Federal District Court Denies Rhines’ Motion for Relief in Capital Case

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota has denied Charles Russell Rhines’ motion for habeas corpus relief and to amend the judgment. Rhines filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to overturn his conviction and death sentence for the murder of 22-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer in Rapid City on March 8, 1992.

“The Federal Court’s ruling affirms that Charles Russell Rhines’ murder conviction and capital sentence for the horrific murder of Donnivan Shaeffer are constitutional. My thoughts and prayers are with the Schaeffer family, who have waited 24 years for justice in this case,” said Jackley.

A Pennington County jury convicted Rhines of first degree murder in 1993 and returned a sentence of death. Rhines’ conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 1996. Rhines’ conviction and sentence were also affirmed on state habeas proceedings by the state trial court and South Dakota Supreme Court.

With the conclusion of his federal trial court habeas corpus proceedings, Rhines can file a notice of appeal within 30 days to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and, ultimately, to the United States Supreme Court. Rhines must obtain permission from the federal court to pursue an appeal.

-30-

Here’s an exciting development for SDWC – I’m extremely pleased to announce the addition of the South Dakota Banker’s Association, which has been in South Dakota since 1884, to our roster of advertisers.

South Dakota Bankers have a very strong presence in our local communities (as you can tell from the report attached to their first ad) and as noted, “serve as stewards of their communities and the state in ways beyond routine banking services.”  As noted on one page of a recent survey of member banks:

Local banks loaned and invested $254 Million in housing and community projects for low & moderate income residents; They donated $11 Million in charitable contributions and grants, which was exceeded by the $61 million that their employees put into it.  And they’ve volunteered over 150,000 hours with community organizations.

And let’s not forget the fact that the payroll of the 43 banks taking part in the survey put nearly $775 million into South Dakota’s economy through payroll.

As we move into political season where some politicians are declaring open season on lending institutions and making credit available to consumers, banking faces an uncertain future.  I’ve worked for a lending institution in the past, and as a REALTOR, I can tell you the availability and cost of credit and our system of banking should be a major concern for consumers.  We need to keep those things in mind when electing our leaders. And we need to be vigilant against attacks on them.

But, off of my soapbox…  Please check out their website, and take a moment to read how they positively affect our state!

And don’t forget our other advertisers, and check out their websites, such as United States Senator John Thune, Americans for Prosperity SD Chapter, Congresswoman Kristi Noem,the fine barristers at Redstone Law Firm, Vote Yes on S – Marsy’s Law, as well as my own Dakota Campaign Store, one of the State’s largest suppliers of campaign materials.

Rounds Requests Audit of Indian Health Service

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today formally requested an audit of the financial aspects of hospital and health care, medical services and overall financial management at Indian Health Service (IHS). In a letter sent to the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Rounds outlined specific areas of focus for the audit based on an in-depth profile analysis conducted by Rounds and his staff.

“Despite the agency’s well-documented history of failing to meet trust obligations by not providing quality health care, there has never been a systemic review of IHS to address and ultimately reform these issues in attempt to improve health outcomes for tribal members. Furthermore, there has been a continuing lack of consultation with the tribes,” wrote Rounds.

“Based on our review, our office has identified primary areas of concern with IHS’s administrative management, financial management and the quality of care delivered at IHS facilities. We are attempting to address many of the administrative concerns through legislation in the House and Senate. We believe an audit, similar to what was recently conducted at the Veterans Health Administration, which identified shortfalls and recommended solutions, is a potential model for addressing these critical financial and quality issues within IHS.”

During a Senate Indian Affairs Committee field hearing in Rapid City on June 17, 2016, HHS Acting Deputy Secretary Mary Wakefield stated that she ‘would welcome’ such an audit. Similarly, on April 15, 2016, the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association passed a resolution urging Congress to demand an audit of IHS.

The full text of the letter is available below:

July 6, 2016

The Honorable Daniel R. Levinson
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Office of Inspector General
330 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Inspector General Levinson:

Pursuant to the United States trust obligations to Native American tribes, the federal government established Indian Health Service (IHS) to provide health care for federally recognized tribal members. However, for decades IHS has been criticized by tribes and federal officials for their shortcomings outlined in numerous Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports. Despite the agency’s well-documented history of failing to meet trust obligations by not providing quality health care, there has never been a systemic review of IHS to address and ultimately reform these issues in attempt to improve health outcomes for tribal members. Furthermore, there has been a continuing lack of consultation with the tribes.

