The allegations of ethics violations by the South Dakota House Republican leadership receive their first official hearing on Tuesday, January 3, as a subcommittee of the Legislature's Executive Board meets to hear testimony "in Regard to Legislative Research Council Work Product." Despite a request from the complainants for her recusal, Republican Senator Joni Cutler has accepted Executive Board Chairman Rep. Charles Turbiville's appointment to chair this subcommittee. Democratic Representative Larry Lucas (D and Republican Senator Tom Nelson will round out the subcommittee.
This subcommittee hearing was supposed to happen a week earlier, on Tuesday, December 27. Sen. Cutler announced the Dec. 27 meeting in an e-mail sent out Friday, December 23, at 3:53 p.m. (From the documents available, I am unable to determine whether that's Central or Mountain Time.) Given such short notice on the eve of a holiday weekend, Rep. Lance Russell requested a continuance and proposed five dates when he would be available to testify shortly after January 1. Sen. Cutler moved the hearing back one week, to January 3. Sen. Cutler also responded to other concerns raised by Rep. Russell in a Dec. 27 letter, in which Sen. Cutler states the following:
- The Jan. 3 hearing in Room 413 of the Capitol will be open and the audio archived online along with other Executive Board minutes from this interim.
- Sen. Cutler is not recusing herself because Rep. Turbiville has told her he does not want her to recuse herself. Sen. Cutler feels her public statements on South Dakota's legislative process do not compromise her ability to chair the subcommittee hearing, gather information, and report that information to the Executive Board for its action at its January 10 meeting, hours before the noon opening of the 2012 Legislature.
- Rep. Russell questions whether the subcommittee is acting under proper authority by Executive Board motion and action. Sen. Cutler responds that the Legislature's joint rules and Mason's (easy, Sibby) Manual of Legislative Procedure empower a committee chair to appoint a subcommittee without formal action by the full committee.
- Sen. Cutler does not intend to swear witnesses at the hearing. Anticipating testimony primarily from legislators, Sen. Cutler feels their oath of office serves as sufficient guarantee of their veracity.
Rep. Russell may be satisfied with the extra week to prep, but he wants to ensure the hearing is more than simply a gripe session with him and his fellow complainants. Rep. Russell has moved for the board to invoke its subpoena powers and issue subpoenas duces tecum (that's Latin for "Come talk to us, and bring your papers!") to three members of the LRC staff. Rep. Russell submitted this motion on Tuesday; I haven't heard yet whether the executive board has taken action on it. But in her preceding communications, Sen. Cutler indicated that the subcommittee "may" call LRC staff to testify, depending on the testimony presented and evidence required.
Sen. Cutler says the subcommittee stands ready to take testimony all day long (starting at 10 a.m.) and into the evening. Mr. Mercer may wish this hearing was being held online. Pack a sandwich!
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on corporate campaign spending. The case was brought by the renamed Karl Rove group that wrought red map devastation on the Montana Statehouse:
http://helenair.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/montana-supreme-court-upholds-corporate-political-spending-ban/article_09cd6140-337b-11e1-89f6-001871e3ce6c.html
This is the oath of office: http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=0N-3-8
This is the oath required in House Rules chapter 6:
H6-3. Oath. Prior to consideration of any matter referred to it, except establishing a quorum, the members of the select committee shall subscribe to the following oath, which shall be administered
by the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives:
"I do solemnly swear (affirm) that in all things appertaining to the matter referred to this select committee, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution, laws, Joint Rules, and House Rules of the State of South Dakota. I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the House Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion in the aforesaid matter, according to the best of my ability and understanding, so help me God."
Invoking the supernatural in the oath renders the entire exercise moot, innit?
Show a Republican overwhelming evidence that humans are significant contributors to climate change and he'll scoff and call you a liar then argue that the rights to govern come from a supernatural being.
This Republican suspects that humans are significant contributors to climate change, but can't prove it. This Republican believes that the rights to govern a people come from the people themselves. The rights to deal with climate change may, however, be hijacked by a Supernatural Being, if She sees that the people cannot or will not deal with it on their own.
More to topic, I'd say that neither party holds a monopoly on bad ethics. If the melon falls on the knife or the knife falls on the melon, the melon, not the knife, falls to pieces in the end. Whether the Democrats hold power or the Republicans hold power, the people, not the politicians, get screwed in the end.
Mr. Stan, are you suggesting that the solution is to use a different tool than a knife? Perhaps a big stick shaped like a cricket bat, or a large pancake-like rock? Even careful application of a cute tweety bird's pointy little beak will result in the same thing.
The mellon loses. It is the nature of the mellon to lose. You sir, and perhaps we all, are mellons. And your god hates mellons.
does grud=rd?
Grudz, here's the truth. I happened to be reading a book by Osho at the same time as I read this blog. Osho used the melon metaphor in one of his melodious musings, and I loved it so much that I said to myself, "I've got to use that metaphor in a blog comment right now."
Osho's metaphor does not make a whole lot of sense in hsi context, actually, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in my context either. But it sounds cool when it rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
As the melon falls into pieces, the little people fall into ruin.
I don't know whether or not my God hates melons. For one thing, I'm not even sure who or what, exactly, my God is. In my literal and loony life, I love melons, but they don't particularly like me. They make me wheeze.
Again returning more directly to the topic of this thread, I believe that diverse popular uprisings all around the world (Arab spring, Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, and now even some protests in China) show that the people, empowered by social media, have decided that it's well past time for the exploitation of the melons by the knife-wielders to end.
Libertarians, communists, occupiers, tea partiers, and all the other factions of the growing angry mob function on a common theme: "We're sick of large, powerful institutions dominating, exploiting, abusing, robbing, and enslaving us."
Amen.
Stan, I'm not sure I grok Osho, but the connection you draw to social media interests me. We've had a solid decade of widespread Internet use. Could it already be affecting the psyche of citizens across cultures? Could the Arab Spring, the Tea Party, and Occupy Wall Street all be tapping a new cross-cultural sense of empowerment and democratic entitlement?
Yes.
Yes x 2. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG-wl2qqD7Y