From my mailbox, former State Senator/Asst Majority Leader Dan Lederman and Meade County Commissioner Linda Rausch have announced their candidacy for Chair and Vice Chair of the South Dakota Republican Party:
Dear fellow Central Committee Member,
If you haven’t heard, for the last three weeks, we’ve been talking to Republicans across South Dakota about the need for the party’s next leadership team to represent the breadth and diversity that is the SDGOP. With that, we are excited to be candidates for the offices of Chair and Vice Chair for the South Dakota Republican Party.
Most of the Central Committee knows us but here is a short introduction for friends we haven’t made yet:
Dan Lederman – Candidate for Chair
- 12 years as the Union County GOP Chairman
- Served as Union County Commissioner
- Part owner of bail bond company operating across the Midwest
- Served in the State House and State Senate as Assistant Majority Leader
Linda Rausch – Candidate for Vice Chair
- 26-year career as Global Construction Manager for a Fortune 500 company
- Past President of the Black Hills Association of Realtors
- State Director for South Dakota Association of Realtors and State Government Director
- Life-long agriculture affiliation, with family farms in Potter and Sully counties
- Served as Meade County Republican Chair and Committeewoman
- Meade County Commissioner since January 2011
We are not writing to ask you to be FOR us. We are writing to ask you to be WITH us.
Together, as a unified party, we hope to:
- Grow the number of active county parties and build on the current county GOP groups
- Diversify our fundraising efforts to find new sources of revenue and fundraising activities
- Provide more training and resources for county parties to recruit and develop candidates
- Expand the use of social media to engage the public and organize grassroots
- Meet head-on the ballot measures and challenges pushed by Democrats and out-of-state groups
Our bylaws are clear that the county central committee elects the Executive Board and we hope you join us as we exercise that right to vote on February 11th at 1 pm at the Pierre Chamber of Commerce, located at 800 W. Dakota Avenue.
Thank you for your consideration of our candidacy. Looking forward to seeing you in Pierre!
Sincerely,
Dan Lederman Linda Rausch
Union County Chairman Meade County Committeewoman
P.S. We would like to hear your ideas on how to make the South Dakota GOP better. Please call us anytime!
Dan’s cell (605) 610-1479 Linda’s cell (605) 391-2136
Here we go. We’ve got a race on our hands.
How does leaderman have time to do this? Didn’t he quit the legislature because he needed to spend more time with the family? This position is unpaid and thankless. Unless he sees it as a launching point for something bigger.
Wow. Jerk statement.
Dusty Johnson quit as Chief of Staff to spend more time with his family. Now they are both running for positions again. Good for them. Serve SD.
That’s not a jerk statement, it’s a reasonable question. I hope Dan takes the time to answer it. His reason for leaving the Legislature was because it took him away from his family. Why is the Chair position different? I don’t say that as a criticism, he may very well have good answer to that question.
I think it is also reasonable to ask Pam why she all of a sudden changed her mind on running again. Both candidates should be able to answer reasonable questions about their candidacies.
Do you think Dusty Johnson should have to answer the question of why he didn’t serve his second term of the PUC or quit as COS to be closer to his family? People need to take time to be with their family for various reasons. I don’t think this all needs to be personal.
Lederman reaching out to central committee members is more outreach than has been done in two years. Win or lose he has put central committee members in a better position.
Dusty is definitely going to have to explain why he quit the PUC. I think he had a good reason but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to explain it.
Requiring candidates to answer questions and explain why they left previous positions before we hire them for a new one isn’t an attack on them or to say that they shouldn’t get said new job. It is just part of the process of earning a vote.
Knowing Dan and Dusty, they won’t have any problem explaining these things
Pam didn’t want to run but the governor couldn’t find anybody else so I asked her to run again nothing better than having a chairman that doesn’t want to do it.
Chief of Staff is not an elected position.
Good point. And it doesn’t have a set term like elected office. Staff come and go but you generally expect the elected official to serve their term.
and did the gov have an unexpected opening or how did it come about that after a campaign season where Dusty was running for office did this job open up? or did Chris Nelson need a job after losing the congressional race so the Governor find him one…….the more you think about it Pierre needs a good cleaning out.
Dusty didn’t serve one second of his second term. He finished his first and then Nelson took the oath to serve 4 years.
Shorma was appointed to Lederman’s seat.
