? Wave their finger at two consenting adults? Dock his pay? Lock the young, randy fellow up?

  9. Qualm and Peterson obviously have too much time on their hands. Maybe Vaseline would help

  11. I’d reserve judgement. We don’t know “nothing about nothing” at this point. Plus, as was pointed out to me, there’s a question of the term of office.

    What little has been noted in the press all occurred during the prior term of office, not the one he was currently elected to. If we’re going to look retroactively, why is this the only one? There could be special committees convened all the live long day.

      1. That’s not new news. That actually came up during the Sutton incident. He could have been expelled, but ran again, elected, and seated. If we’re going to go after people for past acts, I’ve heard of a Democrat legislator who might have been chasing interns a few years ago. Why would we stop with things that happened 2 years ago, and not start looking back 5 or 10?

        1. Those of us who were familiar with the Suttons had our doubts about that, which is how Dan was re-elected.

        2. Exactly. It should go as far back as the statute of limitations allows. You don’t make an ‘example’ out of only one when it’s at this level. 4th grade, maybe but law is law – IF a law was even broken here. Ethics? Not so smart on Mat’s part but again, law is law.

  12. According to the Book of Deuteronomy, all that is required is that he pay her father 50 shekels of silver and marry her.
    If it’s good enough for God it should be good enough for the state of South Dakota

    1. Hahahahahaha. That should satisfy sola scriptura wing of the GOP (which is most in Pierre).

      1. Yes and as near as I can tell a shekel is worth 26 cents, so fifty shekels is $13.
        Even on a legislator’s salary he should be able to cover it.

  13. The Argus article makes a curious update noting Wollman “believed them to be over 21”. Why would they need to say this unless alcohol was involved? Was he buying these kids booze before sex?

  15. Are we going to convene a panel to outlaw sex between consenting legislators or state employees next? Who’s game for that?

  16. News flash for old people. People in their 20’s might be prone to canoodling.

    If the people in their 20’s were canoodling on their own time and their own dime, and neither was the boss of the other, don’t we have other stupid things that happened last year to be outraged about?

  17. The 2018 SD Legislative session will include expanded duties for the Sergeant of Arms including the installation and inspection US Patent 08505543 Male chastity apparatus, system, and method on male legislators while in Pierre during session.

  18. Here are a few questions we need answered:
    1: If the consenting partner did not object, complain or bring charges who did?
    2: While the State Of SD thought we voted in an ethics board but in reality we already have one in place in the House do we need better signage letting the General Public know about it?
    3: If Senator Nelson needed to bring a bill outlawing consensual sex between legislators and interns how is it that an ethics board can bring charges against something which isn’t explicitly against the rules?
    4: And finally If Moral Highground is where we are headed do we not want to open up every immoral affair ever had in the Legislature and open up testimony with the participants?

    1. That’s the potential problem by trying to adjudicate things that happened after the fact in another term of office. Where do you stop?

      1. Well, it certainly did not stop the Republicans back in the 90s, when the 105th Congress impeached Clinton, but then the 106th Congress tried him.

          1. And your point is? I was responding to Pat’s concern over time relevance. You, however, had your mind somewhere else….

            1. Bill Clinton was still President. The crimes he committed and was tried for in an impeachment trial were for during his term. Not a comparison.

              1. But it is the legislative branch and not the executive department that impeach and try. So the President’s term is irrelevant.

                But many scholars have often questioned if it was constitutional to have two separate “Congresses” involved in the impeachment and trial of Willliam Jefferson Clinton, but this is academic now at best, except in response to Pat’s initial comment, especially since the Republicans failed to ever get a majority vote on any of the articles of impeachment against Clinton (45 to 50 and 50 to 50, you need 67 to remove a president from office); and not to mention that the major reason the 105th Congress hurried to impeach Clinton in December of 1998 is because the Republican majority lost seats with the incoming congress, due to the November 1998 congressional elections, and thus also the fear of impeachment momentum for January….. Oh and by the way, that was the first time in modern history a sitting President had gained congressional seats during his sixth year in office and he did it with articles of impeachment hanging over his head…. image that……

                1. My point being that the person being accused in the impeachment was in his current term of office when he was impeached for the crimes he committed during that time. This guy is not.

                  1. I realize that, but your point does not speak to Pat’s initial point. I think that Pat’s point raises interesting issues relative to jurisdiction and the question of timely jurisdiction.

                    However, due to the separation of powers doctrine, those issues are left to the House itself, or its members, as finders of fact and law on this jurisdictional matter, which makes it even more interesting and perplexing or possibly inevitable as to their position on this question..

  19. Seriously it looks by admission in the news that all were consenting adults. Having relationships in this environment just like a work place is risky and could easily lead to distracting problems. Matt is a good guy and we all make mistakes. I have faith he and other will learn from this and everyone can move forward.

