Press "Enter" to skip to content

Rep. Lust Not Talking about Ethics Violation Allegations

The Mitchell Daily Republic gives press to the serious allegations that the Republcian leadership in the South Dakota House of Representatives violated confidentiality rules of the Legislative Research Council in an effort to surveil and rein in some of its unruly junior members.

The GOP leadership, quite predictably, isn't talking:

[House Speaker Val] Rausch said Wednesday he isn't prepared at this time to talk publicly about the matter. [Rep. David] Lust said he thinks the issue should be handled privately within the House Republican caucus.

Lust said he purposely isn't going on the record with reporters about the allegations.

"I'm trying to not feed the media frenzy," he said Wednesday night. "I'm purposely steering clear of it and letting the E-Board process play itself out" [Bob Mercer, "Statehouse Republicans Feud over Staff Confidentiality," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2011.12.15].

Hmm... there's a threat to the integrity of the legislative process, and Rep. Lust thinks the matter should be handled not in public, not even by the entire Legislature, just within his own party caucus. And he doesn't want to feed "the media frenzy"? Wow! A couple reports on KELO, an article by Mercer, a few blog posts... it doesn't take much to make a "frenzy in South Dakota.

But Lust's denial is just code for, "I don't want anyone talking about this." He should realize that this issue isn't some easily dismissed media phenomenon: this controversy is about ensuring the sanctity of the legislative process.

54 Comments

  1. LFoss 2011.12.16

    I just read that there is no written policy or procedure related to the LRC and confidentiality...that it was just understood by all parites involved. So my question now is if in fact there is evidence of the alleged behavior, what rule or policy has actually been broken? Just throwing it out there...

  2. MC 2011.12.16

    This appears to have festering for about year now. We need to pop the head on this and put it to rest.

  3. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Eeeww. MC, that's gonna ruin my dinner, brother.

  4. Stace Nelson 2011.12.16

    LFoss, there are statutes & SD Legislature ethical conduct rules that are at issue here. Additionally, the LRC staff member in question is an attorney. Legislators were told that they had client confidentiality with this attorney. Sen. Cutler & Rep. Lust are attorneys and know that such relations are held sacred by the SD Bar.

    The initial misconduct, & ensuing cover-up scandal, run the risk of impugning every Republican legislator in our legislature. South Dakotans expect that the protection of the integrity of their legislature to be put before personal relations or party affiliations.

    Start asking people what they knew when and what they did to fix this embarrassment before it became notorious across the state. The right people were fully briefed and encouraged to address the problem for MONTHS.

  5. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    From Cory's MDR link above:

    "The various sides are working under an assumption that confidentiality is required of LRC staff. However, there are no state laws, legislative rules or written policies to that effect, according to LRC director Fry and Sen. Cutler."

    Hmmm... sounds like we're about to get into some strange territory here... if indeed it could get any stranger.

    Could it be that these two law enforcement veterans (Russell and Nelson) are accusing people of breaking a rule or a law that doesn't actually exist? That they only thought it did? Or that it probably should?

    And if so, wouldn't that be kind of like arresting a guy for running a stop light that wasn't there but — in their opinion — probably should be?

    Seems to me they might have wanted to look around a little and find a law or rule written down somewhere before they started pointing fingers and signing letters.

    But hey, what the heck do I know, Cory?

    (Is that what you were alluding to in your post as well, Mr. Foss?)

  6. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Seems like Sam Kooiker went through something like this when he took over the Mayors office here in RC and got all torked off at ex-mayor Hanks and his secretary for having the IT guy erase the hard drives they were using.

    Sanborn over at Decorum Forum and some other people were having a hissy fit and talking about criminal charges and jail time and stuff, but if I recall, it all turned out to be a tempest in a teapot.

    There were some state laws cited in that deal that may be applicable here. I'll see if I can look them up. Funny though that no one has cited them already.

    I notice Stace doesn't in his post above, for example. he must be slippin'.

  7. Michael Black 2011.12.16

    The only thing I want to see out of the legislature is a budget delivered to the governor several days before the end of the session. There is NO reason that every year it has to be put off to the last minute of the last day. Do the important stuff FIRST!

