(From my mailbox – PP)
Senate Appoints Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion
PIERRE—Today, Senate leadership announced details of the investigation into the alleged actions of Senator Julie Frye-Mueller (R-District 30) and Senate appointments to a Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion.
On Jan. 25, 2023, Senate leadership were notified of an allegation of unprofessional behavior against Senator Julie Frye-Mueller by a Legislative Research Council (LRC) staff member. Because of the seriousness of the allegations, Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck (R-District 5) removed Senator Frye-Mueller from her committee assignments as permitted by Senate Rule S4-1.
On Jan. 26, Senate Republicans received a detailed report from an LRC staff member alleging inappropriate behavior and harassment related to private maternal matters, including childhood vaccines and breastfeeding, which took place in the LRC office inside the State Capitol Building. Senator Frye-Mueller was given an opportunity to speak to the Senate Republican Leadership on Jan. 25. Comments made by Sen. Frye-Mueller in that private discussion are inconsistent with her public statements and the report received from the LRC staff member.
“We thank the state employee for bringing this matter to our attention,” said Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree (R-District 8). “Our goal is to create a safe work environment for staff and legislators, and an environment where employees feel safe bringing concerns forward. All allegations of harassment must be taken seriously. There will be due process afforded to all parties as this matter moves forward.”
Senators voted to suspend Senator Frye-Mueller on Jan. 26 pending a full hearing on the merits which Senate leadership plans to commence next week. Since the allegations involve a sensitive personnel matter and formal accusations against a public official, the Senate will determine a procedure that respects the rights of all parties involved and keeps the public informed throughout the process.
The South Dakota Constitution states that “each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings” and “qualifications of its own members.” These rules are adopted in Legislative procedure and this precedence has been affirmed by Gray v. Gienapp, 727 NW2d 808 (SD 2007).
Senator David Wheeler (R District 22) will chair the Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion that will hear the complaint and make a recommendation to the full Senate. Also appointed to the select committee are Senators Jim Bolin (R-District 16), Sydney Davis (R-District 17), Helene Duhamel (R- District 32), Red Dawn Foster (D-District 27), Brent Hoffman (R-District 9), Liz Larson (D District 10), Tim Reed (R-District 7), and Dean Wink (R-District 29).
The Senate will be asked to adopt the rules on Monday, and the Select Committee intends to provide a report back to the full Senate before the end of the fourth week of the legislative session. Except as provided by South Dakota law, the Select Committee hearings will be open to the public and the final report will be a public record.
###
Oh look the select committee is stacked with JFM haters. I wonder how this is going to go. This committee might have had a chance of being credible if it was a majority of the nay votes on the committee. Schoenbeck wouldn’t dare have a fair committee set up.
Ummm, not to be “that guy”, but the committee actually has a higher percentage of “nay” voters than did the original suspension motion itself. (2 of 9 = 22% vs. 6 of 33 = 18%)
“…alleging inappropriate behavior and harassment related to private maternal matters, including childhood vaccines and breastfeeding…”
So, does this confirm that all of this is over a conversation about vaccines and breastfeeding?
We don’t know that it was a welcome conversation, and I believe that press release notes that this was not how JFM portrayed it to the caucus.
It’s hard to prejudge when we know so little but an “unwelcome” conversation about vaccines and breastfeeding seems rather thin to strip an entire legislative district of representative democracy.
Why hasn’t Frye Muhler had an attorney file and injunction? I can’t imagine this doesn’t have lawsuit written all over it.
Not sure you can stop a legislative proceeding with an injunction.
Is the Legislative Research Council more in line with the “Establishment” than any one opposed to the Establishment?
Just kind of curious, as this is all over supposedly a two sided conversation, where one person is butt hurt that some may not like vaccines, whereas the other side may support vaccines. This more or less appears to be a matter of “Hear-Say” Evidence, let alone this is a he said, she said case. In a court of law, the evidence is fishy at best, let alone would NOT be held up by a Judge, let alone a Jury would not be subjected to such evidence.
So they suspend a legislator on ‘hear say grounds’ while stripping said legislator of any floor votes temporarily until the hearing is done. Which can be delayed while the discovery process goes through the motion of collecting facts, and evidence.
