I read with great relish the conversation on Dakota War College about State Representative Stace Nelson's (R-25/Fulton) complaint over the publication of a smoke-out vote on House Bill 1198 during this year's Legislative session. Rep. Nelson complained that the vote, by which the full House backed the killing of the bill in committee, was not recorded on HB 1198's status page. The vote was published in the LRC's online roster of roll call votes, and journalist Bob Mercer dropped by to remind folks that the vote was recorded online in the February 15 House Journal, so Rep. Nelson's complaint appeared to be mostly moot. Anyone who'd like to lambaste 48 sensible House members for voting to respect the committee decision and leave dead a really bad retread of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law is welcome to do so.
But the conversation in the comment section burst into something much bigger, the kind of public conversation that redeems the South Dakota blogosphere (and which Pat Powers had better not delete!). Rep. Steve Hickey, Rep. Charlie Hoffman, Rep. Kristin Conzet, Senator Craig Tieszen, Rep. Lora Hubbel, former legislator Lee Schoenbeck, and former State Capitol denizen Troy Jones joined Rep. Nelson and a bunch of other folks in a vigorous discussion of the legislative committee process, party/caucus discipline, respect for the Legislative Research Council, Tea Party absolutism, and illegal immigration (which discussion inspired a whole 'nother post from DWC's resurging and provocative MC).
I will not presume to summarize such a complex discussion; you'll just have to read the whole thing. It's worth it.
But the conversation does provoke me to a couple of observations.
First, I would love to see our elected officials engage in public conversations like this more often. We elect legislators to be our voice; we should hear much more of what our voices are saying. I commend Reps. Nelson, Hickey, Conzet, and Hubbel and Senator Tieszen for participating in that blogospheric conversation. I urge more citizens to put their names to their words in online conversation, so that we may speak as neighbors with faces.
Second, Rep. Stace Nelson takes some heat for criticizing LRC staff. Senator Tieszen says Rep. Nelson is breaking protocol and burning bridges. Troy Jones suggests Rep. Nelson needs to earn some respect and credibility from other legislators before swinging his hammer.
I'm willing to give Rep. Nelson heat for his Tea Party extremity (as does at least one other commenter int he DWC discussion). But criticizing this freshman legislator for protocol and rambunctiousness raises my alarm bells. Suppose Rep. Nelson has been reading his Aristotle and doesn't want to be a career politician. Suppose he intends to serve one term, then hand the awesome responsibility of governing to another brave citizen. In a single term, in two condensed 40-day sessions, how much time can a legislator spend gladhanding and making nice before tackling tough issues? How long must a legislator wait before he is permitted to raise hackles and talk tough in Pierre?
More importantly, how long must his constituents wait? Even if voters elect a loose cannon (and maybe District 25 voters have), even if their elected representative charges Pierre staffers and legislative colleagues with cover-ups and stonewalling (and Rep. Nelson does!), don't those voters still have concerns that the Legislature must hear, and hear from their duly elected representative?
Rep. Stace Nelson is demonstrating his ability to be a pain in the butt. But pain serves a useful purpose, letting us know something is wrong. He may well be wrong (oh, come on, he is wrong, on lots of issues!), but he's still the voice of one group of South Dakota voters. Even if Rep. Nelson has criticized them, the LRC staff still must serve him fairly. His colleagues still must deal with him honestly and openly. If Rep. Nelson is counterproductive in Pierre, it's not up to the LRC or his fellow legislators to sideline him. It's up to the voters of District 25.
Stace is a great guy and a good American. I'm so sick of protocol and who's who stuff in politics.
I'm very surprised Stace comments so freely on blogs but he's open and honest.
More legislators should be as open of a book as Nelson.
Keep the problems in the circle attitudes are just a way to keep people in their place.
I really like Stace.
It was heated and actually fun. After getting chastised for my vehemence by my buddy Lee Schoenbeck and stepping back, part of the furor was caused by we tried to argue three separate issues in one subject.
