In participating with Governor Noem’s previous request, the South Dakota State Legislature is examining whether there are more conflicts of interest out there, and intend to use them as examples in seeking guidance from the South Dakota Supreme Court.
In a meeting of the legislative Executive Board today, the panel went over the details as they attempt to answer the question of what legislators can or cannot do:
South Dakota lawmakers will receive a letter this week, asking them to list all possible conflicts of interest when it comes to their jobs outside of being legislators.
Those responses will then be used in a brief that the South Dakota Supreme Court will examine while they make a decision regarding the broad nature of a constitutional provision banning lawmakers from having a either a director or indirect conflict of interest in state contracts during their terms and up to a year after they exit office.
Read that in the Argus Leader.
At the same meeting, it came to light that the Auditor’s office would be an active participant in attempting to navigate the potential conflicts as well:
During a meeting Tuesday of the Executive Board, State Auditor Richard Sattgast explained his office would be bringing in a new accounting system that would track conflict of interest disclosures for grants.
The new system will request employers applying for state department and agency-specific grants disclose if a sitting lawmaker could benefit from the contract. State lawmakers would also have a chance to self-disclose as well if they’re a partner in the business.
What do you think? Should someone be disqualified from serving if they participate in a spouse’s business? Or if a state employee on the job buys a shovel at a legislator’s store?
Some guidelines in this portion of law that dates back to 1889 would be helpful.
The notion that the supreme court is going to address the merits of one or two dozen hypotheticals, in the absence of a live controversy or trial record, is naive in the extreme.
To most of us, I think it would make more sense for people to consider whether they have any possible conflicts before they decide to run for office, and if they don’t, to then avoid such conflicts after they are elected to office.
I don’t know if more government here is the answer, but having an Ethics committee where legislators or candidates can ask for guidance on such matters before they run might be good. I would rather see the Legislature police themselves than have the Executive branch try to do it.
This issue can get complicated in a hurry. If a Governor wants to hire a spouse of a key leader, is that ok? What about people who work for health providers? Nurse OK, but maybe not an administrator signing his name to grant applications? What about lawyers of a big firm who has a partner who represents the state?
I would say that there is equal concern that this doesn’t apply to the executive branch and the top employees.
grudznick is your ethics committee. Give me the specifics and I will rule. Be advised, my rulings are more binding than most, and you may rue them.
It is a small state. We have one party government and have had one party government for 50 years. The opposition Party is virtually powerless. The only safeguard we have are the personal ethics of the members of the majority Party.
Someone, either the Supreme Court or the Legislature, needs to come up with a definitive definition of “indirectly” for conflict of interest. Otherwise, complaints are going to overwhelm the system.
One party control it is all window dressing. Nothing will result.
Searchlight had this interesting quote:
The state auditor said Tuesday he has fielded claims that numerous legislators are violating state constitutional provisions regarding conflicts of interest.
“I haven’t been given any names, but I’ve been alerted that there are possibly 20 legislators out of the 105 that would probably have some sort of conflict,” said Auditor Rich Sattgast, who shared the information with the Legislature’s Executive Board on Tuesday in Pierre.
Noem could be appointing a large number of legislators.
Sounds like a bunch of election losers eating sour grapes.
One TERRIBLE idea would be a legislative ethics committee who pretends to rule on the legality of each others’ contracts. “Hey your bidness deal with the government looks good to me! Are you good with my little state contract?”
I recall a meeting of the Dons in Godfather II. they were handing out swag to each other….and one said “every bird must wet his beak.”
The legislature is the LAST place to judge enforcement …..this is the Attorney General and Auditor’s job and has been since statehood. Then it goes to Circuit Court. Its worked well for over a century. The big stuff gets handled, and the petty or hypothetical stuff gets ignored.