From the Argus Leader, Democrat State Rep. Linda Duba points out that she’s not going to be coming to Pierre during the legislative session:
Rep. Linda Duba, D-Sioux Falls, was tapped by her District 15 constituents to serve a second term in Pierre in November’s election. But with coronavirus continuing to spread in the state, the 64-year-old former educator and Citibank executive told her colleagues and constituents last week that she doesn’t feel safe attending session in person and instead will fulfill her obligations as a legislator remotely.
“We’ve had time to discuss the things that truly matter to us as a family. We believe my personal health needs to take priority,” Duba wrote in an email sent to legislative leadership and the governor’s office. “As a result, I have made the difficult decision to participate in all legislative activities (committee work, caucus, general session) remotely until such a time as I am able to receive the required two doses of the approved vaccines.”
Whether she shows up for the legislative session is between her and her constituents.
But when I first heard about this, it brought to mind a question regarding whether she’s going to be paid for mileage, meals and her hotel, since she’s likely to be hanging out at home on the couch instead of being in Pierre.
That’s a considerably different matter.
According to SDCL 2-4-2, the statute that spells out legislative pay (My emphasis):
2-4-2. Salary and expense allowances of legislators.
The salary of each member of the Legislature is equal to one-fifth of the South Dakota median household income reported by the United States Census Current Population Survey, as ascertained and adjusted each year by the State Board of Finance to take effect on the first day of January of each year for every regular legislative session. In addition, each legislator shall receive:
(1) Reimbursement to be paid after the legislative session for actual mileage or its equivalent traveled to and from home not more than once each weekend or between days of recess during the regular legislative session, at state rates established by the Board of Finance;
(2) Expenses of one hundred twenty-three dollars per day for each day of a regular or special legislative session as prepaid reimbursement for living expenses, including meals and lodging, laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing, and all other uncompensated expenses as defined in § 2-4-2.1 incident to the performance of legislative services, or at the amount fixed for the per diem allowance that is authorized by the United States Internal Revenue Service to be excluded from the gross income without itemization as of October first each year, whichever of the two is greater; and
(3) Five cents once each session for every mile of necessary travel in going to and returning from the place of meeting of the Legislature by the most usual route.
For each day’s attendance at special sessions, each member, in addition to mileage and expenses, shall receive a per diem calculated by the director of the Legislative Research Council equal to the normal daily compensation for the regular session immediately preceding the special session.
(note: Federal per diem is currently about $96 for lodging and $55 for meals and incidentals. )
While mileage is spelled out as actual, the parameters around hanging out at home during session seems to put little incentive on showing up.
So, taxpayers are going to be footing a bill of $151/day for Duba’s meals and lodging while she hangs out in her living room at home? I believe it totals close to $6000.
I don’t believe that would fly with anyone else on the state payroll. Why should Duba be able to cash out with $6k of hotel, meals, etcetera, when any state employee would be charged with a crime if they submitted vouchers for expenses they didn’t have?
As I was discussing with a Legislator this evening, it’s one thing if they get COVID and have to stay in their hotel room. In that case, I think all would agree that the per diem is entirely appropriate.
But if Duba isn’t going to incur an expense for her “meals and lodging, laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing,” then why should she be able to pocket that as a legislator who isn’t showing up in Pierre?
What are your thoughts?
That will go down like a shot dog.
First, I do not think she will be allowed to stay home. Second, I respect her decision not to put herself at risk but should resign from her position if she feels that way. It is a public service position. By the way, wasn’t she interviewed on T V when she stood shoulder to shoulder during the George Floyd protest in Sioux Falls a few months ago? Yup, there you go.
She can stay home, but not vote
It seems to me she should have known about the risks involved with the China Flu and if she did not feel safe in traveling to Pierre and participating in the legislative process, she should not have run. As it is, she should probably resign. If she were MY l would call her and suggest she resign. I believe she is being selfish and doing a great disservice to her constituents.
Yes. She should have campaigned by telling her constituents that; while she wants to go to Pierre she will not go to Pierre because although she wants to she doesn’t want to.
I wanted to go to work but didn’t go to work and therefore got FIRED! Not really, I work.
The Legislative leadership has a COVID mitigation strategy.
I plan to participate in Pierre. I have made housing arrangements
for the session.
Linda is nothing more than a show boat leftist…she is healthy…more than the average citizen of South Dakota…what joke!!!…
How is per diem handled for legislators who live in Pierre.
No one gets them if you live within 50 miles of the Capitol.
She will have to pay each day back that she is not in Pierre, even if she is excused by the speaker. Legislators are paid per diem for 35 of the 37 days on the first day of session, and are paid the final two days at the end of session after filling out a form showing how many legislative days they have missed. If they have missed more than two, they need to reimburse the state back for those days they have been paid for. If they have not missed any days they are paid for the final two days of per diem.
Whether participating remotely is added to the rules that are adopted the first week of session remains to be seen. It is not currently in the rules. If it is not added she will not be able to participate unless she is in Pierre.
This brings up an interesting point. Legislators are also paid per diem for summer committees, which makes sense. However, I don’t know if this is still the case or not, but there was a time not long ago that even if you participated in a summer committee conference call from home, you would be paid per diem. That always struck me as bad policy. So with that in mind, does Rep. Duba have an argument to be paid as long as she is ‘participating’ via phone or video call? While I don’t support her play here, the Legislature needs to be consistent in applying their use of per diem.
She’s a democrat. She want’s to get paid for not showing up and and NOT doing the work she agreed to. She ran on doing the work before she decided not to. These people have no integrity. Yet, I’M not surprised. So when does the rebuilding start? 🙂
The article says nothing about accepting pay or expenses. This is all speculation. Need to check records for past when at least one legislator took a quick vacation during session and see if he had a deduction of pay or expense reinbursement.
One less Democrat–will anyone notice?
More free food for the other legislatures who are getting their full meal money plus $1000 per week. Ms. Duba was an eater, I was told.
lol
Anon,
I agree they need to be consistent but the doesn’t mean summer committee participation and main session participation should be treated the same regarding per diem.
That said, I really don’t care in the big picture. If she thinks she is entitled to be paid for not showing up, I’ll defer judgment to her constituents.