1) Whether Smoke-out should be treated as procedural or substantive. Rep. Nelson believes it is substantive. I and precedent is it is procedural.
2) Whether certain decisions and actions are matters for the entire Legislature or just the Executive Board.
3) The merits of HB1198.
On all matters, Stace and I disagree. No problem. People of goodwill can disagree. The emotions got unchecked when the questions got complicated with the belief something nefarious was driving the decision. Upon reflection, it was the mutual accusation of something sinister (Stace believed it was to obfuscate views on legislation as well as LRC's director had been let's just say less than honest in dealing with this. I believed it was actually an intent to try to embarrass people for opposing smoke-out of HB1198 plus I found personal attacks against the integrity of the LRC director contrary to what he has earned over 30 years of working dilligently and without charge from anyone to be unfair).
Upon reflection, I think both of us probably over-reacted (which was Schoenbeck's point to me). In Stace's case, he interpreted what he heard in answers as inadequate and based on his experience on this and other matters inferred there was more to the story. In my case, I interpreted this to be more about HB1198 than it really was.
I don't want to debate the matter over again. But, I have to make one summary point.
Transparency without context can often be as misleading as a lack of tranparency. In certain cases, the best answer is a middle ground. And, in the case of smoke-out, I think they have it. The smoke-out vote is tallied and disclosed in the Minutes of the Body but not attached directly to the bill itself.
There is probably three potential solutions:
1) Go Stace's way. Yes or No and attach the vote to the bill.
2) Keep it as it is.
3) Give those who want to oppose smoke-out without making a statement on the merits of the bill (either way) but having another choice called something like "dissent" to bringing the bill before the full body and supporting the work of the committee. I know I'm not a legislator and probably never will be. But, for a host of reasons, even for bills I supported, I'd likely oppose it almost all the time on procedural grounds. I know alot will say "to Hell with process" and there is an argument to be made "process" is part of the problem which it is. But, one part I think is critical is committees.
Our mess in Congress is so much related to the lack of respect given to committees. After they set the priorities and make decisions, everything gets re-worked in the body as a whole such everything becomes all cobbled up it works at cross-purposes and is incoherent. Transportation committee members see the whole picture, Ag committee members see the whole picture, Education members see the whole picture. And, in general, it serves us if their work means something.
P.S. If you want to see my last comment on the War College in this regard, here it is. Basically, it is an apology for some aspersions I cast on Representative Nelson.
http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/21132/comment-page-1#comment-123953
I enjoyed reading the back and forth amongst all who participated in the discussion, though it was far to inside baseball for me (surprise! I am not an expert on parlimentary procedure). However, towards the end of all the hoopla, I was reminded of a totally horrible and polititcally incorrect poster that I saw years ago in a chat room. While it is/was extremely impolite, and in poor taste, but it is the first thing that popped into my mind. I will submit a link to it, and let it be known that I do not condone the poster; however, it may make some people rethink what they are accomplishing by spending lots of time arguing on the old intertubes!!
On second thought, I am not even going to link to it. Just google "arguing on the internet is like..." and you will see what I am getting at.
Refusing to approve a spoke out because you respect the committee is smoke and mirrors (pun intended). If that is so, then every bill that passes a committee should receive unanimous support on the floor. That is not the case most of the time. The reality on this issue is the big-government establishment of the GOP, who controls Pierre, do not want the conservative wing of the party to join forces with the populist Democrats and pass something they are against. And the last thing big-government establishment RINOs want is to be exposed for opposing what populists and conservatives want. Their special interest money may not be enough to win elections if the folks understand who they really represent.
And I forgot to mention that I would have said it on the SDWC thread, but somebody over there does not want me to comment. Where else has that happened?
Nice to see the kinder, gentler Steve is giving the evil combination of corporate Democrats and Republicans a swift kick.
