Last updated on 2012.05.08
O.K., I admit: Gordon Howie is full of crap, but his little Potemkin village media empire is providing us all with some good material. His posting of States Attorney candidate Mark Vargo's video provides a useful introduction to the man who would replace Glenn Brenner. His posting of District 30 House candidate Florence Thompson's fantasy alerts us to the harmful silliness and ignorance of contemporary McCarthyism.
And if you can get past Ed Randazzo's snarky intro, this video shows District 13 Rep. Brian C. Liss opening his mouth and, for perhaps the first time in his brief Legislative career, not saying something stupid. Liss explains why he is leading a petition drive to refer House Bill 1133 to a public vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgWtJKYBF04
Other than talking like Kristi Noem and saying "and" before almost every sentence, Liss makes his point about the new "Legislative planning supercommittee" well. House Bill 1133 creates a committee that violates the will of the electorate by keeping legislators in power even after voters have kicked them out.
I signed a petition circulated by a Liss pal working the GOP candidates forum here in Spearfish last Monday. I hope you'll sign, too, because for once, just like Gordon Howie, Brian C. Liss is managing to do something useful.
To find out where you can sign in your neighborhood, call Rep. Liss at 605-496-1627.
First of all, let's salute Howie for continually upgrading the production quality of his presentations (audio quality, lighting, camera angles, etc... technical stuff). The initial offering was pretty stiff and amateurish, but it keeps getting better and better. Good job.
Now as to the content of this video, I'm a little perplexed. The typical GOP/TeaParty position is (can you hear the echo chamber?) "We're a Republic, not a Democracy!"
And Liss is the guy who tried to get SD to outlaw collective bargaining in our state.
So I'm wondering if he's had a change of heart. If the legislature decides to delegate work to a "supercommitte" that seems to be their prerogative. Why is he challenging "the Republic?" (Maybe Sibby knows.)
My question to Liss is, when exactly IS Democracy appropriate? And why do Repubs resort to the ballot and I&R ONLY when something's going on in the "Republic" that they don't like?
(Example: the people have overtuned draconian anti-women's rights laws by significant margins. And yet, each new session of the legislature comes up with some new concoction as to how to further limit women's liberty and equality as citizens. I'll believe these guys are "pro democracy" when they start repecting the civil and human rights of the majority of voters in SD [aka female voters].)
p.s. If the Supercomitte can meet without the usual contingent of lobbyists hovering over them and actually vote their conscience, that strikes me as being not all that bad. Likewise, perhaps it's time (here we go again Carter) to have the legislators stay home and cast their votes via the internet where they are more accessable to their constituents during session and less accessable to the special interest groups. Just thinking out loud here.
Bill/Cory, I believe HB 1133 to be one of the most opportunistic bills for the citizen I have ever witnessed while in Pierre. We can fix the problem allowing legislators who have been "voted" out of office from being able to continue serving while allowing only those term limited or those who decide not to run for personal reasons (though staying on a committee while not being able to serve sounds like an oxymoron) to be on the committee. This referral planned by Representative Liss is throwing the baby out with the bath water and very poor judgment on his part especially knowing he has no plans on continuing on in the legislature.
Charlie, Cory, et al. How much time (theoretically) could someone spend on this committee past the time when s/he was no longer in office? (...beyond the usual "lame duck period" that is.)
pseudomenon by any other name, charlie.
Ok, had to read Cory's old post. Now I see the (potential) problem. Not sure Cory's recommended fix would solve it though. Seems to me that people appointed to this committee would be there because of WHO they are, NOT where they're from.
Sidenote: I can't imagine anything funnier than to have Nancy Pelozi show up at these boys' studio, sit down, and summarily dismantle Randazzo and Ellis right before our eyes. Serously. She would chew them up and spit them out without breaking a sweat. She's one tough cookie.
Bill honestly do you really want a state government dictated by lobbyists and Blue Badge government workers? Or rather a board/committee of locally elected legislators serving the common citizen? This committee takes care of all of these problems. Brian Liss obviously does not get it.
I don't get it. If the goal of the committee is to prevent the government officials from being influenced by lobbyists, why not just not allow lobbyists? Why take a roundabout way of doing something like that? I think most people either aren't fond of lobbyists, or don't know enough about them to care, so I can't imagine people making a huge uproar if it was just proposed as a bill.
Charlie, I think I'm on your side on this, buddy. Still thinking about it, and open to debate of course, but I'm leaning in that direction. I like the insulation from lobbyists part quite a bit.
The legislatures have had many good summer study committees in the past and this one would get even more done than those did. We should let the legislatures plan and have these committees because it would really set a direction for them.
Carter, it's that pesky 1st Amendment thing, where peole have the right to petition their government with grievances and stuff.
Yeah, even lobbyists.
LOL.
Above: not "peole" ..."people" sorry.
Yes, but "petitioning your government" is a bit different from making sure someone's next golf trip is all set up ahead for them, or making it known that supporting the lobbyist's bill may or may not secure you some campaign funding.
Lobbying amounts to little more than barely-veiled bribery. If I can't walk up to Tim Johnson, pass him a thousand bucks and tell him more is coming if he votes my way, then lobbyists shouldn't be allowed to either.
I don't know as much as Mr. Carter does about some things but I did read that law 1133 and it says that the committee will draw upon public input and "those who are knowlegable" (ruling me and Mr. Carter out.)
That sounds like this law promotes lobbyisting.
