Author: Pat Powers

The Argus Leader has a blurb this morning wondering if the Governor’s 1/2 cent increase in education proposal is already in trouble, based on the statements of one of the plan’s authors; State Senator Deb Soholt:

Sen. Deb Soholt, R-Sioux Falls, told reporter Dana Ferguson last week that it was too “premature” to predict her support for a tax increase that would be pivotal to the recommended overhaul of South Dakota’s 20-year-old funding model.

You might recognize Soholt’s name. It’s on the report that served as the basis for the governor’s plan. It was signed near the top, not far from the words: “we believe that it is now time to act.”

The senator spent months co-chairing the task force that eventually filed a report to the governor last year.

So, when we’re talking about those other school funding what-ifs, what if one of the key authors of Daugaard’s plan is already prevaricating like a politician?

Read it here.

Do you think this could mean the votes are not there?

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs Certifies Seventh Ballot Measure

Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that an initiated measure to give certain organizations the right to charge fees was validated and certified to be on the November 2016 general election ballot as a ballot measure the citizens will vote on. The sponsor turned in 30,810 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. An initiated measure requires a minimum of 13,871 signatures from South Dakota registered voters. Once the signatures were delivered to the Secretary of State’s office, a 5% random sampling was conducted. It was determined that 48.2% or 14,861 of 30,810 signatures were in good standing. This will be Initiated Measure 23.

This is the 7th initiated measure to be approved by Secretary of State. A total of 8 measures were submitted for review. This office will continue the signature validation process of the final ballot measure submitted. A total of 275,000 signatures were submitted among all petitions.

Those looking to challenge the Secretary of State’s certification of a ballot measure have 30 days from the date they are certified, which would be February 18, 2016.

  
While we wait for Governor Daugaard to arrive, I’m at my table at the Governor’s Tour Luncheon sponsored by the Brookings Chamber of Commerce. 

The Governor will be here in South Dakota’s #2 manufacturing city to discuss his initiatives this session on education, Medicaid, and other topics. 

Hang on….

Representative Wollman was nice enough to provide a review of activity for week 1, which you can read here:

January 18, 2016

 Week one of the 91st legislative session is in the books. We as legislators, those in attendance, and those watching online and on TV had the privilege of hearing the Governor’s State of the State Address, the state of the judiciary address, and the state of the Tribes address. All of which were very informing. It became quite clear from the start that the Governor’s top priorities included education funding, Medicaid expansion, the expansion of our state parks, and workforce development.

Governor Daugaard’s education funding proposal includes a half cent sales tax increase which would generate over $107 million in annual revenue. Of these dollars, 62 million would be used to raise teacher salaries to a state average of $48,500, 5 million would be used for teacher mentoring programs and distance learning, and roughly 40 million would assist in property tax relief efforts. It is hard to judge after only 1 week in Pierre how legislators feel about this proposal. Democrat legislators have proposed a different plan calling for a 1 cent sales tax increase which would raise the average teacher pay to $50,000. Just like the road funding bill last session, I do not wake up every morning looking to raise taxes, but I do wake up every morning wanting to know that we have excellent roads and an excellent education system.

Medicaid currently covers about 118,000 South Dakotas, and if the expansion occurs it would add at least 55,000 more individuals. This expansion will only occur if we the legislature approve of it, and of course if it does not require the use of state funds. So far 30 other states have taken the expansion option under the Affordable Care Act. This discussion of expansion is mainly due to the complete debacle we call the IHS “Indian Health Service”. If the United States Government were already upholding their agreement by providing proper healthcare to Native Americans we would most likely not be having this discussion today.

Lastly, I would like to say thank you to those Korean War Veterans we honored across the State of South Dakota last week. Your dedication to service, the United States, and this great state will never be forgotten. You are the men and women that my generation looks up to and models our lives after. God Bless and thank you for your service.

Please email me any concerns at [email protected] or [email protected] and follow updates on my Facebook page or @MathewWollmann on Twitter.

According to the Rapid City Journal, State Representative Lynn DiSanto is leading an on-line petition drive to revoke the recent pay increase that Commissioners voted for themselves which she started on January 7th. And from reading the article, in the process,you wonder just what’s going on there:

State Representative Lynne DiSanto, R-Rapid City, is angry that Pennington County commissioners gave themselves a 20 percent raise, and she is calling for a repeal of the the increase.

DiSanto is circulating an online petition titled, “Repeal Pennington County Commission’s Pay Increase, and Require Attendance to get Paid.”

and…

Raising commissioner salaries is an administrative action and cannot be referred to a public vote according to state law. Further, DiSanto’s petition has no legal standing, that is, it has no power to initiate any formal government action.