Most recently, a Great Plains Area hospital diverted emergency services because the hospital has been unable to meet basic requirements set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It now faces potential termination of its CMS certification. Additionally, a second hospital within the Great Plains Area lost its CMS certification and two other Great Plains Area hospitals are in jeopardy of losing this necessary requirement. We believe these CMS issues plaguing the Great Plains Area IHS facilities appear to be symptoms of a larger problem.

Therefore, our office has been researching IHS’s history, funding, systems management and organizational structure. During our review, we have evaluated GAO reports, Congressional Research Service (CRS) publications and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) fiscal year budget books. Further, we have had discussions with IHS officials and continue to have frequent communication with tribal leadership. Our analysis strongly suggests there are indeed systemic management and quality concerns. In the Great Plains Area, particularly in South Dakota, this issue has reached a crisis stage.  People are literally dying waiting for a solution.

Based on our review, our office has identified primary areas of concern with IHS’s administrative management, financial management and the quality of care delivered at IHS facilities. We are attempting to address many of the administrative concerns through legislation in the House and Senate. We believe an audit, similar to what was recently conducted at the Veterans Health Administration, which identified shortfalls and recommended solutions, is a potential model for addressing these critical financial and quality issues within IHS. Such action is supported by the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association, which recently passed a resolution calling upon Congress to demand an audit of IHS (enclosed).

I specifically mentioned the idea of an IHS financial audit to HHS Acting Deputy Secretary Mary Wakefield during the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs field hearing on June 17, 2016. Dr. Wakefield responded that HHS “would welcome” such an audit. With your support and understanding of the need to identify issues of concern with IHS, I am respectfully asking you to pursue this important investigation. My request is as follows:

AUDIT OF THE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PROCESSES OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.

I am respectfully requesting that you conduct an audit of the financial aspects of hospital and health care, medical services and overall financial management of Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services. I request the audit address each of the following:

Budget Allocation and Distribution: There is no funding formula to determine how the budget is distributed between regions; just historical distribution.

1. How is IHS able to appropriately operate without an overall funding formula? How does IHS arrive at their distribution decisions without a formula? Are there specific reasons for not having such a formula?
2. How are area directors informed of their budget allocation and how are they instructed to distribute their allocation amongst the area’s facilities?
3. Are local facilities able to manage their own budget or do they wait to receive allocation from the area office?
4. IHS has previously estimated that, in FY2015, it would have needed an additional $645 million to provide additional services for Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) eligible IHS beneficiaries. What is a realistic analysis of PRC shortages?
5. How does each area employ their PRC program and medical priority levels?
6. Why do different areas have different medical priority levels?
7. Is the amount spent on administration compared with direct health care comparable to private health care standards?
8. What is the allocation of budget spent on administration compared with the allocation of budget spent on direct health care?
9. Does this vary between IHS-operated and Tribally-operated facilities?
10. Tribal members report that a facility may have a number of vacant positions, yet the facility is not actively advertising employment opportunities. There is speculation that some full-time equivalent (FTE) positions are created with no intent to fill, but to support a high salary classification for a supervisor. Are there FTE employees that IHS has no intention to fill/has not filled for over 36 months?
11. Since the vacancy rate is so high, what happens with the budgeted personnel money that is not spent because FTE’s are open?  Is this money redeployed?
12. If so, how is the redeployment of funds determined?
13. According to IHS’ annual budget book, there are 3700 “Medicaid reimbursable FTE.”
14. How many are certified coders?
15. Is this amount necessary?
16. Are there consistent tracking of “dual eligible” patients (e.g. Patients eligible for Medicaid, IHS and/or other federal healthcare programs)?
17. How are “dual eligible” patients managed?
18. We noticed extreme discrepancies in the HHS Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Budget Book for IHS. The FY2017 annual budget book showed that IHS intended to spend $40 million more on tribally-operated facilities compared to federally-operated facilities in the Great Plains Area, even with the area being highly IHS-operated. IHS/HHS officials analyzed this discrepancy and recently posted revised documents showcasing almost an $80 million change in funding distribution in the Great Plains Area alone. Were these errors only documented incorrectly, or was this funding inappropriately distributed too?  What was the budget justification for suddenly correcting the error?  How many years has this error gone unnoticed?
19. Were area directors made aware of this error? If so, when?
20. If the funding was correctly distributed, how were area directors correctly distributing this funding while not noticing the budget book error?