And since the Legislature is in current session, the Legislatures are in fact, at the moment above the law, of which they are currently discussing, debating, to either amend, or change, so any such legal suit vs any such legislator(s) cannot be brought forth at this time. So Pat is correct, she cannot obtain a lawyer to cause an injunction.
This has “political witch hunt” written all over it, over hear-say comments.
What most likely was a matter of where two persons, or group of persons had a conversation over the topic of childhood vaccines, let alone mandates, someone within the L.R.C most likely got offended based on their personal feelings, let alone the Legislator, in in her comments whether pro or con hurt the employees feelings.
Of course, the “republican establishment” would not miss an opportunity, to strip the voting rights of someone who is “Anti-Establishment” from voting on key legislative topics.
I would beg to ask the question, what “legislative bills” are to be heard during the temporary period in time, of which the suspension is to be heard?
Even if the House Select Committee chosen to hear the matter is 50-50, a tie vote would be in favor of the “Defendant”, which means, she would be allowed back on the floor thereafter. So this comes down to a temporary suspension to strip the legislator of key legislative votes during the next 3-7 days or the period of time the hearing will proceed.
I am not one to cast stones, so I will let the matter proceed, but I think I understand what is going on here, this is the Establishment vs Anti-Establishment Political in their battle for control of legislative agenda.
My argument here, did, or did not the targeted legislature threaten the employee or not? Or is this simply coming down to a “conversation” where someones feelings got hurt…
Write shorter, Mr. Zitterich. I couldn’t read past your first paragraph when I saw the length.
The Council of Research for the Legislatures is a shadow government arm, following the will of but one man, pulling the puppet strings on the legislatures on all matters and even they don’t realize it.
Here you go Grudz, TL;DR – the dude is nuts. Move on.
1. Admissions by party opponents are excepted from hearsay.
2. Do the rules of evidence even apply in legislative disciplinary hearings?
Mike talking before thinking again. Shocker.
JFM has a big mouth and now she’s being held to account. Knock it off with this establishment BS.
Also, couldn’t read past the word establishment. Try to be succinct and maybe people will take you seriously.
This reminds me of when Stace Nelson was banned from the caucus and given a new seat assignment at the front of the class so the teacher could keep an eye on him, only worse..
I don’t see why an “unwelcome” conversation about childhood vaccinations and breastfeeding would make anybody feel unsafe, though. The phrase “mind your own business” can usually end such conversations, or if you have time, you can treat the intruder to a detailed description of your personal and family medical history which makes them sorry they asked. That works every time.
Having to put up with others’ boorish behaviors on the job is workplace harassment and LRC members are a captive audience to legislators as their role is to act as critical support staff.
It’s been bad enough that LRC members were resigning due to the hostile work environment and that cannot be happening if Pierre is to remain functional.
LRC is a shell of a skeleton crew the legislature couldn’t function without, so the legislature rule package made it clear no legislator was to as much as fart in the general direction of a LRC staffer to keep anyone else from quitting.
JFM elected to ignore that rule and proceeded to crap the bed in a case of fa&fo.
The employees now rule the employer. There is no excuse for maltreatment of employees. If an employee engages in political banter, with a legislator, they should be ready to get it back.
Yeah, I’m sure that defense will go over REALLY well.
Sen. Wheeler will be fair and thorough.
Is this really what we want to be devoting time to Republican leadership? It makes for interesting headlines and podcasts but doesn’t pass a budget or lower taxes.
Couldn’t the LRC staffer just walk away? I know thats what leadership should be doing with this issue. Walk away and focus on work.
Hard to just walk away when one whole aspect of being an LRC staffer is to interact with members of the legislature. If JFM was being verbally abusive and caustic the whole fault of the situation lies with her and her alone.
yes the fault is with JFM but I wonder if the remedy is for the LRC staffers to tell the legislators to perform unnatural acts, without facing disciplinary action themselves.
ok then. the recent probably justified keelhauling of jason ravsnborg is a thing that happened. if you can make this thing smell as nice and seem as needed as that thing, ok then.