If you recall last week’s Robocall from that one guy asking that we all pray for Annette Bosworth, I had noted that the unsolicited call could run afoul of South Dakota’s Do Not Call List, based on the PUC’s complaint material.

However, as you can see in the response I received, they’re now claiming that it isn’t so:

Good Morning, Mr. Powers.

Thank you for contacting our office regarding the unwanted phone call you received from Peter Waldron, representing a group in Sioux Falls encouraging those they contact to pray for Annette Bosworth. While receiving the call on your home phone may be frustrating and an unwanted interruption, the call itself is not a violation of the Do Not Call rules. Because the person calling was not attempting to sell you a product or service, the call itself does not fall under the protection of the law. The definition of a Telephone Solicitation Call is as follows:

SDCL 49-31-1. (30) “Telephone solicitation call,” any call made to a South Dakota consumer by a telephone solicitor, originating from South Dakota or elsewhere, for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services to the person called, for the purpose of soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services to the person called, or for the purpose of obtaining information that may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services to the person called or an extension of credit for such purposes;

I appreciate you contacting the commission and making us aware of your concerns.

Deb Gregg, Consumer Affairs Manager
South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

And in looking, while the definition of an Unsolicited telephone call under 49-31-1.5 doesn’t require a sale be offered, they are correct in that 49-31-1 (30) does.

You’ve got to love South Dakota’s contradictory laws!

Although when the PUC claims that the Pro-Bosworth Robocalls were legal because they weren’t selling anything, I still might disagree.

Because if you listen to them, it sure sounded like they were selling a steaming pile of BS!

S&P Upgrades South Dakota To AAA Issuer Credit Rating

PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard announced today that Standard & Poor’s has upgraded South Dakota’s issuer credit rating to AAA with a stable outlook, an improvement over the previous rate of AA+.

“This is great news for South Dakota! We now join a very exclusive group of states to which Standard and Poor’s has given a AAA rating, which is the highest rating possible,” said Gov. Daugaard. “We’ve worked hard to place our state on a firm financial footing, and that stewardship has paid dividends.”

Credit ratings give potential bond purchasers a measurement of state performance and credit worthiness. Upgrades typically allow issued bonds to carry a lower interest rate, providing interest savings to issuers like the Building Authority.

Universities, state parks and taxpayers may save money because of the upgrade. The rating comes as the South Dakota Building Authority prepares to issue $11.5 million in bonds for the phase two improvements in Custer State Park.

In their release of the rating, S&P confirmed their confidence in upgrading the state to AAA, highlighting the state’s consistently strong financial position and rainy day funds, a historical record of conservative budgeting, and new improvements in the state’s financial planning processes and long-term budget forecasting.

S&P also cites the state’s recent improvements to its pension program funding and the elimination of unfunded liabilities and post-employment benefit liabilities.

“The upgrade of our bond rating will give the financial markets affirmation of our state’s exceptional credit worthiness and save the state substantial amounts in future interest payments,” Gov. Daugaard said.

-30-

New Prescribed Burn Policies Would Ensure Collaboration

By Senator John Thune

 

One of the most satisfying aspects of my job in the Senate is working to help South Dakotans cut through the bureaucratic red tape of the federal government. I know it is often frustrating for constituents to weave through the maze of federal agencies and programs that have become far too large and no longer serve people as intended. Far too often, federal agencies act alone rather than coordinating with state and local governments, resulting in the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

The lack of common-sense collaboration between federal agencies and other levels of government is often frustrating, and can result in reckless actions by federal officials placing lives and property at risk. One recent example of this type of reckless action was the out-of-control prescribed burn, known as the Cold Brook Fire, at Wind Cave National Park. On April 13, the National Park Service (NPS) initiated a prescribed burn of an intended 1,100 acres, which burned out-of-control consuming 6,500 acres in Wind Cave National Park.

This is not the first time federal agencies have disregarded imminent fire danger, putting lives, land, and property at risk. It was just over two years ago that the Forest Service (FS) started a prescribed burn in northwest South Dakota, known as the Pautre Fire, which resulted in extensive property losses. Landowners impacted by the Pautre Fire still have not been reimbursed by the Fire Service, nor has the Fire Service accepted liability more than two years after the fire occurred. 

The fires started by the NPS and FS are prime examples of federal agencies taking questionable actions without first collaborating with adjacent landowners and local and state officials. To better prevent future out-of-control burns and to ensure the agencies responsible assume liability for the damage caused by these fires, I introduced the Prescribed Burn Approval Act of 2015.  

My bill would prevent federal agencies from starting future prescribed burns on federal lands without first collaborating with state government and local fire officials. My bill would also require that when a prescribed fire burns out-of-control, that the federal agency responsible accepts liability for resulting expenses and damage to private property. Finally, my bill stipulates that damages are to be paid within 120 days of receipt of a substantiated claim.

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I will continue working with my colleagues to hold our federal agencies accountable, make common-sense changes to our federal prescribed burn policies, and do my best to ensure that Washington’s right hand finally starts working with its left.

 

###