Looks like legislative leadership disagrees on whether taxpayers should bear the cost of defending Speaker Gosch’s refusal to release how House Members voted in convening a special session for impeachment.
Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck who released the Senate’s vote is saying no, Gosch can pay it himself, and Speaker Gosch disagrees, saying that it was an official duty, where taxpayers can cover the cost of defending him:
Schoenbeck, who had released the names of senators who petitioned for the session, emailed fellow legislators last week to press for a meeting of the Legislature’s executive committee if Gosch intended to involve the Legislature in the legal battle.
“There is no legal basis for the Speaker’s actions and I will not support any expenditure of taxpayer funds on this behavior,” he wrote in the email obtained by The Associated Press.
Gosch replied by asserting that he was acting in his official capacity as speaker when he made the decision not to release the names and he expected the attorney general to represent him if the state Supreme Court considers the lawsuit.
What is Gosch’s justification for not releasing this information? He is going to lose and now he is being stubborn and can’t admit he made a mistake. That is a horrible quality to possess as a leader.
Speaker Gosch, just release the damn list. I don’t feel I should have to help pay for something as petty as this. What are you hiding?
Says everything when Gosch isn’t willing to financially back his bad play. Being willing to waste tax dollars on it says something else too.
Isn’t this just insaner than all get out of hell? Young Mr. Gosch seems committed to wrecking what little credibility he had left after letting Mr. Haugaard be his puppet master for so long. Perhaps Mr. Haugaard is behind this, too. Did he not also want all of us to pay for his dumb moves?
The question is wais he sued in his official capacity if so then the government needs to pay or defend him that’s how it works
This post raises a legitimate point but omits other relevant considerations. Regardless of their stance on impeachment, most SD voters want the House vote released. The overwhelming majority oppose using taxpayer money to keep the vote secret. Mr. Gosch could settle this case today. Why hide in the shadows? Just follow the SD Senate’s example & speak the truth. One email blast & the suit ends. Taxpayer money could be redirected to projects more beneficial than legal fees.
In the alternative, he can fight in court – a stubborn choice that costs our state hundreds of thousands of dollars. Voters will be…unimpressed and (next year) legislators who wasted money on this crusade may reap the whirlwind. Under God, the people rule.
I have seen no polls to back up your statements what evidence do you actually have beyond your own arrogant assumptions?
I bet there’s a higher percentage of the voting public they would like their $200,000 back that Noem caused by her own actions why don’t we talk about that it’s still a sweeping it under the rug let’s talk about the real person that should be impeached.
Let’s stay on topic:
So you think it’s arrogant to predict that the taxpayers don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars to try to win Gosch the right to keep secret a House vote? And yes — it is a vote. According to the statement Gosch gave to the Argus in September: “”We’re just VOTING for a meeting. That’s all we’re VOTING for…..”
I think it is arrogant to make such proclamations about what other people think without any proof. Speak for yourself but not others with proof
Seems like all we do is pay huge bills for stuff we don’t agree with. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s tired of it.
SD spends too much money defending persons that take actions knowing they are questionable or pass laws knowing the law is questionable. If we have limited funds, spend the funds wisely and stop making lawyers rich.
These guys make me laugh.
The state just paid $200k in hush money to be quiet and now we are taking a principled stand on Gosch’s little legal bill?
So it’s wrong for Gosch to ask for legal costs to be covered? But it would be ok if he paid the Argus $200k to be quiet and go away and never talk about this again?
Or, *gasp*, both of these things are bad. Most commenters here have taken that stance. Stop deflecting.
My view (and I could be wrong so please feel free to enlighten me)
The gov has a meeting. Someone does something wrong. Pay that person $200k to not talk with taxpayer money.
If the governors office doesn’t want to release something like the appraisal scores and is taken to court then the state would pay that fee correct? Not the governor from her personal account or an employee who refused or release docs?
Or if HP and Kevin Thom want to challenge the voters passed laws then the state is paying for that or are they paying it out of their personal accounts?
There is a lot of confusion going on here.
Is it ok for the executive branch to not have individuals pay legal fees but not ok for legislators?
How about the unconstitutional tresspassing law for keystone XL? I heard many legislators say that was unconstitutional but then suddenly the state must have paid those legal Bill’s to defend it even though it was overturned.
We have such a lopsided system of government in SD.
If Gosch pays this then it’s probably time for the legislature to look closely at what the state will pay for the executive branch because these prices are vastly superior to what Gosch’s bill will be.
We need new standards.
No they haven’t…who has openly come out condemning the governor —which Republican legislators?
This is clearly a conflict of interest and an abuse of power by the Governor —national ethics scholars have said so also.
Talk about impeachable.
Did you just conflate “commenters here” with “republican legislators?” Read what I wrote and then maybe chill out.
How would anybody know who commenters are
Seems to me Noem has done a lot of things that are impeachable!
I disagree with your opinion.
And I disagree with your opinion. Just the fact that she forced a person out of her job because her daughter couldn’t pass a test to get a license. It costs the state $200,000.
That alone is an abuse of power and an impeachable offense.
When Haugaard was sued for banning a lobbyist from the House floor, he paid the legal fees — taxpayers didn’t have to foot the bill. Read it here:
https://www.keloland.com/news/s-d-house-speaker-paid-12000-for-lobbyists-legal-fees/
When asked about the money, Haugaard said, “No state funds. I had broad support for the position I took.” If Gosch truly believes that voters want him to keep this House vote secret, then why doesn’t he fundraise to pay the legal fees? That way, taxpayers that recognize his action as unconstitutional don’t have to pay.
It’s not unconstitutional
It’s a separation of powers issue and the Supreme Court should not even take the case.
How do you get around that the House has the sole power of impeachment?