Press "Enter" to skip to content

Executive Board Stonewalling on LRC Confidentiality Inquiry

Rep. Chuck Turbiville is sticking by his guns. As chair of the Legislature's executive board, Rep. Turbiville has ruled that the documents six legislators have requested in their investigation of possible violations of Legislative Research Council confidentiality are themselves confidential.

Executive board vice-chair Senator Joni Cutler says the ruckus over the GOP leadership's alleged spying on some members' legislative research is much ado over nothing:

But whether the claims are true or not, Cutler says she doesn't see what the advantage would be to having information on a bill while it's still being worked on because every bill in South Dakota is required to have a hearing.

"Any bill draft that a legislator offers has to come out and has to be brought out and made public. Those hearings are all public. There's nothing secret that anybody could do with information they would gain about a bill draft in the first place," Cutler said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Chair: SD Lawmakers Make Confidential Request," KELOLand.com, 2011.12.12].

The advantage gained is the advantage any debaters get when they can brief out opponents' cases ahead of time. Getting a look at a bill before it hits the hopper gives opponents more time to line up testimony and votes against it. It gives party leaders a chance to pressure members not to introduce potentially troublesome legislation in the first place, possibly denying that legislation any public hearing at all.

But the practical gamesmanship is secondary to principle: if communications between a legislator and the LRC are indeed confidential, then party leaders should not be able to snoop on any such communications. Reps. Russell, Nelson, Olson, and Hubbel and Senators Maher and Begalka are asking the Legislature to demonstrate its commitment to exactly that principle.

23 Comments

  1. Bill Fleming 2011.12.13

    Seems to me the solution is simple. If you don't trust the LRC, do your own research.

    Meanwhile, the situation appears to have reached a point of paradox.

    Asking Turbiville to reveal confidential information that may reveal that confidential information was revealed is a bit like a lawyer asking a guy if he's stopped beating his wife yet, isn't it?

  2. Stace Nelson 2011.12.13

    Illegally coercing LRC staff to tamper with other legislator's legislation and violate their confidence is confidential, but the original confidentiality these three broke, is not?

    Curious, legislators are advised, and even warned to be careful, during initial briefings at LRC that such interactive correspondences on bills lose their confidentiality after the bills are publicly filed. If I recall correctly, we were advised that they are considered official records at that point as they are discoverable to determine legislative intent if a law is challenged.

    Original Star Wars fans, insert that wonderful Obi-Wan Kenobi quote here: "These are not the droids you are looking for..."

  3. Bill Fleming 2011.12.13

    Not arguing that you perhaps have an issue, Stace. It's just that age-old law enforcement problem about gathering evidence. In this case, unless I'm missing something, you're asking someone violate the same rule you're accusing someone of violating in order to prove someone violated it. A Catch 22. Yes? No?

  4. Linda McIntyre 2011.12.13

    Another issue I have isn't really related to the confidentiality issue, but the fact that a decision on a bill is decided in caucus before any so-called "hearings" on said bill. If that is the case, then why have public hearings, why have people travel to Pierre to testify about a bill, why waste people's time and money, why waste legislator's time? I sat in on a few hearings on bills last year. In one, the committee hearing testimony was rude, laughing, not paying attention, going so far as to even leave the room during testimony. I was appalled at this, but I guess if the decision has already been reached ahead of time, why act like you care as a committee member during testimony.

    As far as whether these legislators have a concern, I'm leaning toward assuming they do if they are being stonewalled from receiving information they request. It's easy to hide behind "confidentiality" as a reason.

  5. Bill Fleming 2011.12.13

    Sounds like there is a lot of "pro forma" going on out there, and then, like maybe there is the way it really works. Not uncommon I suppose.

    These are the kinds of situations that have always kept me off of boards of directors and out of politics.

    As with Stace, once you've had me on a board, you're probably not gonna be jumpin' up and down to invite me to sit on another one.

    In that regard, he and I are probably more alike than either of us would care to admit.

  6. Jana 2011.12.13

    Well, having the permanent super majority isn't such a good thing is it Stace. The power structure is so solidly in place that there is no chance that a dissenting voice will be heard.

    Keep thinking about forming your own party, or just fly the flag under the 912, John Birch Society or Tea Party that you and your friends embrace.

  7. Stace Nelson 2011.12.13

    @Bill You, and others, are assuming we don't already know the answers. Regarding confidentiality, you are a sharp man. Does a legislator have confidentiality in committing wrong doings against the legislature? At least one LRC staff member, that was so outraged as to report this matter to several legislators, does not think so...

