Senate passes rules allowing them to vote on suspending Senator Julie Frye Mueller, and formation of a Select Committee to investigate her conduct with LRC Employee.

@SoDakCampaigns

This afternoon, the South Dakota State Senate moved forward with motions to give them the ability to suspend Senator Julie Frye Mueller, while they form a Select Committee to investigate her conduct with a LRC Employee which resulted in her being stripped from her Committees and kicked out of the Republican caucus.  The motion was brought by Senate Majority Casey Crabtree so a committee could be convened and the matter could be investigated. The suspension pends her duties, as an employer would suspend a supervisor while an employment violation is investigated, but does not remove her from office.

However, it was immediately opposed by Senator Tom Pischke, Julie Frye Mueller’s seat mate, claiming it’s a she-said/she-said situation.

Senator Frye Mueller also stood up in response to the motion, complaining she had not been presented with evidence, and claimed there was “an agenda” against her, and that she’s “always gotten along with people from the LRC.”

Lt. Governor Larry Rhoden spoke from the podium, objected to the suspension of the rules to suspend Frye Mueller as premature, and ruled the motion out of order.

Senate President Pro Tempore Schoenbeck appealed the rule of the chair, and was supported, which brought the matter to a recorded vote, which required a 2/3 vote.  26 yeas to 6 nays and 2 excused moved the motion forward over the objections of the chair.

More coming on this…

29 thoughts on “Senate passes rules allowing them to vote on suspending Senator Julie Frye Mueller, and formation of a Select Committee to investigate her conduct with LRC Employee.”

  1. When over 80% of your coworkers think you’re a wrong, maybe it’s time to self reflect.

    1. I agree. I think that’s what surprised me the most was the degree to which they voted to boot her. Even someone who opposed one of the impeachment measures voted against her.

      1. There has been no due process as yet.

        So this is a mis-characterization of the vote.

        Looking forward to the details and the nature of the evidence.

      1. I guess it depends on what precisely happened, but I tend to agree. It feels opportunistic, even of she is a bit of a dolt.

      2. If this was a private employer, and there was an allegation of harassment, the person accused by the employee would not be allowed to interact with the employee, and potentially removed form the immediate work environment while it is investigated. Which is what they’ve done here.

        She’s not removed from office, just temporarily removed from the situation. Probably as good as they could do for all concerned.

        1. The senate is not her employer. Schoenbeck is not her employer. The people of D30 are her employer and the hired her for 2 more years. She should have no contact with the Legislature’s employee, but to strip her and her constituents of their voice, without due process should be unconstitutional if it isn’t already.

  3. This is wrong on so many levels. Lt Gov Rhoden was correct. This goes against the rules established and approved by the legislature. They hold themselves to no standard. They cry guilty before hearing both sides. They are denying citizens of South Dakota a voice in the legislature. They should be held accountable for denying anyone a fair shot. Unless this was recorded this will be a she said she said case. Unconscionable actions by leadership in the Senate.

  5. If she hasn’t even been charged with assault this is weird. Is the staffer going to file a complaint?

      1. I would like to see US Constitutional values practiced in our Senate.

        I wouldn’t be offended by controversial opinions or colorful language.

        Our Leadership are crybabies.

        This seems desperate.

        Looking forward to the evidence and due process.

  7. DFP has this one right. Schoenbeck is wrong. To deny a duly elected Legislator their right (rights cannot be taken away without due process) is a crime.

    1. [*snip* – keep it factual or to your opinion. ]

      A couple major differences in this case.
      1. You took a vote to strip her of her rights before a select committee was formed and charges were presented to her.
      2. You didn’t allow her to see or hear evidence provided to you.
      3. You have already swayed the “jury” against her by providing information that only you were privy to.

      2. You miss read the case. The bottom line is the leg has the authority to judge the qualifications of their members. They can change the rules as they see fit. Also you should take a look at the Gutzler case as well. It doesn’t matter if you like what they did or not, they have the power to do it.

      3. You miss read the case. The bottom line is the leg has the authority to judge the qualifications of their members. They can change the rules as they see fit. Also you should take a look at the Gutzler case as well. It doesn’t matter if you like what they did or not, they have the power to do it.

  10. It appears that Lt Gov Rhoden is one of the few sane and reasonable politicians in Pierre these days. It also appears there are way too many RINOs in the Senate who are easily offended and willing to hold grudges just like Liz Cheney.

    1. cheney had a right and an obligation to do what she did. she’s a hero to a lot of people, just not enough people in wyoming.

      1. Well, she would fit right in with the majority of the so-called Republicans in the State Senate.

  11. We must have been making too much progress with America First initiatives.

    Deep state needed to tap the brakes?

    It strikes me as the ominous rattling in the lungs ..

Comments are closed.