Facilities and Asset Management: Management structure and process for construction and maintenance projects, the facilities leasing process, the purchasing, distribution and use of pharmaceuticals, medical and surgical supplies, medical devices and equipment.

1. How are long-term growth facility construction plans determined? Is there a priority based upon population trends, history and care demands?  What analysis is considered? Are buildings depreciated at a 30-year lifecycle?  What happens at the end of the lifecycle, are they remodeled or replaced?
2. Is the maintenance budget updated/increased to reflect increase maintenance expense with the addition of new facilities? Is the increase enough to support the growth of facilities?
3. How is equipment purchased and deployed? Is there a comprehensive plan for maintaining basic necessary equipment? How do facilities request equipment maintenance and upgrades? What resources are available to satisfy these requests?
4. How many procurement contracts/awards were authorized by IHS utilizing the Buy Indian Act (48 C.F.R. 370.501) authority? How does this compare to all awards/contracts made through IHS in the last five years?
5. What process do IHS facilities use to ensure compliance with 48 C.F.R. 370.501?

Transparency: There has been a lack in transparency in the culture of IHS for many years. Tribal leadership has consistently requested for increased transparency and more open communication between the IHS and the people they serve.

1. How are tribal/residual shares determined for each tribe? What are those share amounts?
2. How are funds distributed from area office budgets to local service units?  Are there set formulas or budgets for this?
3. How does IHS audit or evaluate that funds were distributed appropriately?
4. Are there periodic or end-of-year records to document how the budget is actually distributed?
5. Are these records audited following generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP)?
6. Are there checks and balances to assess potential fraud or misuse of funds?

 

We look forward to working with you to address the issues we have already identified and to learn more about other issues that your investigation uncovers. My office would be happy to provide any resources available to us to assist in your efforts. We would also be available to meet to discuss any questions or refinements to this request.  Please contact Gregg Rickman of Senator Rounds, at 202-224-5842 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this request.

Sincerely,
M .Michael Rounds
United States Senator

###

Thune Announces Bipartisan, Bicameral Agreement on Aviation Bill
“As we face ongoing terrorist threats, this legislation will make significant improvements to airport security and help keep South Dakota families safe while traveling.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today announced that House and Senate leaders have reached a bipartisan agreement on an aviation bill that would reauthorize Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs through September 30, 2017, and make several key reforms to security, safety, consumer protection, regulation of unmanned aircraft, and general aviation.

“The bipartisan, bicameral agreement reached today makes important investments in the future and includes numerous consumer protections,” said Thune. “As we face ongoing terrorist threats, this legislation will make significant improvements to airport security and help keep South Dakota families safe while traveling. The sooner we get this bill to the president’s desk, the sooner the FAA can get to work implementing these reforms.”

Thune served as the Senate’s lead negotiator during discussions between the House and Senate.

Highlights of the House-Senate agreement:

1. Aviation Security:

 Tightens the access controls and employee vetting standards for aviation workers with access to secure and sterile areas of airports, in order to mitigate the insider threat to aviation security.

 Strengthens security for foreign airports by requiring comprehensive security assessments for all overseas airports serving the United States and considers the level of information sharing and security capabilities of foreign airports.

 Expands the TSA PreCheck program by directing TSA to partner with the private sector to develop enhanced enrollment and vetting methods. By developing and marketing this program, TSA can strengthen security by identifying trusted travelers, while also increasing operational efficiency of checkpoints by providing expedited screening to more passengers.

2. Aviation Safety:

 Streamlines processes for approval and interagency cooperation to deploy unmanned aircraft during emergencies, such as disaster responses and wildfires.

 Requires the marking of certain towers to improve their visibility to low-flying aircraft and help prevent accidents.

 Directs the FAA to establish a comprehensive and strategic framework to identify and address cybersecurity risks to the aviation system.

3. Additional Provisions:

 Directs the Department of Transportation to create a working group on air service to small communities, including consideration of how to improve pilot training.