    @Jana “One man with courage is a majority.” ― Thomas Jefferson Please read even the first couple paragraphs of this: http://southdakotagop.com/pdf/2010_SDGOP_PLATFORM_FINAL.PDF I beleive that someone putting their duties to protect your legislative process ahead of their own well being clearly best represents those principles expressed.

  8. Bill Fleming 2011.12.13

    Stace, yes, I'm assuming innocence until proven guilty. Are we talking criminal charges here Stace? Or just decorum? If criminal, I'm also assuming those accused have 5th amendment rights. Silly me, I know, huh?

  9. troy jones 2011.12.13

    I don't know if these two stories linked are totally applicable but this issue reminds me of them.

    Story 1: Oregon GOP Senator Mark Hatfield used process to "screw" Senator Abnor on a Senate bill (outside my legislative area). After the bill came back from the House and went to the Conference Committee to reconcile the differences before going to the President for signature, Abdnor walked into the Conference Committee, walked the guantlet of members, whispered in most of the members ear, an amendment was offered and past over the objection of Chairman Hatfield.

    Sometime later, President Pro Tem. Strom Thurmond did the same thing on an area in my area of responsibility. I had put the Conference Committee "option" in my head. When the bill came back from the House, I suggested Abdnor use the same technique.

    He declined. I pressed him on why and he said he didn't have the votes. I then lamented he wasn't even trying. He then said, "I need to live to fight another day."

    Moral of the story: Pick your fights when you have a chance to win and select your opponents carefully. Abdnor taught me alot of life lesssons. The man is dang wise.

  10. Stace Nelson 2011.12.13

    @Bill I have seen you indict & villify someone for simply taking an opposing view in a blog. While this information is new to you, the issue has been ongoing for many months.

    Would you rather we take the very easy route of ignoring the credible corroborated complaint by the LRC staff member, that legislation was tampered with & obstructed?

    Very curious how you feel their 5th Amendment Rights have been abused?

  11. Stace Nelson 2011.12.13

    Mr. Jones,
    Credible complaints of misconduct, by sitting legislators, have been received from a respected LRC staff member & sitting legislators. I fail to see how that pertains to your cited unrelated story or absolves those that are aware of the complaints from protecting the integrity of our state legislature.

  12. Bill Fleming 2011.12.13

    I don't have a hard and fast opinion on this, Stace. I'm mostly just trying to understand what's going on. The 5th Amendment can be invoked for any reason or no reason to my recollection. In fact, I'm invoking it now, for no particular reason whatsoever. I might change my mind later. ;^)

  13. Tara 2011.12.13

    Stace, I am proud to have you as my representative. Keep fighting the good fight.

  14. Jana 2011.12.13

    Stace said: @Jana “One man with courage is a majority.” ― Thomas Jefferson Please read even the first couple paragraphs of this...

    Went to the link and read it...again. The first two paragraphs could apply to anyone. Pretty standard political boiler plate, important to everyone, but boiler plate all the same... except for the part on the constitution, why is it that the Birchers and Tea Partiers want to change so much of it?

    Oh yeah and the dignity and liberty part you might want to revisit and make sure that you edit out any possible chance that a Muslim or LGBT person could think that they should have any dignity or liberty. Might want to have the gay, black, Hispanic and Asian members of the Republican delegation look into that one.

    Don't even get me started on the little war on women that the GOP seems to love.

    One last thing Stace...4.7 of the Republican Platform states that "The South Dakota Republican Party supports a post-secondary technical and
    university system that will provide the highest quality education for all our citizens to address the challenges that are presented by today’s state, national and global economy." How are you personally doing on that one?

  15. Jana 2011.12.13

    Stace, I think this is the part you really wanted me to read. From the 5th paragraph: "Leadership must also be mindful of the Republican Platform..."

    Mindful seems to be the operative word here. Does mindful mean a slavish word for word interpretation or is it more that the platform should be considered in making complicated decisions?

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.12.13

    Jana, we can hold Stace's feet to the fire on higher education, women's rights, and other issues, no problem. But on this specific issue of the abuse of LRC ethics byt he party leadership, he might be leading a charge that's worth following.