The party currently holds both Senate seats, the House seat, and the Governor’s office. It is at or near record number of state legislative seats. Further, the near record state legislative majority has been maintained for several years, something that is just as difficult as achieving the majority.
Pam Roberts is doing an excellent job as Chair, and raises tons of money. Why on earth is a change in leadership needed?
Because no one in the SD GOP returns phone calls to central committee members anymore.
The primary job of the Chair is helping the party succeed — fund raising being a major component. The current chair has done this, by any available metric.
Your primary concern should be with the health of the party, not how often you get your head patted.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Fundraising IS a major component, but certainly not the only (nor perhaps most important) one. Even by that “metric,” although $275,000 is a lot of money to ME, that seems an inadequate measure as to the overall “health” of a statewide political organization.
Unless you’re an active member of your county party, or member of the state central committee, you’re unlikely to be in a position to judge the “health” of the party.
For those of us that are, the items below will be among the most important issues in deciding what slate will take charge of leading the party into the next term.
Growing and building the county parties that comprise the SDGOP.
Diversify and increase fundraising activities and revenue.
Provide training and resources to develop county parties and candidates.
Expand the use of social media to engage the public and organize grassroots.
Meet head-on the ballot measures and challenges pushed by Democrats and out-of-state groups.
The SDGOP is comparatively strong compared to a weak SDDP, but the important question is: is it objectively strong when measured as an organization?
I believe the party needs a new vision and strong leadership to ensure its success.
And that’s the problem. The party has become so “top-down” that it is tone deaf as far as the Central Committee is concerned.
Does that mean that Lederman is planning to fire Budmayr? That would seem to be a failure of staff (and I assume the point is that staff performance is a reflection on the Chair).
Their website is always outdated, also.
Lederman would win this if it was a fair race without endorsements. He’s the better leader.
Daugaard, Rounds, Noem and Thune made it harder for central committee leaders to vote impartially.
Why be involved if you are just rubber stamps.
My question in all of this: Did Lederman go to Daugaard and express his interest? And did Daugaard tell him no?
Every one knows that Roberts didn’t want to do it again and Daugaard was looking for someone. I’d be interested in knowing why Daugaard didn’t want Lederman.
And if Lederman didn’t express his interest to Daugaard, knowing that the Governor usually picks the Chair, I’d also be interested in knowing why to that as well.
I see nothing in the party bylaws that establishes the state chair shall be selected by the governor.
http://southdakotagop.com/about-the-party/bylaws/
Understood. But you know better than I do that is how it is traditionally done. And Dan knows that as well. So if he wanted to be Chair, and knew that the Gov USUALLY gets to pick, it would seem logical that he would simply tell the Gov that he wanted the job. However, the question of whether he did or not would tells us a lot about intra-party rifts. If he did tell Daugaard and DD ignored him, that begs the question: Why? Likewise, if he didn’t tell/ask Daugaard, knowing that the Gov could have simply selected him as his choice, that also begs the question: Why?
Frankly, I’ve always thought of that “tradition” as a flaw in our party organization (regardless of who is in that position), as the chairmanship becomes a patronage position, rather than one representative of the party as a whole.
I think it reflects the idea that the Governor is the “head” of the State Party. Similar to the President being the head of the national party, and therefore getting to pick the RNC Chair.
And the question still remains whether Lederman sought the traditional route or not.
That idea, is not reflected in the actual bylaws.
As I stated above, I feel it remains a weakness in the party organization if not changed. That’s been my thought since I became active in the party, regardless of who the governor happens to be.
Whether the “traditional route” was sought, or not, doesn’t affect my opinion. The question, as far as I’m concerned, is this a tradition that benefits the party, or damages it in the long term?
This isn’t a plug for either side.
William Beal raises a good list of topics for discussion, hope folks at all levels ponder it
Should probably add to it, a first question about whether county based structures are the most effective organization in a digital age. Not picking a side in the question, but demographics change and tools change for reaching voters.
People today are probably more effectively reached by groups they belong to and communities they associate with. The arbitrary boundaries of counties drawn the century before the last one, may not be the best tool today (or maybe it’s the only viable one – but a discussion is warranted)
Lee, I’m glad you bring those points to the discussion.
The weakest defense any organization can make is, “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” I cringe when I hear that phrase, as it indicates an insular “bubble,” that’s reached a status quo it can’t “think its way out of,” no longer actively working to incorporate new ideas and strategies in a competitive environment.