  8. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Okay, I'm finding some stuff here under "South Dakota Legislature"

    How about this one:

    2-4-9. Disturbance or disorderly conduct in Legislature as misdemeanor. Every person who intentionally disturbs the Legislature of this state, or either of the branches composing it, while in session, or who commits any disorderly conduct in the immediate view and presence of either branch of the Legislature tending to interrupt its proceedings or impair the respect due to its authority, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

    No?

    Okay maybe this?
    2-4-10. Compelling action or inaction by Legislature as felony. Every person who intentionally, by force or fraud, compels or attempts to compel either branch of the Legislature of this state to pass, amend, or reject any bill or resolution, or to grant or refuse any petition, or to perform or omit to perform any other official act, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.

    Or how about:

    2-4-14. Contempt of Legislature--Punishment. The Senate or the House of Representatives may punish, as a contempt, by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its members; but only for one or more of the following offenses:
    (1) Knowingly arresting a member or officer of the Senate or the House of Representatives, or procuring such member or officer to be arrested in violation of his privilege from arrest;
    (2) Disorderly conduct in the immediate view of the Senate or the House of Representatives, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings;
    (3) Refusing to be examined as a witness either before the Senate or the House of Representatives, or a committee thereof, or before any person authorized to take testimony in legislative proceedings;
    (4) Giving or offering a bribe to a member, or attempting, by menace or other corrupt means or device, directly or indirectly, to control or influence a member in giving his vote, or to prevent his giving the same;
    but the term of imprisonment which the Senate or House of Representatives may impose for any contempt specified in this section shall not extend beyond the session of the Legislature.

    Or maybe:

    2-4-15. Contempt of Legislature as misdemeanor. Every person who is guilty of contempt of the State Legislature or either branch thereof, as contempt is defined in § 2-4-14, is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

    Aw heck, I give up.

    Maybe Stace can find it...

    [CAH: The Legislature can put people in prison? Holy cow!]

  9. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Well, I'm pretty sure those emails actually ARE protected as confidential by statute, Steve. I'll let you look that up yourself, since I know how much you like to do your own research.

  10. Steve Sibson 2011.12.16

    So emails are protected, but other communication methods are not? Is that what you are saying Bill?

  11. Steve Sibson 2011.12.16

    Bill, my comment doesn't say anything about emails. Are you just making stuff up again? Trolls are good at that.

  12. Steve Sibson 2011.12.16

    "Happy hunting, Sibby."

    So Bill, are you digging rabbit holes again?

  13. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Just assuming they were emails, or some kind of electronic document.

    But who knows, maybe not. Could be bar napkins, I suppose. 3 x 5 cards maybe... Or oooo... some secret, demonic masonic templarish vellumy papyrus scroll with seven wax pentagram seals or something cool like that.

    Whatever.

    Read the statutes and let us know what you think, Sibmeister.

    Come on, bro.

    You can do this.

  14. Steve Sibson 2011.12.16

    Bill, what is with all these rabbit holes? I thought you did not like rabbit holes. What's up Dooooc?

  15. Ed Randazzo 2011.12.16

    Research of the legal angle(s) should proceed.
    But let's not ignore seeing the forest for the trees. It certainly smells like the "establishment" Republicans used dubious, discriminatory and capricious use of power to wage a campaign of supression and marginalization of the conservative Republicans. Hubris extraordinaire!!! It doesn't surprise me though because these "establishment" Republicans are really Democrats in philosophy and ideology. They are truly the RINO poster children. Rausch, Lust, Turbiville, Kirkeby et. al. no more believe in the Republican Platform than they do in Santa Claus. They are "R's" in a state where, in the main, you must be an "R" to win. Oh, they are quick with lip service in the election cycle but when they get to Pierre they "hang a left."
    Anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted. The ones that are disingenuous, bless their hearts, should be fired by the voters, preferably in a primary.

  16. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Just trying to help out, Sib.

    Stace says there are statutes and rules are involved, and Fry and Cutler say they don't think so. I'm just rumbling around to see if we can maybe help them out.

    You know. Research.

    Like maybe Stace and Russell should have done.

    Seems like it shouldn't be all that hard to figure out, you know?

  17. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    So Ed, can you point us to a statute?

    Sibby and I are having a little trouble finding one over here.

  18. Steve Sibson 2011.12.16

    So Bill, why are you defending for the SDGOP Establishment by digging rabbit holes? Ed says:

    It doesn’t surprise me though because these “establishment” Republicans are really Democrats in philosophy and ideology.