 Reforms and streamlines the third-class medical certification process.

 Requires air carriers to provide a refund of paid baggage fees when items are lost or unreasonably delayed.

 Requires airlines to generally ensure that children 13 years of age or under are seated adjacent to an adult or older child traveling with them.

Click here for a full summary of the agreement.

###

(From my mailbox – PP)

Greetings Fellow Republicans,

I wanted to take a moment as a follow up to the State Convention to discuss an important issue on the ballot this fall: Defeating Amendment V – Rick Weiland’s plan to elect Democrats by hiding party labels on the ballot.

The Republican Party overwhelmingly passed a Resolution at the State Convention opposing Amendment V. Senator Thune and Governor Daugaard spent significant time discussing the negative impacts of this Constitutional overhaul in their remarks on Friday evening at the Convention.

What Senator Thune says about Amendment V:

Amendment V is an attempt by South Dakota Democrats to hide candidate party affiliation on the ballot from voters. Rather than run on their party’s principles and policies it seems they are desperately looking for a way to run from them. I’m opposing Amendment V because I believe voters deserve more transparency on their ballot, not less.

Governor Daugaard said:

I believe political parties – all parties – serve an important role in our democracy. They crystalize issues. They bring like-minded people together. They help the electorate make sense of the electoral system.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with Amendment V, here are some of the facts.
Amendment V is a Constitutional overhaul that would take information away from voters at the time they need it most. This amendment would make three major changes to our election system:

• First, it would do away with partisan primaries. Every candidate from every party would run on the same ballot, with all registered voters participating in a single primary for each office. The top two candidates, regardless of primary, would advance to the November ballot.
• Second, it would do away with the State Convention’s role in selecting candidates for statewide office. Our state convention would no longer nominate candidates for the constitutional offices. These would also be selected through a non-partisan primary by all registered voters.
• Third, it would take party labels off the ballot. Not only would it allow all voters to vote in the primaries, it would actually hide candidates’ partisan affiliations from the voters.

The third change is very troubling. Rick Weiland and the other proponents of this amendment talk a lot about “transparency.” However, they are trying to make our ballot less transparent – by hiding party labels. As Republicans, we need to see this amendment for what it is. Rick Weiland and the other Democrats have realized that, after eight damaging years of the Obama Administration, South Dakota voters simply don’t trust Democratic candidates to represent our values.

Rather than changing this policies to appeal to South Dakota voters, they are trying to hide behind a less transparent ballot that removes the word “Democrat.” It’s really quite something – the Democrats are admitting that the word “Democrat” hurts them when they run for office!

You will be hearing more about this issue in the weeks and months to come. In the meantime, if you’d like take a look at the Resolution that was passed overwhelmingly at the SDGOP State Convention, you can go here (Resolution #5) – http://southdakotagop.com/about-the-party/resolutions/resolutions/
If you’d like to volunteer to help defeat this terrible ballot initiative or would like to donate to the cause, please reach out to me at this time.

As always, contact me with any questions.

Thanks!
Ryan Budmayr
Executive Director
South Dakota Republican Party
www.southdakotagop.com

From the Argus:

A Sioux Falls man whose prison sentence was reduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds has been charged with breaking into Rounds’ office downtown and stealing various items.

Read it here.

It sounds like the burglar earned his early release for community service, or getting his GED. I suspect he’s also earned a return trip to the greybar hotel through his actions as well.

Betty Otten was kind enough to share some photos from the Lennox 4th of July parade where she reports District 6 GOP candidates were having fun — candy from Sen & Rep Otten; water gun sprays from Rep Latterell from a boat!  And that Chris Nelson, Commissioner David Gillespie, Congresswoman Noem & Senator Thune also had a good presence.

She tells us all 136 photos are posted here: https://www.facebook.com/ErnieOttenForSouthDakota/ – so go check it out!

From the Aberdeen legislative candidate who declared how hard her classes were and “#f__knorthern” in her twitter feed, it looks like Democrat Nikki Bootz should have appreciated her classes a little more.  Especially the parts where she’s required to communicate in the English language.

But don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself:

I don’t see a disclaimer, as required under South Dakota law. But that’s a minor offense against the electorate when you look at the egregious offenses against our native tongue.