  21. Regardless of the circumstances of this case, the fact that a disciplinary committee is being convened actually demonstrates why an explicit rule barring sexual contact was unnecessary. The current legislative rules appear to be enough.

    1. Let me get this straight? Qualm, Lust, and others voted against Nelson’s rules changes claiming it was already prohibited? Are now claiming Wollman sexually harrassIng pages and interns wasn’t a violation of the rules because it wasn’t prohibited? WTH!?

      Heidelberger is linking Wollman to the Teen Age Republicans and Dusty Johnson?!

      Are these people intentionally trying to sabotage the GOP!?

      1. Ready – Fire – Aim!

        There’s a reason some refer to the GOP as “the Stupid Party.”

        Self inflicted wounds take longer to heal.

      2. Heidelberger will throw anything against the wall to see if it sticks. He is still sore he is not in Pierre now nor will he ever be.

  24. A couple of thoughts on this issue.

    We know very little at this point. There is a very specific process in place to deal with these kinds of issues. Unfortunately, the legislature has been very good at implementing it.

    The committee has been formed, let the process play out. They will recommend a course of action. Then the decision will be made as to how to proceed.

  25. I’ve been a Stace Nelson supporter in the past, but him making that motion and grandstanding endlessly over it while, apparently, either knowing this was coming out, or exposing it himself turns my stomach. 23yo guy falls into bed with a 21 yo gal he spends a lot of time with? My God, better legislate it. That virtually never happens anywhere but in Pierre, am I right? Our dopey legislature is about to take a complete non-issue and make a circus of the whole session. Can anyone say whether or not Nelson considered Wollman an enemy? I’d like to know

    1. Ditto all of that. At one point, I know that Nelson gave a ‘hoo rah’ to Wollman during his speech at a Senate campaigning function as he’s a fellow Marine but he didn’t know Wollman’s alliance at that particular function (although he was sitting right next to Larry Rhoden at the time). Perhaps in 2014, Wollmann didn’t support him so who knows if that disuade him (Nelson) as a fan. But with Nelson, who knows??? If you didn’t support him, back then, my assumption was you were an enemy. And secondly, he’s been gone for several years so I’m sure he has the attitude of “I’m back, all rest assured, I will clean up Pierre” taking aim at the easy target but feeling good about himself.

  26. They need to go after Nelson for this. This is obviously his fault. This mess is all his doing. He knew that guys like Hickey, Qualm, Mickelson, and the other house members were aware that Wollman was chasing the pages and interns and brought the rules change to embarrass them and Wollman. David Lust made it clear that it was already prohibited by the rules for a legislator to act this way. Nelson didn’t need to bring the rule change.

    Hickey is right! FHA should go after Nelson for drinking after session and for talking like a marine. That’s much worse than Wollman lying and going after these interns.

    1. Are you serious about Stace Nelson getting drunk and dropping F Bombs like a drunken sailor after session?

      It would not be so bad if the legislature would not be involved in this yearly Holy War propping them and FHA up as these pious groups but the hypocrisy drives people nuts and and it seems like the legislature never tackles the real issues South Dakotans need fixed. No one is perfect, we all make mistakes, learn and grow from it and get the peoples real business done!

  27. The issue underlines all sorts of issues:
    1. Age of consent is 16. Period. End of story.
    2. Education is mandatory until age 18, so anybody younger than that skipping school to serve as a page would be guilty of truancy.
    3. South Dakota Labor law prohibits anybody under the age of 18 from working more than 8 hours a day. Pages are expected to work from 7:15 AM until as late as 5 PM. That’s almost ten hours so if any pages are under 18 that is a violation of child labor laws.

    So it should be understood that any and all pages are over the age of 18, and if they aren’t, they are breaking truancy laws and labor laws, which ought to be of more concern than what they are doing after hours.

      1. Mr Powers, how do you know that? What did Stace Nelson tell you? What did he report? Who was it in leadership telling people last week that Nelson was lying about this and made it all up?

    2. I paged when I was 17. Several of my fellow pages were also 17. I was not found “guilty of truancy”. Remember, the page term only lasts 2 weeks. Internships last all session.

  28. I have a relative who served as an intern at one time, and the saying was “what goes on in Pierre stays in Pierre.” This person based this statement on things seen and heard. I think this particular issue is a huge distraction and I can’t figure out why Stace is focusing on this instead of the other issues facing the state this session. I don’t condone messing around, period; but if a young unmarried legislator and a young unmarried intern (both of age and consenting adults) develop an interest in each other, which eventually leads to an engagement, I don’t see the problem this particular time. This seems like a personal vendetta. This just plays into the hands of those who pushed IM 22. Maybe that is the plan here??

    1. Of course its a personal vendetta. Wollman interjected himself in Stace’s primary.

      Wollman campaigned for Stace’s young opponent.

      This is payback.

  30. Why did he go on tv and lie, then after a brief off the record pause come back and admit it in a character revealing moment? WTF

    Looks like a fool.