  19. Ed Randazzo 2011.12.16

    Bill,
    Haven't looked. I was being lazy hoping that a barrister would ferret one out, if one exists. But my real point is regardless of the legal issue(s), if the charges are true, the perps are devoid of ethics and integrity and deserve to be exposed for the scoundrels they are.

  20. Steve Sibson 2011.12.16

    So Bill, why are you defending scoundrels?

  21. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    So let me allow this to sink in here.

    There may or may not be a rule or a law. And the charges may or may not be true. But that doesn't make any difference because the people who did this are perps and scoundrels and RINOS which according to Sibby is pretty much like being a Democrat.

    Is that what you guys just got done saying here?

    Or are these old eyes deceiving me?

  22. Ed Randazzo 2011.12.16

    Bill,
    So let me allow this to sink in here.

    Without a rule or a law you don't see a problem here? You don't see unethical behavior? You don't see a pattern of discrimination against some legislators that don't agree with others?

    My hesitance to capriciously call the charges true doesn't make them false.

    I seek the truth here and it may take some time and a proper investigation of the LRC, but not BY the LRC.

    It may be that you will not have an answer to this dust up tonight or tomorrow, Bill. But then again fact finding and facts never prevented a liberal from pronouncing a judgment.

    I suppose next will be name-calling. Bring it............I'm immune.

  23. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.12.16

    No name calling should ensue, Ed, because this issue isn't about you or me. It's about the Legislature.

    I don't see Bill "defending" the GOP establishment. He's asking whether the accusers have any legal ground on which to stand or whether this issue hinges solely on ethical violations. Those are different beasts. Think back to Senator Dan Sutton: was there any specific statute outlawing the things of which Sen. Sutton was accused?

    One can point out the absence of statute without defending the individuals accused of wrongdoing.

  24. Ed Randazzo 2011.12.16

    Cory,

    If that's the case, then he should say so.

    There are indeed two beasts. The legal beast will have to be determined by legal research. If a law or rule has been violated, the violators must be disciplined. The integrity of our legislative branch is at stake.

    The ethical beast is actually more important. If the parties, from whichever party or wing thereof have acted unethically, they must be disciplined as well for if they are not, they will be rewarded for their character flaws.

    Parsing words and hiding behind the arras of legality to condone unethical behavior is reprehensible.

    We need a fair, thorough investigation by parties outside the LRC and the legislature and let's find the truth and act decisively to lessen the possibility of reoccurence.

  25. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    [CAH: The Legislature can put people in prison? Holy cow!]

    Yeah, that's some pretty heavy stuff there, huh? Who knew? Seems like they want to be taken VERY seriously. It also sounds like they enjoy quite a lot of immunity, Cory.

  26. troy jones 2011.12.16

    So far, I have yet to have heard any specifics about anything I consider unethical, any specifics about a law or rule being broken.

    In the end this is about some people being jealous they arent king.

  27. Bill Fleming 2011.12.16

    Nor have I Troy. I wish somebody would at least provide a simple succinct narrative. What exactly happened? More news, less comment. Less heat, more light.

  28. Bill Fleming 2011.12.17

    Okay. Thanks for the link, Ed.

    Stace's letter is pretty interesting. A couple of things come to mind.

    First, I'm wondering if this is a political party thing. i.e. have any of the Democrats in the legislature had similar experiences with the LRC? If so, I'm wondering why there are no Dem signers on the complaint letters.

    And second, given the environment Stace describes here, and his feelings about it, wouldn't it be best just to do your own research? i.e. if you don't want anyone to know what you're up to, don't tell anybody. That's what I would do.

    Just a suggestion for the interim while you all work your way through this.

    Good luck. We'll be watching.

  29. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.12.17

    "do your own research"? I'm not sure that's fair, Bill. Legislators have no staff of their own. Lots of them lack experience (and, as some discussants here might say about some legislators, intelligence) to turn their ideas into well-researched, properly written bills all by themselves. We provide all of them with an LRC that they must share to get this work done.

    Legislators are told that the LRC will do this work for them and protect their confidence. Turbiville seems to be acknowledging the existence of this promise by declining to turn over the requested documents right away. Violating that confidence seems to be an ethical violation.

    Why no Dem signers? Why get involved early in a happy little civil war in the majority party? Frank didn't need to sign the letter to derive great pleasure form handing it out to everyone. The story is walking and talking just fine without the expenditure of any Dem political capital.

