State Representative Kevin Jensen has been in the news a bit lately.
He’s announced that he’s in the running for State Republican chairman. His place of business in Sioux Falls was apparently broken into once again yesterday, after a prior break-in. And he may yet get in the news again, this time from an interest he tangentially is involved with that does business with the State of South Dakota.
According to the South Dakota Open SD transparency website, the Department of Social Services has several contracts out there with Kevin Jensen’s name on it as the fiscal officer for agreements that have been written while he has been serving as a state legislator.
(You can go look up all those contracts here).
Now, Representative Jensen has disclosed his relationship to the organization, doing so as being part of the family income:
But the question – especially since his name is on the contracts – is whether that income is far enough past arm’s length to not run afoul of the state constitution?
According to Article III Section 12 of the South Dakota Constitution:
§ 12. Legislators ineligible for other office–Contracts with state or county. No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be appointed or elected to any civil office in the state which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during the term for which he was elected, nor shall any member receive any civil appointment from the Governor, the Governor and senate, or from the Legislature during the term for which he shall have been elected, and all such appointments and all votes given for any such members for any such office or appointment shall be void; nor shall any member of the Legislature during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within one year thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.
How indirect does “indirect” have to be?
According to past cases, in 2001 former State Rep. Carol Pitts ultimately had to resign because she was considered an employee of an office of the Board of Regents after a review by the Supreme Court. And I believe in the late 80’s another legislator’s corporation could not enter into a highway contract because not enough time had elapsed.
I cannot find a South Dakota precedent on how this particular instance would be viewed, especially in light of the fact that Representative Jensen’s name is on the contract as the fiscal officer for the business.
But given that the State Constitution says “indirectly,” it may be a question that needs to be answered.
I think in a case like this which is very clear that it could be somewhat unethical, Kevin should remove himself from the business dealings or remove himself from the legislature. Even if there is no wrongdoing, which i expect is the case, the optics just don’t look good and this is a violation of the intent of the law to avoid any sort of conflicts that could potentially arise because of those intertwining relationships.
Somewhat? $500k?
The guy needs to be removed from the legislature immediately. They shouldn’t allow him to be sworn in.
Jackley should investigate Jensen on day one.
Carol Pitts. Yeah. Time to go Kevy. Somehow I don’t think Jensen lasts long.
Pretty naked conflict of interest. Is he protecting taxpayer interests or his own?
As fiscal officer for the business as noted on the contracts, the question is whether he’s doing it for free, or if he’s a paid employee. And even if free, how far removed does it have to be with it saying “indirect.” That’s a wide open space.
I would assume his wife gets paid and they use the same checking accounts so yeah its still a conflict if his life is benefited by these contracts.
Time to follow Pitts and resign.
How about the conflict with Sanford employees and all the money the state pays Sanford? Don’t they benefit financially?
Just another example of another criminal in politics.
Just like trump.
Maybe there needs to be larger glasses worn and closer looks made for more true offenders.
It’s not a zero sum game. Holding this legislator accountable doesn’t mean others can’t be.
Why do you say “NOW, Representative Jensen has disclosed his relationship to the organization” when the file below shows he disclosed this in 2018? Seems like he disclosed this 4 years ago.
Time to resign.
Bartels can remove him.
Does anyone realize that Jensen’s wife held these contracts for a decade before he was elected to office? Seems like this article is a little biased and doesn’t give all the facts. It also looks as though Jensen disclosed his wife’s company when he took office in 2018. It seems she just kept the contacts she always had and everyone knew about it. The optics are bad, but when you look t all the facts it doesn’t seem to be that dirty like the write would like us to believe. Drive by media alert.
Is it just the optics, or is what the constitution says bad?
Why is it “drive by media alert?” Is this kind of thing always ok until someone notices it?
It is drive-by media because they leave out alot of facts and don’t tell the whole story. Not saying whether it’s OK or not, but it is definitely misleading the readers by purposely leaving out key facts. Saying things like now representative Jensen discloses the relationship when it was clearly disclosed when he took office shows a complete and total bias by the author.