Press "Enter" to skip to content

LRC Never Asked Legislature to Boost Its Own Funding

South Dakota's House and Senate leadership claimed at the end of this year's Legislative session that the Legislature needs more funding to do its job. They added $500,000 to their own budget in the Legislature's last-minute rush to avoid public scrutiny and criticism of their willingness to spend twelve times more on boosting their own resources than they agreed to spend on increased resources for each teacher in South Dakota.

Rep. Kathy Tyler (D-4/Big Stone City) notes that the leadership increased its budget without any indication from the Legislative Research Council that they needed to:

Just about forgot.. the legislators will be receiving a bit of a raise next year. That and a surprise amendment that increased funding to the legislative department by $500,000 was passed. (You’re right; there was no committee discussion on this amendment. It was a hoghouse.) Traveling has been expanded and the legislative research council will add employees. This last bit of budgeting was a surprise since the LRC hadn’t mentioned any need of more money in their budget interview with the Appropriations committees. (All agencies have this interview during early in the session.) [Rep. Kathy Tyler, "So Where's the Money?" Kathy's Corner, 2013.03.17]

Perhaps Senator Russell Olson (R-8/Wentworth) or Speaker Brian Gosch (R-32/Rapid City) will explain that the LRC was simply too overworked and understaffed to testify to its own budget needs.

19 Comments

  1. SVinRC 2013.03.18

    The voters denied them an increase in gas funds so they've found another way to reward themselves?

  2. owen reitzel 2013.03.18

    I'd like to know Stace Nelson's views on this.
    Seems like this would be right up his alley of sneekyness by the government

  3. Stace Nelson 2013.03.19

    @Owen Would love to tell you about it; however, Republican leadership mandated confidentiality & a closed caucus (which I do not agree with). If my memory serves me correctly, SDGOP platform says we are the party that believes in open government & communications with the public?

    @Cory Rep Nelson was one of the determining factors on Rep Wismer being able to get a recorded vote on her amendment as I stood for her request for a "Roll Call;" however, I could not support the amendment as I believed that it violated SD Constitution Article 12 Sec 2: http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=0N-12-2

  4. Charlie Johnson 2013.03.19

    Stace, I agree you are in a tough spot. By keeping caucus secret, you and all other 105 legislators as duly elected by the voters of SD can't explain in this blog or any other forum as to the specifics of legislation that is passed into law in this state? Why not? How is this good government?

  5. Jana 2013.03.19

    Keeping things from voters they think are stupid and lazy? (Right Gov?)

    Dog bites man.

    Good Republicans working outside of view?

    Dog bites man.

    Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we ask our media to tell us why!

    Oh...yeah...I forgot.

    Dog bites man.

    I wish "transcriptionist" was easier to spell than media.

  6. grudznick 2013.03.19

    Ms. Jana, I feel your view of our legitimate media is distorted in some way by your youth. The media is the liberal bastion of liberals.

  7. grudznick 2013.03.19

    I am sorry to see that Mr. Nelson may have become a jaded insider to the secrets of the power brokers in the legislatures. The leadership teams elected in the legislatures have really squashed on the constitution this year and did bad things that years will need to reverse.

  8. Jana 2013.03.19

    Oh Grud...or should I say George Will? No...not quite the right fit. Maybe Rush...no. Too liberal?

    Actually Grud/Rush, I think that the SD media is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome or they are afraid of saying the king has no clothes and losing their advertising $'s.

    Of course, it could also be that they are reading some of the stuff over at SDWC and are laughing too hard...or that they think Pierre is like a large performance theater comedy.

    Or they ran out of money and caring at the same time.

    All the same, they are all probably wonderful people.

  9. Stace Nelson 2013.03.20

    @Charlie Spot on, it is not. But, an edict is an edict, even on one who is unspportive of it..

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.03.20

    And an edict like this carries what force of law? Come on, Stace, even Marines understand that "just following orders" doesn't excuse everything.

  11. Stace Nelson 2013.03.20

    @Cory The hypocrisy of a legislative closed caucus, by the party that has open government as a major party platform plank 5.13 http://southdakotagop.com/about-the-party/our-platform/ , should be assaulted by every media outlet in SD. Until that happens, and changes are made, I am stuck with it.

  12. grudznick 2013.03.20

    Mr. Nelson, don't let Mr. H goad you into ratting out on people.

  13. Charlie Johnson 2013.03.20

    Doesn't have to be a matter of "ratting out". Anytime public policy is discussed and the final outcome is decided behind closed doors, democracy suffers. Stace Nelson, although I disagree with many of his positions on issues(We agree on many also), aleast he is one politician who is forthcoming and upfront. We need to make closed sessions by legislators illegal even if that involves a slight constitutional change.

  14. Charlie Johnson 2013.03.20

    BTW---Grud, or whoever who are, your use of a pseudo name indicates a severe weakness on your ability to stand up for what you believe in. Again, working behind closed doors is probably more your style anyhow.

  15. grudznick 2013.03.20

    BAH

  16. Jana 2013.03.20

    So here's some things that the Dems should be sure and bring up next election day and anytime you see a legislator.

    1. Your party leader called us stupid and lazy...that's an exact quote...you seem to agree.

    2. We the people voted down your pet projects for cony economic development but yet you did an end run around our wishes. Who do you think you are?

    3. We voted down your education reform charade...(see stupid and lazy)...then you did another end run around our wishes. Who do you think we are?

    4. You criticized a citizen for bringing a bill to Pierre protecting animals and mocked her as being influenced by out of state interests...all the while submitting ALEC written bills. Who do you think we are? Who do you work for?

    5. You grandstanded on bills that had a national spotlight...pushing more costs onto the counties and citizens while acting like Pontius Pilate and washing your hands in the polluted water of party dogma.

    6. We the people voted down your "raise" at the polls and then you turned around and gave yourselves an even bigger raise thinking we were too stupid and lazy to notice. Who do you think you are?

    7. To add insult to the injury you have now given yourselves a 4 day work week! Who do you think you are!

    8. After two defeats in referendum where we the people voted to temper the crazy on abortion, you continue to demean and dehumanize women.

    9. You make transparency a bad word...which given the above...is for obvious reasons.

  17. grudznick 2013.03.20

    Ms. Jana, I think many of your numbers make good sense. My only problem is that some of those are questions that anybody should be asking when they talk to our state congressmen and women. All people should ask those questions not just Dems. I hope that's OK for me to say of your list.

Comments are closed.