DiSanto’s husband, Mark DiSanto, recently announced he is running for the District 4 commission seat occupied by Commission Chairman Lyndell Petersen, who has not declared whether he will seek re-election to a third term. Petersen voted to approve the salary increase, although he said afterward he thought he was voting on a smaller raise.

and…

“As much as I know it could appear to be an attempt to create some controversy, this issue had been brought to me prior to him wanting to run,” DiSanto said in a telephone interview. “I can’t speak to all of Mark’s reason to run, but Mark and I both realized there is a serious issue on the Pennington County Commission, which motivated him to run.”

In the petition, DiSanto leveled accusations against Commissioner Ron Buskerud, saying he lives in Arizona for half the year and “sporadically” attends meetings.

In response to DiSanto’s accusations, Buskerud said, “She’s a liar.”

Buskerud said he goes to Arizona during the winter but spends a majority of his time in Pennington County. When Buskerud isn’t physically in Pennington County for the commissioner meetings, he teleconferences into the meetings using Skype.

and…

In the petition, DiSanto also alleges that commissioners work only 4 hours a month.

Read it all here.

While they might disagree on issues before the legislature, I don’t recall I’ve ever seen a Legislator declare war on their county commission at the opening of a legislative session, especially coming as her husband has declared his candidacy. In case you’re wondering about the full text of the petition…

The Pennington County commission has recently voted for themselves to receive a 20% pay raise, despite the fact that they’ve recently asked voters to accept a tax increase due to a lack of funds for county roads and bridges. This has brought their pay to $18,000 per year for 4 hours of work PER MONTH. In addition to this, our commissioners are not currently required to attend the meetings and still receive their full pay. Commissioner Ron Buskerud lives in Arizona half of the year, only sporadically participating in the county commission meetings and still continues to draw a full salary on the back of the taxpayers.

We want to send a strong message to the Pennington County Commissioners that we do not believe that they should’ve have made a motion and voted in favor of their own raise without the consent of the voters at a time that they are asking for more. In addition we would like the commissioners to be REQUIRED to attend the meetings they have been elected to serve in, or they will NOT receive compensation for the missed meetings.

Read that here.  (Currently 322 votes of support)

The salary issue is certainly controversial, and likely has voters good and exercised, but I’m not sure what an on-line petition of this nature does for either DiSanto, especially when there’s comments such as this..

“Moved to Colorado less than a year ago. My wife and I are reluctant to move back to Pennington County with elected representation like this.”

That doesn’t exactly sound like someone who is going to affect any election in the near future.

I can’t help but go back to her statement on the issue…

“As much as I know it could appear to be an attempt to create some controversy, this issue had been brought to me prior to him wanting to run,” DiSanto said in a telephone interview. “I can’t speak to all of Mark’s reason to run, but Mark and I both realized there is a serious issue on the Pennington County Commission, which motivated him to run.”

Trying to deny that this on-line petition was brought up as ” an attempt to create some controversy” is ridiculous. An attempt to create controversy is ALL that it is.  It’s an on-line petition, like those that seek to ban Justin Beiber from the United States.

It has no force of law. It isn’t limited to people living in the area, obviously as noted from the Coloradan chiming in. It isn’t limited to people living in the United States. It’s just an attempt to get attention, which it did in the Rapid City Journal this morning.

As for her statement “I can’t speak to all of Mark’s reason to run….”   Wait? What?

That’s a really odd statement coming from the man’s wife. Most spouses will discuss their hopes, dreams and aspirations with each other. If she hasn’t spoken to him about why he’s running, most would think that might be a good conversation for a husband and wife to have.

I can’t help but think as I refer back to that entire passage, my mother – departed fifteen years now – when faced with an odd statement from someone which didn’t seem to ring true used to say, “I think she’s full of beans.”

Take from that whatever you will.

From the Argus Leader:

A Sioux Falls Republican says he’ll bring a bill this session that would allow ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft to operate in South Dakota.

Rep. Mark Willadsen said he decided to bring the bill at the request of members of the Sioux Falls City Council. The council in November voted to establish a separate category to the city’s vehicle-for-hire ordinance and a unique licensing system for ride-hailing services like Uber that use cellphone apps to connect drivers with ride seekers.

Read it all here.

Uber across the state? That’s not just cool. That’s “Uber-cool.”  And what was that I was laying about it last August?