  30. Donald Pay 2011.12.17

    In many states open records laws cover the Legislative Branch, as well as the Executive Branch. Communications between legislators and staff, between legislators and legislators, between legislators and constituents or lobbyists can be required to be produced. Maybe it's time for South Dakota's legislative branch to extend the sunshine act to itself.

  31. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    "Is that what you guys just got done saying here?"

    No Bill, regardless of Cory's opinion, I am asking why are you defending the SDGOP Establishment?

  32. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    Bill will not answer the question because it exposes the truth. That is, he is supportive of the SDGOP Establishment shutting down of conservative legislation. Both parties are against conservative principles. Both parties foster monopoly capitalism, which is a form of socialism. They are only fighting over which fraternity has the most control. The same fight over who will control the New World Order, English or French Freemasonry. What we are proving is man cannot govern himself. Corruption always sets in, whether it is legal or not. Ethics are simply man-made laws that can be changed to fit ones own self-interest.

    There Bill, you have my political position. Don't forget it. It means that no one worthy of my support for president will be allowed an opportunity. And no more opportunity will be given our conservative South Dakota legislators to pass their legislation.

  33. Bill Fleming 2011.12.17

    So when we get bills that blame global warming on astrology, is that the LRC doing the research on that, or have the authors taken my advice and asked some freelancer like Sibby to do it?

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/2374/_creationism_and_global_warming_denial%3A_anti-science’s_kissing_cousins/

    Let's just say that if I were in charge of the GOP caucus, I might have a little extra concern about what the Tea Party freshmen in my group are putting together. Clearly some of them could use a little extra guidance from time to time.

    If instead the evidence shows that the GOP big kids are bullying their way around in the Dem's bill development sandbox, that would be a horse of a different color.

    It will be interesting to find out.

    Who knows, those "RINO" haters might have to start their own party if they want a little confidentiality. Or what the heck, join the Democrats.

    Or maybe they can all take a lesson from this. People don't like it when you try to get your nose up in their personal business. (Are you paying attention here, Sibby?)

  34. Bill Fleming 2011.12.17

    Ahh, splendid. Sibby lays it out for it.
    I'll etch it onto the back of my locket.
    Thanks Stevie!

  35. Bill Fleming 2011.12.17

    ...lays it out for US... sorry.

  36. Donald Pay 2011.12.17

    I'm not sure if anyone really wants to reform the legislative process, or if they just want to whine or tussle with personalities. South Dakota's legislative process is much more open than many, but here are some ideas that might improve the situation:

    (1) Disclose bill draft requests. Some states require initial disclosure of bill draft requests. No need to spy on anyone if all this is out in the open.

    (2) Extend sunshine act (freedom of information) to Legislature. I'm not sure why we exclude the legislative branch, especially since they have more control over what happens than many agencies.

    (3) Require disclosure by legislators of their meetings where legislation or proposed legislation is discussed.

  37. Bill Fleming 2011.12.17

    Exactly, Don. Good suggestions. By contrast, this whole brouhaha is pretty much an intramural feud between rogue members and the GOP leadership, isn't it? It's about staying secret, not transparency, right? Sibby style cloak and dagger back room business... the kind he likes to blame on the Masons, meditators and moderates.

    With their insurgency so eager to seize power and brand themselves the "real" Repubs, they're willing to jimmy up a bogus scoring system that shows the majority of the Democrats in the SD legislature being more Republican than the majority of Republicans.

    Then, they run to the press and tattle when their big brothers bust their chops about it. So much for Ronnie's 11th Commandment.

    This ain't my grandpa's GOP... oh wait... maybe it is. They had their run ins with the Bircher, KKK and McCarthy types too, I guess.

    (Yes, Sibby, true confessions time. I was born a white, anglo saxon Republican protestant.)

  38. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    "Are you paying attention here, Sibby?"

    Yes Bill, you are spinning like a top. Like I said you hate conservatives as much as the RINOs. The only difference is the RINOs think we will vote for them. We are suppose to shut up and just take it. Some of us have decided not to shut up and just take it. And as you have shown, the far-left Democrats also don't like it when we speak out and stand for truth. What do you guys think...indoctrination is suppose to work on 100% of the people?

  39. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    "Require disclosure by legislators of their meetings where legislation or proposed legislation is discussed."