Honestly, I’m not sure where she’s coming from with most of her letter. Not just where the letter switches schizophrenically from a third person to a first person narrative between paragraphs 3 and 4. It’s the rest the content that’s not just odd, it’s downright bizarre.

She goes on about how Democrats are being “outnumbered by Republicans by more than 1000 voters is due to gerrymandering.”  Aside from the fact no one cares, I question whether she knows what gerymandering is, since that’s a voter registration issue.

Of course, it devolves into semi-coherent slogans. just because it has to when the content runs dry. “Ms. Nikki is serious when it comes to politics, she has strong views on specific political issues that directly affect her own family.”  So, she doesn’t care about issues that don’t?   “Keeping our jobs local and open,” which means what? She wants lots of local unemployment?

She does take a stab at a position on the second amendment, where she sort of claims that she supports the right to bear arms, because “South Dakota’s economy depends a lot on it. Hunting is our own personal right for food and sport and aids in keeping farmers’ crops safe. We also have the right to bear arms in defense and to be prepared to defend ourselves as needed.”

Curiously, her declaration of support for gun rights in her fundraising letter seems to fly in the face of prior statements, such as this from facebook:

Which I had posted here,  where apparently she didn’t believe that legislators deal with abortion or gun rights.

What do you think? Should she have taken a run at draft two, three, …or fifteen before this mess was sent out?

I think I’ve mentioned it at least once that Jordan Youngberg in District 8 is worth keeping an eye on. He was nice enough to share some pictures from the parades this past weekend where he and his crew went and manged out 2 or three parades.

Candidates – Something to keep in mind when you’re hitting these – pull in as big a crew as you can, as it helps cover the parade route (and shows how well you’re supported).

I asked Jordan what he thought of the parade circuit, and he noted “was great for me as far as getting turnout and what a great way to shake people’s hand and reach out!”

Thanks for sharing – and Candidates – feel free to share your photos with me here.

Medicaid expansion is the topic at hand in an Associated Press article this AM, regarding the possibility of it passing in the 2017 legislative session, now that plans for a special session of the state legislature have been canceled:

“I think the path for the governor’s office is potentially going to be tougher next session, but we’re continuing to march forward with the thought that that very well could be a topic for 2017,” said Ben Lee, state director at opposition group Americans for Prosperity-South Dakota.

Daugaard, who had floated the idea of a summer special session, decided against it after hearing from lawmakers who wanted more time to study the proposal and to wait until after the presidential election to consider it. The move was a blow to Democrats pushing for expansion, and Senate Minority Leader Billie Sutton said it would remain their top priority when lawmakers gather in 2017.

Their push would be helped if Democrats can gain some legislative seats in November to stave off a more conservative Senate, he said.

There are enough undecided and leaning legislators in both chambers to make expansion a “real possibility” in 2017, said Jennifer Stalley, a lobbyist for the Community HealthCare Association of the Dakotas, which is among many groups supporting expansion.

Read it here.

I think there’s far less support in the House than proponents think, and that’s going to be the easy chamber.  Expanding welfare rolls for able-bodied adults is not going to fly at all in the State Senate. 

The rank and file of the GOP recently noted (in part) in resolutions at the 2016 convention:

Whereas, the South Dakota Republican Party recognizes the crises in healthcare offered by the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service, and the failure of the federal government to keep its promises to those who receive these services.
Now, Therefore, be it resolved, the South Dakota Republican Party rejects efforts by the federal government to mandate or incentivize further government intervention in healthcare; and,

Be it further resolved, the South Dakota Republican Party is opposed to the expansion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, generally referred to as Obamacare; and, 

Be it further resolved, the South Dakota Republican Party urges the South Dakota state legislature, both house and senate, to reject and defeat efforts to expand Medicaid or adopt the Medicaid standards outlined in Obamacare.

Read that here

That’s probably a good hint that, at least among the Republican faithful, that dog is not going to hunt and Republicans remain largely unconvinced that it could be in their benefit.  And that’s not helped when the conventional wisdom is that there are no success stories in states who have moved forward with the expansion.

Coupled with Democrats’ likely legislative prospects this fall (slim to none) my crystal ball tells me that there is no visible path forward in the state legislature for Medicaid expansion in 2017, and you can arguably add 2018 to that prediction as well.