I'm not sure that is the complete answer to the mess we are in in Pierre and Washington, DC., but something is dreadfully rotten and not just in Denmark.
I thought Karnack was dead? For crying out loud. A person CANNOT get more straightforward and honest about their intentions and comments, than I have been in session, in life, & online. This repeated attempts by people to run their hand up my backside and Howdy Doodie my comments is REALLY taxing.
What is frustrating is seeing my straightforward comments, recital of events that are CLEARLY a problem, and calls for corrections, high jacked and tortured in their retelling like a press release for Al Qaida.
Reread all the comments at SDWC http://dakotawarcollege.com/archives/21132#comments it is clear that I was not the one stuck on HB1198.
1. ANY RECORDED vote of the WHOLE HOUSE should be placed on the official status page of ANY bill votes are recorded on, as I believe is REQUIRED by Legislative rule 6I-1, and the ethics of our legislature. Interestingly, one of the most esteemed experts on the matter, in our state government, agrees wholeheartedly.
2. A 7-7 motion is just like any other motions, they are amazingly ALL part of (gasp) the parliamentary PROCEDURES set by the Legislature! If there is a RECORDED vote on one by the WHOLE HOUSE, that is major action that the voter deserves to know the results of, see #1 again.
3. Official complaints of misconduct reported by a sitting legislator, in regards to specific cited incidents of misconduct, are not personal attacks. It is not my place to facilitate such improprieties but my duty to report them. These issues were reported months ago and should have immediately incited a hearing on the matter as they go to the very integrity of our government. EVERY SD Legislator's duty is to ensure the integrity of our Legislature. Attacking the messenger and trying to squelch those complaints, without knowledge of the circumstances, just because of past relations? I am good where I am standing. Others may want to flip the telescope around though and look through the little side.
If I may, I would ask those that presume to profess to know how I think, what I am thinking, or what I was thinking... especially when they don't know me at all, PLEASE! Stick with citing the simple straightforward prose I insult these postings with using my fat fingers and shoddy wit!
Sibby, there are several people banned over there. It's mostly a computer spam filter thing I think. You can probably work around it pretty easily (I know some other people who have). Try a few things. I had the same problem on Blogmore for a while a few years ago... "accidentally" got tagged by a spam filter. So I used a bogus email address and everything was okay. They didn't care. They knew it was me.
CAH,
I respond to emails, phone calls, everyday. Effective? Please review the bills that I carried. 4 of the 14 hard bills were passed into law. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/MemberBills.aspx?Member=179 and HB 1256 http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?Bill=1256
Note the additional 15 Commemorations and 1 Concurrent Resolution. Find someone who worked harder this session for the people of their district, and a steak supper is on me.
Those are tangible. Check out the House Debate on SB188, HB1206, etc., etc., etc.
Context: http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=121381
Think prison/industrial complex.
More: http://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights-prisoners-rights/locking-immigrants-and-throwing-away-key
'provocative MC'
Really? I feel honored, I thought taking a stick and stiring up a hornets' nest was in bad form.
Bill,
Thanks for the advise. My first couple of comments posted without interruption. After I began to hold the GOP accountable the spam filter kicked in. Are you familiar with the spam filter called PP?
Stace, continue to hold fast while under the RINO attack. The more their tactics are exposed the better it will be for South Dakota.
Rep. Nelson, I assure you that I seek to cast no aspersions on your personal character or ability to do your job, although I may contend that too much of a focus on certain red-meat right-wing issues (like trying to usurp federal power on immigration enforcement) may distract you and the Legislature from more immediate practical issues (like forging the best budget possible).
Of course, I can come up with devious political reasons for actually joining Mr. Sibson in cheering your efforts to hold fast to your political agenda against the "RINO attack." The Machiavelli in me recognizes that challenges to the current regime from any side, right or left, may help my guys win more seats next year.
