Category: Uncategorized

I’m hearing that Redfield residents were treated to a flyer in their mailboxes recently which cajoled them to support the construction of a new school in their community. And while you have the normal divisions that come up in those types of elections, apparently the source of the this recent mailing has some people up in arms.

I’m told this is the flyer that went out (this is from facebook, but I’m trying to get my hands on a hard copy)

And here’s what was sent to me as being printed on the backside as a return address and mailing panel (I redacted the recipient’s address) …

Take note of the return address printed on the back of the flyer. And yes, you can confirm at the City of Redfield’s web site, that is the actual address of the City’s office of Parks and Recreation.

If you go to it, one thing you might notice about the city web site is that it notes the name of the City’s director of Parks & Rec as Heidi Appel. Why is this important? Because if you go to the web site of the group “Citizens for the Future of Education” a group promoting the construction of a new school in Redfield, it also appears to have the involvement of a Heidi Appel of Redfield.

So… why do we care? Well, if you take a look at South Dakota Codified Law 12-27-20:

12-27-20.   Expenditure of public funds to influence election outcome prohibited. The state, an agency of the state, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate, or for the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question.

This section may not be construed to limit the freedom of speech of any officer or employee of the state or such political subdivisions in his or her personal capacity. This section does not prohibit the state, its agencies, or the governing body of any political subdivision of the state from presenting factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.

Read that here.

Uh oh.

I’m told that this whole thing hasn’t escaped the notice of the Redfield City Council, who had not taken a position on the school proposal, despite information on this election being said to have gone out through their return address.  As I’m told, the council decided to stay neutral, but had been asked to publicly support it.

The word on the street that councilmen in Redfield are going to be looking for answers. I’m told that at least one council member openly noted to a constituent that they did not authorize this mailing. There’s a City Council meeting scheduled for 7pm on Tuesday night, where the topic is certain to come up. The words “strong discussion” were related to me as what they expect to be had on the issue.

Now, it all may be an innocent misunderstanding for one of a few reasons. However, being in the business of doing mailing pieces, generally nothing gets printed without a person signing off on a proof, because no one wants to eat the cost of a screw up.

Oversight, innocent mistake, or something else. At the very least, the explanation should be interesting.

From Medium.com comes a disturbing story on the current state of Bitcoin, and why the cyber-currency is quickly headed towards a crash:

Think about it. If you had never heard about Bitcoin before, would you care about a payments network that:

• Couldn’t move your existing money
• Had wildly unpredictable fees that were high and rising fast
• Allowed buyers to take back payments they’d made after walking out of shops, by simply pressing a button (if you aren’t aware of this “feature” that’s because Bitcoin was only just changed to allow it)
• Is suffering large backlogs and flaky payments
• … which is controlled by China
• … and in which the companies and people building it were in open civil war?

I’m going to hazard a guess that the answer is no.

Read it all here.

From Today’s KCCR News, Rep Lynn DiSanto is in the news again a second time today. Not for another on-line petition, but for a measure she’s introducing to #1 – Require drug testing for any welfare recipient, and #2 – to make them pay for it:

Under the bill, adults applying for cash assistance would complete a screening or questionnaire and would be subjected to a mandatory drug screening. They would not receive the benefit if they test positive. At least 13 states have passed drug-testing or -screening legislation for people receiving or applying for public assistance.

The bill’s main sponsor, Representative Lynne DiSanto of Rapid City says the bill would make sure welfare recipients don’t use taxpayer dollars inappropriately…

Those who test positive for drugs would be connected to treatment options. DiSanto says the bill would require any welfare applicant to pay the approximately 25 to 30 dollar initial drug test fee…

DiSanto says support for this bill has been “overwhelmingly positive”…

Read it here.

DiSanto notes in the recorded part of the interview that she’s uses a lot of social media, and has overwhelming support on the measure, as gauged by over 300 likes on her facebook page for the proposal.

What do you think?

 

  
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 Mathew.Wollmann@gmail.com or Rep.Wollmann@state.sd.us 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.

If you make a point and catch the weekly postings on Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls, this week you were treated to the Democrat rank and file reaction to the Democrat Party’s reaction to Governor Daugaard’s education proposal.

What was the reaction? I’d characterize it as light mocking, not too dissimilar from what we had noted on it earlier:

In Political News: Our Democratic Legislators in Pierre countered Governor Daugaard’s proposal to increase teacher salaries to an average $48,000 a year with an “Oh yeah! I will call your $48,000 and raise you $2000 more” proposal. To the Democrat’s credit they also tied their proposal to the elimination of the sales tax on food. We will have to see if the South Dakota Education Association (SDEA) backs our Democratic Legislators principled attempt to make our sales tax less regressive or if the teachers push the Democrats to drop their demand for this reform at the first sign of Republican resistance to the Teacher’s well-deserved pay increase. The cynic in me bets that the teachers will take the money without regard to how it is raised and the Democrats will fold like a cardboard box in a thunderstorm when it comes time to vote for the Governor’s proposal.

Read that here.