With attitudes like that at the city level, it also becomes incumbent upon legislators at the state level to provide a framework for modern notions of the taxi service, since local officials are still wondering where all the dinosaurs went.

In our society, one certainty is progress. In all aspects, we simply don’t do things as we have for the past hundred years. In business, “It’s the way we’ve always done things” is a recipe for failure and extinction.

If business finds better and more efficient way of doing things, such as a modern notion of the taxi, government should be there to facilitate.

So, legislators….  If the city of Sioux Falls is too bound by inertia and a desire to be trapped in the past, ignore those still looking for dinosaurs and standing around. Take the lead.

Read that here.

And if you recall the guest column that SF City Councilor Christine Erickson did for dakotawarcollege on the topic:

A free marketplace does not limit innovation and consumer choice to specific industries. The vehicle for hire reform measures embraces these free market principals, and challenges existing vehicle for hire businesses to innovate and compete for passengers. In South Dakota, we celebrate entrepreneurship and innovation. We recognize that government is not intended to protect outdated business models, but instead limit regulatory and tax obstacles that stifle a thriving free market.

Read it here.

“We recognize that government is not intended to protect outdated business models, but instead limit regulatory and tax obstacles that stifle a thriving free market.”

Amen.

Well, this got a lot of attention quickly.

The Argus is writing today on a bill that’s going to be introduced to override Initiated Measure 17… or legalize one organization’s interpretation, depending on your viewpoint… affecting a measure that was passed by the voters in 2014 by a 62% vote. And this topic is quickly rising to the status of being this years’ dark horse bill for controversial measures:

Businesses and consumers would have the ability to purchase health insurance plans that exclude some health providers under a bill that lawmakers will consider.

If passed, the bill would authorize so-called “narrow network” insurance plans, which have a small universe of health providers. The plans can be less expensive because the doctors and other health providers agree to charge lower amounts in exchange for the guaranteed volume generated by those covered in the plan.

But the bill could prove controversial because it amends an initiative that voters approved in 2014 requiring health insurance plans to be open to all providers who are willing to accept an insurance network’s terms and conditions. Initiated Measure 17 – which passed with a solid 62 percent majority.

And…

If passed, the bill would essentially legalize the way Sanford Health Plans interpreted Initiated Measure 17. Sanford began offering a plan that includes all providers who want in, but it has also continued to offer narrow network plans to consumers and employers who want them.  

And…

Shannon Carder, who was the campaign manager for Initiated Measure 17, said lawmakers should listen to their constituents, a majority of which have said they support the provision.

“I can’t imagine that it would be a wise decision to go against the will of the voters,” Carder said. “We worked really hard with the people of South Dakota who wanted this measure. People wanted, plain and simple, to be the ones to choose who their doctor is.”

Read it all here.

It will be interesting to watch this develop. Stay tuned for more!

I had to chuckle a little this morning at the County GOP meeting as legislators were getting a briefing of what is currently going on in Pierre are, and what they see coming up.

One legislator mentioned that he sees the alleged IM17 repeal bill (*confirming that there’s something out there*) as being one of the most controversial measures early on this session, and jokingly referred to it as “the lobbyist employment act,” given the ever increasing numbers of people working the issue in either chamber.

He said this week he had been approached by lobbyists on both sides of the issue, and indicated to me that while he was not a big supporter of legislation that eventually led to IM17, he’s not going to climb on board a proposal to rewrite a law that was supported by 63% of the electorate.

Stay tuned.

  
I’m at the local GOP meeting this morning, and Josh Shields, Senator Thune’s campaign manager is giving us a briefing on the state of the US Senate Race, including the fact that Dems are desperate for a candidate at this point, and are still looking.

Stay tuned…

Attorney General Jackley Joins Challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that South Dakota has joined 20 other State Attorneys General in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief, challenging the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate”. The States ask the United States Supreme Court to consider an exemption from the contraceptive mandate for religious nonprofits organizations. The amicus brief argues the contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as applied to nonprofit religious employers.

“The federal government has gone too far with the passage and implementation of mandated healthcare that fails to protect the most basic and important sincerely held religious beliefs. The federal government should and must respect sincerely held religious beliefs,” said Jackley.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted a regulatory accommodation that some nonprofit religious employers find objectionable under their religious beliefs. Challenging the authority of HHS to promulgate this rule, the brief argues it makes little sense to exclude religious nonprofits from this contraceptive mandate in light of the exemptions for most churches, small employers and employers with grandfathered plans. There is no cost to the State of South Dakota for its participation in this multi-state litigation.

-30-