  31. The title of this thread ended up being pretty darn prescient in my mind.

    From the beginning, I said two things:

    1) I supported without reservation a specific prohibition with regard to pages and leaned to it for interns.

    2) I thought introducing a specific past situation was going to be a distraction from the merits of the proposed rule. At the time I said this, I imagined it was a much older married legislator with an intern (much younger person) where the purient and salacious details would take over vs. a reasoned and rational discussion of the merits of a particular policy.

    Now that we have the details and those details not only distract us from the merits of the proposed rule but will distract the body for the entire legislature.

    1) Distracts from the proposed rule: It wasn’t a dirty old man committing adultery. It was a 23 y.o. single man with a women of nearly the same age. There is virtually not a single entity (government, business, etc.) in this day and age which even tries to regulate private behavior of single people except in the case of direct reports because they’d fail. Now the big picture is lost because of the specifics which couldn’t be less compelling for the rule.

    2) Distracts the entire legislature: While Senator Nelson may be sincere with regard to motive on the proposed rule, his “disagreements” with Representative Wollman and fellow Marine is widely known. If it wasn’t personal, the easy to conclude appearance of a personal vendetta should have caused Nelson to be extra diligent against making the specifics known. If his colleagues know he can be linked to the disclosure of Representative Wollman or it was a motive, this will distract the Legislature from bigger issues for a long time to come.

  32. We should expect better from our legislators, whether they are 23 or 73. Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened. Chasing interns and public drunkenness is not uncommon. Perhaps not as prevalent as 30 years ago, but it still happens with some regularity.

  33. Just to clarify to ensure I have my info straight before speaking my mind – Wollman had two encounters with two different consenting interns over two years. After the session, Wollman admitted to being in a relationship with a childhood friend, who just so happened to be a page during his first term, and is not one of the two previously stated interns. She has since been hired as an intern. Does this all sound correct?

  34. I’m just wondering how this conversation would be going if Mr. Wollmann were a Democrat instead of a Republican.

    As a general rule, I don’t think legislators should be banging interns, whether they have explicit power over them or not, especially during a legislative session. They can wait 3 months, even if they are randy 20-somethings. It is unprofessional – both for the intern and the legislator. And I’m pretty sure that if the man were of the other party, the whole tenor of this conversation, from the initial post to now, would be “fry the guy”. Indeed, that was pretty much the response not that long ago when a Democrat was arrested, despite the fact that we didn’t really know anything about that incident, either.

    I think it’s embarrassing to the party, to the legislature, and to Wollmann (and probably his fiancée – not the way you want your future husband showing up in the news). If Stace Nelson is the primary source of the story, it would be consistent with his egotistical moralism, but so what? That’s him and he isn’t going to change. Just because the guy pointing it out is a jerk doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem.

    I don’t think it’s illegal, but I see no reason to try to defend either Mr. Wollmann or his conduct. If nothing else, his pain and shame in this may be instructive to him and others in years to come – fear of similar exposure may well help him remain faithful to the marriage vows he hopes to make in the near future, which wouldn’t be a bad thing.

    1. PNR, I disagree a bit in trying to compare this to the other incident that happened recently on the other side of the aisle. In that instance, we knew a lot, and it was in the form of a criminal complaint based on a fairly ugly statement from the victim in the criminal case. The charges were dropped because the prosecutor thought there were some inconsistencies, after it was reported that the assailant didn’t dispute the account that was laid out. That can happen in criminal cases like that where there’s no physical evidence.

      It’s hard to compare that to this instance, where a single twenty something year old admitted to having consensual relations with another single twenty something year old they worked with (but didn’t supervise) a year or two ago. And that’s all we really know about it at this point.

      If the current situation was at an office, or a church parsonage, or the local auto parts store, no one would care. But since it’s at the legislature, there are people who are trying to gin themselves up over it. Knowing what we know at this point (which is nothing) it’s a pretty thin justification for outrage.

  35. Talk a post which makes the headline of this thread prescient- in the end, we are having a war about a 23 y.o. who had sexual contact with a 21 y.o.

  37. The big issue here is that Stace Nelson is an ass. I have a vendetta of my own:
    I was one of the recipients of the Robocall which informed me that Senator Russell Olson called me a terrorist and was trying to deprive me of my constitutional right to go to college.
    I was appalled by the content of the call, and delighted to learn that due to an FEC regulation, it was illegal.
    When I asked Stace if he had been involved, he lied to me and said he’d had nothing to do with it, that he didn’t know what Gary or Dan were doing.
    When I sat in on Dan’s trial I watched the DCI agent testify under oath that the call came from Stace’s phone device.
    Stace was never prosecuted for any of it, even though Dan’s defense attorney made the closing argument that his client didn’t do it, Stace Nelson did it. Which did seem to be the case, but Dan took the fall for him. That’s the kind of man Stace Nelson is.

Comments are closed.