We docked Democrats points for lacking originality beyond saying “spend more,” and their own rank and file apparently did it too. It’s too bad that there are no original thinkers left over on that side of the aisle, but it’s hard to be original when you’re holding caucus meetings in the 3rd floor phone booths.

I also noticed recently that Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls has removed their advertising from Dakota Free Press. I suspect they discussed the renewal notice earlier in the evenings at one of their meetings, and they just hadn’t had enough to drink to think of it as a good idea. I suppose there are days when you just can’t drink enough….

Otherwise, keep on enjoying what the other side has to say at Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls, and stay tuned for more political stuff!

President Obama’s Distorted View of Reality  
By Sen. John Thune

Year after year, President Obama has used his annual State of the Union address to lecture the American people about his government-knows-best approach, and this year was no different. The president painted a rosy picture of the economic well-being of America’s middle class and his supposed success on the world stage. The president’s distorted view of reality left many people scratching their heads, wondering which America he was actually talking about.

On President Obama’s watch, we have experienced the worst economic recovery since the Eisenhower administration, with stagnant wages and millions dropping out of the labor force as the lasting trademark of the Obama economy. American families are seeing their dreams for the future erode, as they struggle under ever-increasing government burdens and a lack of economic opportunity, and any serious discussion of the state of our union needs to address these challenges and offer solutions. Unfortunately, the president failed to do either.

Then there are the burdensome regulations the Obama administration has imposed, which have made it more challenging for businesses large and small to grow and create jobs. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency in particular has done more than its fair share to make things difficult for Americans. Again and again, I’ve heard from South Dakota farmers and ranchers, homeowners, and small businesses about the difficulties they’re facing thanks to the Obama EPA’s massive new regulations.

If the president’s record on the economy and middle-class opportunity is bad, his record on foreign policy is even worse.

During the president’s last year in office, the White House says, “we can show the world what is possible when America truly leads.” Republicans couldn’t agree more that America should truly lead – the problem is that the president’s first seven years in office have generally been distinguished by a lack of leadership.

In June, former President – and fellow Democrat – Jimmy Carter described President Obama’s successes on the world stage as “minimal.” “On the world stage, just to be objective about it as I can,” Carter said, “I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over.” Neither can I, and that’s a real problem.

Rather than substantively addressing any of these major problems in his State of the Union address, the president took a victory lap and spiked the football on his presidency. But the American people clearly don’t think there’s much to celebrate, nor do they think America has “made extraordinary progress on the path to a stronger country and brighter future,” as the administration believes it has.

While President Obama might be satisfied with where America finds itself, Republicans believe there is much more work yet to be done. The president still has 12 months remaining in his presidency, and it’s our hope that he spends each month working with us to make the American people’s lives better.

###

National Security: A Top Concern
Left Unaddressed at the State of the Union
By Senator Mike Rounds

In the President’s final State of the Union Address, many of us had hoped to hear him propose serious ideas for reaching across the aisle to address the challenges our country faces. Instead, we heard more of the same rhetoric that has failed to produce the kind of results the American people are looking for. It’s no surprise only 23 percent of our country thinks we are headed in the right direction. The VA is broken, Obamacare is failing, manufacturing has shrunk, our debt has skyrocketed and new regulations being promulgated by this administration are crushing the American dream.

Perhaps most importantly, our national security has taken a hit over the past seven years. During his State of the Union Address, President Obama had an opportunity to lay out a plan to mitigate growing world threats. Instead, he ignored the dangers posed by Iran which was holding 10 U.S. service members as prisoners at the time, meanwhile touting his reckless nuclear deal with Iran.

He also failed to lay out a clear and concise plan to defeat ISIS. This is particularly noteworthy given a recent CBS/New York Times poll showing that 67 percent of Americans think our fight against ISIS is going “poorly.” Americans are right to be concerned. The Islamic terror group continues to maintain significant strength and was the perpetrator or inspiration for recent attacks that killed both civilians and law enforcement officers in Paris, San Bernardino, Istanbul and Jakarta. Yet the president continues to believe our current course of limited action is working.

While we often focus on conflicts in the Middle East, it’s important that we not ignore military aggression and human rights violations occurring elsewhere in the world. I recently cosponsored a bill that would impose broad new sanctions against individuals involved in North Korea’s nuclear program and proliferation activities, as well as officials involved in overseeing the regime’s continued human rights abuses.

I also joined a number of my Senate colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding his recent assurances to the Iranian Foreign Minister that new Visa Waiver Program (VWP) restrictions wouldn’t impact Iranian interests. The VWP changes were enacted last month to help make certain terrorists cannot enter our country through loopholes in our system. Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism and yet this administration is seeking to assure them they will not be negatively impacted by new restrictions for foreigners coming into the U.S. We should not be apologizing to anyone for seeking to keep American citizens safe.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I frequently hear from top military leaders and experts on the national security risks we currently face. As we move forward, we must continue to closely monitor bad actors, including ISIS, Iran and North Korea, to make certain we are taking or are fully prepared to take necessary action to defend our country and our allies.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The president would be wise to take threats to the U.S. and our interests more seriously.

###