  17. Joe 2011.12.13

    The way I look at it is its one thing if one or two things are slipped out of the LRC, whispers, rumors, etc. Those things will happen, they shouldn't but they will. Its another thing when there is a direct line between someone(s) at the LRC and leadership. I understand what Cutler is saying in that all bills become public someday, however in a state that has a short period, and sometimes its only a few days before the bill in entered and a committee hearing is held, even a day or 2 to line up a defense can help.
    I don't know what the punishment is, but I've always said if they aren't willing to turn over the documents they are probably hiding something.

  18. Jana 2011.12.13

    You're right Cory, but I think it shows that my earlier point of having a seemingly permanent super majority running our legislature is a bad thing.

    What's that old saying about absolute power?

  19. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.12.14

    I'm totally with you there, Jana. Supermajority status has bred arrogance. With so many Republicans, the leadership can marginalize many of its own people. In a slim majority, each member has more pull and can better check excesses within the party.

  20. Donald Pay 2011.12.14

    Hey, Joni's right. At some point early in my lobbying career I learned that just about everything at the Legislature is going to become public. Nothing that happens on third and fourth floors stays on third and fourth floors. At most you have a day or two head start. All you have to do is sit in the right spot in the Capitol Building and eavesdrop. You'll hear all the "secrets."

  21. Stace Nelson 2011.12.15

    @Donald Imagine what a lobbyist could do with advance knowledge that there was a bill in research/draft that they did not like, or if they had the ability to provide input or sway over the LRC staff on such a bill to the point that they could order that research material NOT be provided to a legislator.

  22. troy jones 2011.12.15

    Don,

    You bring up a great point. In the Capitol where everyone "trades" in information, nothing is really confidential. And, in many cases, if you want to address something controversial, confidentiality is your worst friend as it lends credence there might be a hidden agenda. Let me tell a story. I'm sure you have similar examples.

    In September, when GOED was planning its legislative agenda, we came up with some ideas that were not going to sit will with two legislators we knew about, Republican Malcolm McKillop (spelling?) and Democrat Roger McKellips, plus alot of the Dem caucus in both houses.

    Even before we had a final draft, my boss (Rolly Dolly) said we can't "drop" this on them so without getting anyone's permission from above (that I know of), he said we needed to tell Roger what we were planning. He also told me to ask LRC to help with the drafting of the bill (Malcolm was I think chair of the LRC Board). Frankly, I thought Rolly was nuts but being the good soldier, I followed him what I thought was off the cliff.

    When I went to visit with Roger (I did it because Roger was a banker and Rolly thought he and I talked the same language), he was I think shocked I came to him. He informed me of all the people in his caucus that would oppose it (Pat Haley, Gil Koetzle et. al.) and made it clear he didn't support it either. But, after I left his bank, Roger asked if he could see the bill in "final form" when done. I said sure (figured if Rolly wanted me to tell him, I might as well give him the power to push us off the cliff).

    After I sent it to him, he called me with some ideas for improvement that were good and we integrated but he made it clear he was still opposed to it.

    If I remember right, Rolly had a conversation with Malcolm during/around the Governor's Budget address and Malcolm made it real clear "he would kill it."

    Final result: I don't remember if it passed or not (actually think it got significantly watered down far from our vision) but there was other things that occurred more valuable.

    Malcolm's opposition was sincere and he raised some really good points (I disagreed with him but they were fair). In particular, Roger and Pat learned their views were listened too and if they made good points, we would include them. I learned the "opponents" of our economic development agenda were reasonable. Going forward, I never hesitated to discuss our views with those on the other side (in and out of the GOP) and it developed a level of trust that helped on everything.

    A few years later, I had to go to the interim appropriations committee to cover some items we didn't have authority to spend (and the Governor's Budget office was not very sympathetic). Chairman Harvey Krautchen (spelling?) told me this would be tough. It sailed through for two reasons: I was straight on how/why I had understated our needs (Could have been accused of misrepresenting. I didn't intentionally misrepresent, just hoped for the best and it didn't work out) and Rolly and I had developed trust with the members. In the end, I don't think we had a single no vote on our interim appropriations request.

    Don, my point is I remember leaving the interim appropriations meeting knowing it went well for one reason: Rolly insisted a few years before on keeping the eye on the big picture and not each little skirmish. Gil Koetzle never ceased being the biggest pain in keister to our efforts. I know Roger/ used my information to put Pat/Gil on the front-line in opposition. I know Malcolm was prepared in advance. We lost that battle but we won countless others including the war. In the end, the Democrats I came to respect the most were often my most informed opponents. To this day, Gil is a person I highly respect even though I think he was wrong on about everything.

Comments are closed.