The Dakota Scout is reporting this morning that State Representative Jess Olson, who resigned this week due to health reasons, had at least two contracts she signed with the State of South Dakota during her time in office:
A review of state financial records by The Dakota Scout has found that a business owned by former South Dakota legislator Jess Olson has had at least two contracts with the state, both personally signed by the District 34 Republican during her tenure in office.
Stay Graceful Inc., an in-home health care agency based in Rapid City and registered to Olson on the Secretary of State’s business registry, is listed on the state’s online checkbook as a vendor, contracting for Medicaid reimbursements through the South Dakota Department of Human Services.
After Olson’s resignation this week, and the earlier resignation of Senator Jessica Castleberry, which came with an agreement to repay nearly half a million dollars of state funds received, that leaves State Representative Kevin Jensen as the only legislator immediately known to have his name attached to state contracts during his tenure in office who has not resigned.
As reported here at Dakotawarcollege this past January, Jensen’s name is on several contracts for his wife’s business with the State of South Dakota as the provider’s “Fiscal Contact.” Jensen has protested any questions of propriety declaring that he receives no financial benefit and claims he’s only “volunteering” for his wife who has signed the contracts with the State of South Dakota while he has been a State Legislator.
I guess it’s not every business that has a member of the legislature volunteering for them, eh?
The South Dakota Supreme Court has been asked by Governor Kristi Noem in cooperation with legislative leadership for some clarity from the South Dakota Supreme Court on legislative conflicts of interest, as Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck noted to the Associated Press, “depending on the court’s ruling, a number of lawmakers may need to resign or pay the state back for services received.”
The AG will be the only one who can clear this up.
Its an obvious conflict. He votes on the budget, then the budget goes to his bride. We are an “all property state” meaning what’s hers is his, and vice versa. Him being a “volunteer in her company” has not one thing to do with it. If he did absolutely nothing with her company, the fact remains he and she cannot take state funds and stay in the legislature.
Put it this way. I imagine he also volunteers to spend a bit of that incoming state money.
The saying actually goes: “whats mine is hers, what’s hers is hers and what’s ours is hers…”
It’s part of the international codified marriage statues under Happy_Wife/Happy_Life
Agreed.
Oh boy first we need to figure out, if legislators are actually state employees as they are hired by the people in their district to manage state affairs for them. Legislators get no benefits whatsoever from the state. No insurance no retirement no overtime.
Just wanna-be Pelosi-like grifters.
Either our legislators are servants or the grifters.
Either we reflect DC values or we reject DC values.
So Rep. Olson is an in-home health care provider outside her part-time Legislator role and she accepts Medicaid insurance. Are we really saying that even accepting Medicaid as payment in full for medical services is a conflict of interest? The state does enough to discourage healthcare providers from participating in Medicaid as it is by paying terrible reimbursement rates. Do we really want another reason to discourage providers from accepting Medicaid? We should be praising her for accepting the lowest reimbursed insurance to provide needed care for people not accusing her of some misdeed because she likely voted to approve a budget containing the rates she would later EARN by providing care.
And if we’re going to call out Rep. Olson for accepting Medicaid, there’s a handful of other current or recently former healthcare practitioners in the Legislature too – Do they accept Medicaid? It is actually probably more telling if they don’t.
Let’s definitely not look at any landowner legislators who put in Wildlife Food Plots and accepted payment for said plots from the GF&P.
Medusa’s head popping out of a can of worms here….
I’d rather have no doubt of honesty than birdseed. Both the legislator and voter should want it. This isn’t that hard.
Too many sticky fingers in the state till. Time to thin out the herd.