As you point out, the county based structures are likely NOT the most effective structure for today, and certainly not the future, if simply for the reason that in rural areas our legislative districts comprise a number of counties, and boundaries can even cross within county lines. As an example, prior to 2010 redistricting, our county was divided between two districts. Fundraising efforts by smaller districts often require joint/district dinners and events, as some counties within districts have no party organization at all. Ad Hoc district organizations are cropping up (District 8 luncheon today, for example) but these efforts are by the counties themselves, with no assistance or input by the state party.
Social media outreach is another area that needs coordinated development, yet counties that use them, have implemented them independently.
As you also point out, demographics are rapidly changing in our state and again, one of the difficulties in building the grassroots is exemplified in some of the comments made in the other threads such as: “real South Dakotan,” (Dan living “too close to the border,” etc). Those types of comments don’t represent an attitude conducive to party growth, but an insular cliquishness that turns people away. Recruiting efforts for newcomers in our communities are hindered by this type of attitude.
These are among the topics of discussion that have been ongoing within the central committee both during sessions and other party gatherings, and not just over the past two years. My concern is more that the growing momentum the party had leading into the 2014 elections has faltered and needs more active engagement by its executive board.
I firmly believe we need a fresh start, willing to address the challenges of the future of the party, in order to move forward.
Good point, Lee.
In Minnesota, some areas organize by State Senate District. I don’t believe it is uniform but I know of at least a few areas that have the SDXX Republican Party. That might be an option to consider, particularly in some of the more rural areas of SD that struggle to maintain a county party.
I’m going on the record that I disagree with Lee and Bill with some exceptions.
Part of politics is having a vehicle for person-to-person contact and organization. Every county has a county seat which brings people from the different towns and rural areas together. Until we fundamentally change our local public squares from the county seat, we should stick with the current format.
Exception: Sioux Falls/Lincoln/Minnehaha County (I leave it to other large counties to decide if this works for them). Sioux Falls is the dominant “public square” for Sioux Falls residents who live in Lincoln County. Brandon & Dell Rapids are the “public square” in those communities vs. Sioux Falls/Minnehaha County GOP where they are overwhelmed by the size of Sioux Falls.
How to deal with this exception needs more thought but I do not agree with wholesale changes for most of the state. What Lee and Bill are contemplating sounds too much like the primarily Sioux Falls advocated county consolidation. My suggestion is to push large entities to be more like the counties in rural areas. Lee and Bill’s idea is to make the rest of the state more like Sioux Falls. Disagree.
I don’t think Bill and Lee are advocating anything specific. They’re just asking the question of whether county-specific party structures are the best model. It’s worth a discussion and I personally think it is worth exploring in SOME areas, but not all. But Bill and Lee asking for a discussion does not mean they’re promoting a certain answer.
Anon – you are correct. But I had to chuckle about my little buddy Troy’s post – as he’s using examples of communities of interest, and apparently he hasn’t back home to Gettysburg often enough to remember that what he said about Sioux Falls and Dell Rapids, etc, could as well be said about Sturgis-Faith, North Central Region (Walworth-Campbell – western McPherson and western Edmunds) and many similar places in our state. In general, there appears to be a lack of respect by South Dakotans for continuing to organize their business, social and school lives around the boundaries drawn the century before the last century by some folks none of have ever heard of (who mostly worked for a railroad that doesn’t exist anymore – go figure 🙂
As a Union County Republican, I would say if Dan performs the way he has here, the state party is going to suffer. No declared meetings, no inclusion of people other than he deems necessary. The fact he raises money for his PAC in South Dakota and spends it in Iowa. Just say NO.
Is there a comprehensive list of who is on the Central Committee these days?
Would be curious if either of the candidates have held fundraisers for either Governor Candidatebfor the 2018 election? That should disqualify them immediately since they represent the party, not an individual candidate.
I would be, too! Who donthe two candidates support for Governor and House?
Money is always important regardless of where it comes from. Legislative majorities are of a higher importance though and having your party hold the Executive seat of the highest. But the here and now as far as I can see are having South Dakota Leaders leading the education of factual outcomes of IM’s in the future which are of Liberal out of State origin specifically written to smack our Republican Party. Let IM 22 be the wake up up call.