I agree on Grudz on this one. It doesn't seem like it's all that often that experts on topics are people who stand to make the most money off something. The national government constantly consults fossil fuel experts who just happen to be major participants in the oil trade. Any time I see the words "consult" near "knowledgeable", I'm inclined towards assuming those knowledgeable people will be lobbyists. Even if not all of them are, I would guess more will be than won't be.
Well, Charlie, let's look at it this way. You can't fix this problem until the 2013 session. I thus have no qualms with throwing out this flawed bill to focus your attention on fixing it next year. Service a full year past the time the voters have said, "You're outta here!" is unacceptable. As I said in my previous post on this topic, subverting the will of the voters is no small problem... or, to use your language, it's not just some stale bathwater.
I'll see your effort to tweak the bill and raise you. Change the terms to end in even numbered years, right after the election or after the Governor's budget address. Keep the four members from the leadership. The other seven members are drawn at term's end semi-randomly:
--2 current members of the committee, one from each party, who have won re-election by the people. If fewer than two members of the committee have been re-elected, choose these members from among newly-elected members, maintaining party balance.
--2 non-members of the committee, one from each party, who have won re-election.
--3 newly elected legislators, 2 from the incoming majority party, 1 from the incoming minority party.
How's that fix?
The office of public lands should make the drawing.
Bill, I agree with your analysis of the apparent contradication in rhetoric and action. "Republic not a Democracy!" appears to be at best an empty and irrelevant battle cry, at worst a specious ploy they trot out to justify legislative overreach when they like it and then abandon when the Legislature doesn't vote their way. Would any RNAD criers care to resolve this contradiction for us? If we are a Republic Not A Democracy, then how dare we appeal to referendum?
Exactly, Cory.
After re-reading the posts here I find Grudz is keeping us all on a level positive playing field. To continue with that thread one must include; which I did not, that many areas of concern will be worked on by Blue Badges, lobbyist, and the super committee studying said problem. The beauty of this committee is we, meaning the legislature, will have a seat at the table. Cory I think some of your concerns make sense and should be looked at but we do not have to throw the entire bill out to fix it. By the time it would be implemented it will have the proper amendments taking out the objectionable minor flaws and with an emergency clause become law upon the Governor's signature.
Implementation is this summer, right? If the committee is appointed this summer, the problem of ousted legislators serving beyond their term could be triggered this election. Short of a special session, you can't remove the flaws before they happen. I look forward to the chance to use a referendum to prevent the problem from happening at all and to focus you guys' attention on solving the problem as soon as possible.
Is continuity really the problem? I understand the difficulty of maintaining institutional knowledge, but maybe instead of allowing legislators to exceed their popular mandate, you just need a better system for capturing knowledge from outgoing members and transferring it to new members. More public hearings in more locations around the state, more detailed published hearing transcripts, more legislator blogs!
Maybe we also need to elect better learners.
Here is the bill in its final form. No dates of implementation except for the July 1st assumption of it becomming law.
AN ACT
ENTITLED, An Act to establish the Legislature's Planning Committee.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. There is hereby created the Legislature's Planning Committee to make a continuing
study of emerging trends, assets, and challenges in South Dakota and to address the long-term
implications of the decisions made by the Legislature.
Section 2. The Legislature's Planning Committee shall be composed of the speaker of the House
of Representatives, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the chair of the Executive Board of the
Legislative Research Council, a member of the appropriations committee, and seven other members
of the Legislature to be appointed by the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council. The
members of the Legislature's Planning Committee shall be appointed biennially for terms expiring
January first of each succeeding even-numbered year and shall serve until their respective successors
are appointed and qualified. However, no fewer than two representatives, one from each party, and
one senator shall be reappointed each biennium to provide continuity. The total membership shall
be appointed in proportion to the political party makeup of the Legislature.
Section 3. Each year, the Executive Board shall identify up to six categories for the Legislature's
Planning Committee to study.
Section 4. The Legislature's Planning Committee shall select a chair and a vice chair and shall
be provided with staff assistance from the Legislative Research Council.
Section 5. The Legislature's Planning Committee shall collect and analyze data and give special
consideration to matters concerning demographics, education, labor, revenue, natural resources,
assets, challenges, trends, and the growth and efficiency of government in South Dakota. The
committee shall continuously identify long-term issues significant to South Dakota, set goals, and
issue a yearly report of its findings. The committee shall draw upon public input from all those who
HB No. 1133 Page 1
may be concerned and knowledgeable in these areas. The committee may propose draft legislation
and policy recommendations to the Legislature to effectuate its mission.
Right. Without a specified time frame, this committee comes into existence as soon after July 1, 2012, as the E-Board names names. A referendum, even if it failed, blocks implementation until after the 2012 election, at which point I would hope the E-Board would have the good sense not to appoint any losers. A referendum is thus the surest way to avoid the flaws of this bill.
Hmmm... Cory's probably right, Charlie. If you both agree that the bill needs fixing, don't put it into action until it's been amended. The Referall is a good remedy. Kind of like putting the bill (and it's proponents) "on probation." ;^)
Good thinking, CH.
Bill you understand that when you give out thinking credits to CH we both obtain your snazy mental approval buddy!! :)
Yup, Charlie, for what it's worth, I approve of you and Cory putting your heads together on this. That's good old fashioned SD politics. The way it should be, by golly.
AH... you mean the INITAILS Charlie! No! I didn't catch that, but how convenient!
Convenient, yet strange. I'm keeping the A between my C and H... unless... hey, Charlie, your middle name isn't Aloysius, is it? ;-)
Now, will you sign the HB 1133 referral petition to nix this bad law and make way for a better one next year?