    So if a citizen proposes legislation, the legislator is required to report it? Instead of open government it looks like open season on the citizens.

    Bill, you still don't get it. It is Nelson and the bunch who want to get everything out in the open. Start paying attention.

  40. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    Bill, I thought the KKK were with the southern Democrats. There is also research that tie them to Freemasonry. When are you going to stop the deception?

  41. Donald Pay 2011.12.17

    Another suggestions is to require open caucus sessions.

    I'm not sure why there would be open season on citizens discussing proposed legislation with a legislator if this was disclosed. What it would likely do is empower citizens over lobbyists or out-of-state groups, who absolutely want the secrecy to continue.

  42. larry kurtz 2011.12.17

    "Serial hypocrisy" built South Dakota. With God's will it can kill it, too.

  43. Bill Fleming 2011.12.17

    I don't really have dog in this fight, Sib.

    It's not my party that's in meltdown mode.

    But, given a choice between who I'd like to see in charge of the GOP side of state government, I would have to go with the ones who don't believe that "critical thinking" is a New World Order conspiracy to allow Satan and the ghost of Knights Templars past to take over the planet and enslave all my grandchildren and great-grand children.

    Just sayin'.

  44. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    Bill,

    Not surprised your pantheistic monism is threatened by the truth. It is not too late for you to get out.

  45. Steve Sibson 2011.12.17

    And Bill, for one who claimed to not have a clue on my political position just yesterday, you seem to have a very strong opinion now. Again, I ask, when are you going to stop with the deception?

  46. larry kurtz 2011.12.17

    Steve, in your view, which institution(s) should provide environmental protection or should individuals empower themselves to provide for their own buffers from offenders?

  47. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.12.17

    Donald, your suggestions remind me that the complaint revolves around keeping secrets. Maybe the solution is not to enforce or codify this LRC promise of confidentiality, but to eliminate it completely and make the process entirely transparent. I know I have said previously that exposing legislative drafts and brainstorms prematurely may subject them to unfair attacks from opponents... but maybe we would benefit just as much from a crystal clear legislative drafting process. Maybe we should assert our right to know and participate in every bit of legislative research for which legislators use our tax dollars. Sure, maybe previewing maverick legislation gives the party bosses a headstart on killing it... but it would also give bloggers, lobbyists, and other citizens a heads-up to mobilize opposition. Given the promise of confidentiality by the LRC, the legislators have grounds to complain when the leadership violates it. But if that's what happened, after sanctioning the leadership, maybe the long-term solution is eliminate that confidentiality. Maybe LRC members should post all of their e-mails on a public list-serve and post all of their research on a public wiki.

  48. MC 2011.12.17

    An intresting idea indeed. I bet many bills would be killed before they even get sent to committee. Those that do make it would be bullet proof.

  49. Douglas Wiken 2011.12.17

    If there are no actual rules or regulations on LRC confidentiality, then it seems any kind of actual violation here is a matter of honesty. If the established pattern has been confidentiality with no actual regulation, then a legislative leader who secretly violates such a tradition has acted dishonestly in failing to inform all other members.

    Old Doc Farber of USD was the driving force behind the legislative research counsel. I wonder if his books and the formation records of the LRC indicate anything about confidentiality. Or perhaps the system was unworkable without confidentiality and it was accepted. I don't know.

    A unicameral legislature would make the system less opaque and would not waste taxpayers money on a totally redundant chamber.

  50. Donald Pay 2011.12.17

    Cory,

    Exactly. Now I want to point out something here. Generally, I think most people who hang around the legislature for any time (legislators, press and lobbyists) figure out sources of information that keep them in the loop with maybe a couple days delay. You know who is circulating bill drafts, and what's in them, because there are far more people who talk and fewer real secrets than everyone imagines. However, where there are secrets, it generally isn't good for citizens, because those are usually the sorts of matters that leadership or the Governor's office want secret. Secrecy works for the people in power, not for the average citizen.

  51. Donald Pay 2011.12.17

    I want to make a caveat here. Sometimes secrecy allows the knowledgeable staff at LRC to give honest advise without it becoming a part of the public debate. Sometimes you want someone to say to you, "you're ideas are crap, but you can do it this way and it might be better." The LRC staff are generally very professional and knowledgeable. You want them to be able to give good advise.

Comments are closed.