The South Dakota Legislature's Executive Board wants to get its hands on the state budget proposal sooner. Hence, they offer Senate Bill 10, which makes three budget deadline changes and one important policy change that should make it easier for citizens to study the Governor's budget proposal.
Senate Bill 10 moves the deadline for the Governor's submission of his budget proposal from the first Tuesday after the first Monday of December to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In election years, that means we'll get the budget proposal one week after election day. We all will get three or four more weeks to study the Governor's proposal and offer our input to our legislators. That's good for democracy!
To help the Governor meet that earlier deadline, SB 10 moves up the deadline for state offices to submit their budget requests from October 15 to September 1. SB 10 requires copies of those requests to go to the Legislative Research Council by the same date, rather than the current deadline of November 1.
In a sign that legislators feel as if they aren't being kept in the budgetary loop, SB 10 makes one more change. Current state law says that "The commissioner of administration, attorney general, state treasurer, state auditor-general, secretary of revenue, state auditor, and the executive director of the Board of Regents shall render such advice and assistance, and furnish such information to the Bureau of Finance and Management as may be requested."
SB 10 adds "or the Legislature" after the BFM, requiring that the above-named state officials be as responsive to requests for budget information from legislators as they are to the executive branch.
Making the Governor and state agencies do their homework a few weeks earlier means crafting a budget with perhaps a little less economic data. But it allows legislators and the rest of us to participate in the budget process sooner. Do pass!
Does this mean that a new governor would have to present a budget one week after getting into office. Not reasonable. The rest is good.
Under the present practice, the current governor submits a final budget, which then is forgotten, and the new governor submits a recommended budget after taking office in January. The new governor's budget is the one considered by the Legislature (such as Gov. Daugaard's 10 percent cuts in 2011). These general practices wouldn't change under SB 10.
I like this.
Bob's right, Roger: statute makes no demands on the newly-elected governor until he/she is sworn into office. This bill keeps the lame-duck budget out of the spotlight until after the election. But it gives a Governor-elect more time to study the budget requests and the outgoing Governor's proposal before submitting his/her own budget upon taking office.
We keep looking for solutions of a legislature perceived of being too weak relative to the Governors Office. Rather than advocating faux solutions like this, why don't we deal with the real problem-term limits.
Every session the House is roughly 35-40% new members and the Senate 20% members who have never been legislators.
End term limits to allow some old sages who have "been there-done that" and you will see the balance desired develop.
The only solution needed for the problem of the legislature being too weak relative to the Governor's office is to elect a Democratic Governor. The GOP legislature would quickly locate it's collective spine.
Troy, this bill doesn't strike me as a false solution, as long as no one tries to sell it as a complete solution. It's just one more small but useful step. Is there any outweighing disadvantage to moving these deadlines ahead?
Troy when my joint resolution extending term limits from four to six two year terms in any one House comes to committee I would love seeing you in Pierre testifying for it. At least this bill if approved by the voters in the next General will engage more people to consider running for leadership thereby in itself strengthening the legislature.
I won't argue term that term limits don't diminish legis brunt Troy, but.
.
The legislative balance in SD was taken/handed off 40 years ago and it wasn't term limits that did it.
Charlie, why not repeal term limits completely? Why not trust the voters completely to remove legislators who are no longer serving the people's will?
Charlie I don't understand why we have term limits here in SD. I'm with Cory on this why not let the voters decide?
Term limits have been on the ballot a few times before in terms of complete abolition of them failing each time. This method would in my mind be something the reasonable general public may embrace though.