If "RINOs" are attacking you, I am very curious to see just what they will try to do to tamp you down. Will they just be snotty at caucus meetings and play little procedural tricks on you? Will they actually drum up a primary challenge in District 25 next year? Will Tim Rave and the state party not contribute to your 2012 campaign? Will they try telling your neighbors to (gasp!) vote for the Dems in 25? If the GOP does try to make it hot for you, I'm sure you will call them out on it... and that's a spectacle I will enjoy watching and reporting. :-D
Steve, yes, I am. PP unleashed the most destructive spam filter in South Dakota blog history... on himself!
Keep plugging away Sibby.
No doubt you'll land a good punch every now and then.
Might have resort to pseudonyms though.
Not to worry... they actually prefer that on that site, I think.
Many who post there by and large don't wish to be held accountable for anything.
Including who they are.
"I am very curious to see just what they will try to do to tamp you down..."
Umm... Cory. I think they have this stool in the corner by the blackboard. And this really tall, cone-shaped hat, and...
[CAH: You know, when I recommend that method in my interviews for teaching jobs, I get funny looks. ;-)]
Bill... In that you have never enjoyed such a fete, I am extremely dubious that those you historically oppose would be prescribed with a victory that you yourself have been so thoroughly deprived of. :-D
True story: After I didn't heed the advisements not to be so involved in the debate on issues on the floor, they actually took my extended 3++ foot microphone from my desk and replaced it with an inoperable prop one that was about 6 inches tall. Undaunted, I stood up and used a command voice that used to launch Marines. Seems the command voice was more effective than the electronically assisted one. The microphone was immediately returned.
The floor of SD Legislature, in open public debate before South Dakotans, is where the Legislature's duties to the people are supposed to be addressed. As noted by an LRC member, I routinely opposed Leadership calling the question on debate with a negative response that shakes the House. I did not do so to be recalcitrant, but out of respect for the legislators that still wanted their district's voice heard. My opposition was not reserved just for those in my caucus.
just like a duck: cool appearance on the surface but below the surface...
Yeah, but Stace... how do you look in the hat? GNoem-ish? LOL.
Cory,
It may appear so on the surface as those are a lot of the issues that are addressed in the blogs; however, efforts on such bills http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?Bill=1048 show that my concerns & efforts run deeper than first glance.
Sadly, I fear that my beloved District 25 will feel the effect of redistricting.
Sen. Tim Rave is a friend, a mentor, and a man I respect. We do not always see eye to eye on certain issues; however, there is no doubt that he loves serving South Dakotans and that he is a good man. He was very aware of my Conservative nature from the onset. He was also one of the major contributing factors in how I was able to win. From my willingness to gladly hand someone their posterior in a public posting, I hope that my sincere sentiments about my friend are taken to heart.
As you have already surmised, I am reluctant to run again. I was a reluctant enlistee in the first place and ran out of what I perceived to be a continuing civic duty of the oaths I was never released from. I did not have political aspirations then, I have less now.
God bless..
Bill,
That would appear to be Troll-ish... :-D
Just teasin' ya a little Stace. ;^)
"The Machiavelli in me recognizes that challenges to the current regime from any side, right or left, may help my guys win more seats next year."
Cory, that shows that you are just as unprincipled and power-hungry as the GOP Establishment.
(...I told Stace a long time ago he was prolly gonna have days like this. Sadly, all evidence of my efforts to tutor him in stylistic matters politic have vanished into that great PP digital warehouse in the clouds.)
The disaffected Left goes to a state capital and dances on the People's table in the governor's office. The disaffected Right has guns and kills people.
President Eisenhower gave permission to the military/industrial complex. Ted Kaczynski gave permission to Tim McVeigh. Jared Loughner gave permission to the sovereign movement. Now, the Stace Nelsons of the US are giving permission to the Scott Roeders and the Oslo attackers of South Dakota.
The militarization of law enforcement is undoing democracy by firing teachers to privatize prisons.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/a-norwegian-view-on-the-mutation-of-jihad/242403/