So much for the state constitution.
In a press release this AM, Kathy Tyler is trying to politicize the state constitution this morning by claiming it’s biased against Democrats because of EB-5., despite the federal program being younger by about 140-150 years than the state’s founding document.
ARE REPUBLICANS PUNISHING DEMOCRATS FOR EB-5 INQUIRY?
PIERRE, SD — Republican leaders have fired a legislative secretary in the State House of Representatives, leaving Democrats wondering whether the incident is related to the EB-5 inquiry.
Republican and Democrat leaders are allowed to employ staff secretaries during the legislative session. Both Republicans and Democrats have Caucus secretaries. Because of their minority status the Democrats only have two — a secretary to the House Minority Leader and a secretary to the Senate Minority Leader.
House Minority Leader Spencer Hawley interviewed applicants and selected former legislator Kathy Tyler as the House secretary, but she received notice that she was terminated on Friday (Jan. 16). Republican leaders pointed to a constitutional provision (Article 3, Sec. 12) that says legislators may not have an interest in a state contract while in office or for a year after leaving office. The provision has proved controversial in the past because of its vagueness.
Controversial? Apparently Tyler doesn’t know her state constitution. Or bothered to look at the issue other than having her written hissy fit.
Because last I checked, it’s been far more Republicans who have been stung by this. Such as in the last time this came up in Pitts v. Larson.
[¶ 5.] On February 9, 2001, the Attorney General of South Dakota learned from the media that Pitts was a state employee. The Attorney General advised Pitts that her employment with SDSU CES and her position as a member of the House of Representatives presented a conflict of interest. Pitts, her attorney and the Attorney General’s Office entered into discussions on the matter. At the conclusion of the discussions, Pitts was advised that if she continued her employment with the State after July 1, 2001, the date on which the General Appropriation Bill was to take effect, her employment contract would be voided and she would not receive any compensation for her services.
It was pretty cut and dried the last time the issue came up. If Kathy Tyler had bothered to look at the history of this constitutional provision she would have quickly found that it was neither controversial nor should it have come as a surprise.
For something she should have clearly realized, pouting about it in the manner she is just diminishes Tyler’s prior service and makes her look silly.
And that’s not shocking given her tenure.