Last updated on 2014.09.13
Today's ad hoc subcommittee hearing called by the Legislature's Executive Board may be a wash. The two key legislators pushing for an investigation of the GOP House leadership for violations of confidentiality, Reps. Lance Russell (R-30/Hot Springs) and Stace Nelson (R-25/Fulton), are declining to attend the hearing, which is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. today at the Capitol in Pierre.
In letters sent yesterday to subcommittee chair Senator Joni Cutler, Reps. Russell and Nelson both complain that Sen. Cutler has not yet offered any response to their motion for subpoenas of Legislative Research Council director Jim Fry, LRC staff lawyer Reuben Bezpaletz, and former LRC staffer Jacqueline Storm. Without the guarantee of testimony from those individuals, Rep. Russell sees little point in rearranging his schedule to drive to Pierre today:
I am certain you can empathize with my situation in light of my belief that you are rushing a matter that has not been dealt with for more than six months, where discovery has repeatedly been denied, where the Chair of the subcommittee does not plan on even calling the first-hand witnesses who are present in the very building that the subcommittee is scheduled to meet and who provided the information to me, and where I have not even had the courtesy of a response to a formal written motion.
Thank you for your consideration. Should you continue to desire my hearsay testimony after you have heard from the LRC eye witnesses, I will be available at the above telephone number after 1:00 p.m. central standard time on January 3, 2012 [Rep. Lance Russell, letter to Sen. Joni Cutler, 2012.01.02].
Rep. Nelson expresses similar misgivings about heading to Pierre for what he considers an illegitimate deviation from the formal House rules for investigation of allegations of misconduct. He says the subcommittee hasn't even made clear which specific complaints are being investigated:
I provided NUMEROUS documents to include detailed written complaints about several incidents to include detailed complaints that Rep. Turbiville ordered ongoing obstruction of my bill research. Are you investigating that? If so, how is it not grossly unethical for you to consult with him on these matters or for Rep. Turbiville to remain involved with this investigation?! House Leadership assured me those complaints were received, being investigated, & they would ensure were addressed via this process as recently as Rep. Lust asserting as such on December 27th, 2011, in public. Please identify within those complaints what actual specific incidents you are investigating, if any, and if any require additional information from me.
Please advise what the purpose is of your investigation to include what the information will be used for. Please advise what the scope of the investigation is to include what specifically is being investigated; what if any is each legislator's required attendance or duties in this hearing; what the consequences are for any persons refusing to testify or providing fraudulent information or testimony; what are the procedures for legislators to obtain known evidence within the LRC; the procedures for introducing & requiring known witness testimony as well as the procedure to require disclosure of documentary evidence [Rep. Stace Nelson, letter to Senator Joni Cutler, 2012.01.02].
Senator Cutler may not have responded to the subpoena request all week, but she managed to fire off a reply to Rep. Russell right away asking him to stick with the process:
There are both procedural and legal reasons for addressing those issues in this manner. My hope is that you would refrain from drawing conclusions about what you think I intend to do in the hearing as you risk inaccuracy in so doing. That is one of the huge drawbacks in trying to assess this through email and letters and why it is preferable, in fairness to everyone, to handle all of this in an open meeting and on the record with witnesses personally present.
We really need your cooperation and presence so that we can have the type of dialog that will help us work toward a proper resolution. We would be happy to meet into the evening if that would help you come to Pierre [Senator Joni Cutler, letter to Rep. Lance Russell, 2012.01.02].
I appreciate Sen. Cutler's stated commitment to an open process. But I can also appreciate Rep. Russell's and Rep. Nelson's hesitance to trek to Pierre simply to repeat what's already been said in a somewhat fuzzy process. The legislators' complaints about abuse of LRC confidentiality are publicly documented: resolution seems to hinge now on hearing substantiation of those complaints from the firsthand witnesses, the LRC staff who would have experienced the alleged abuses of power. Senator Cutler could satisfy the complainants and the public with one simple response: "Fry, Bezpaletz, Storm—yup, they'll be there."
Inside Snark Bonus: No word yet on the opinion rendered by Rep. Kristin Conzet's hairdresser.
This is most unfortunate.
If I choose not to show up in court to assert my charges, I automatically lose and my charge is considered baseless. Is there any reason this shouldn't be treated the same way?
Troy, unfortunately this is looking more like a kangaroo court.
If the Legislative leadership wants a hearing on this subject they should do as Reps. Nelson and Russell request and follow the rules for such a committee and establish a set of ground rules for the hearing, including subpoenas and sworn testimony. Nelson and Russell would be fools and babes in the woods to walk into what would amount to a kangaroo court hearing.
Mr. Bezpaletz is a straight shooter and in my experience often the smartest person in the room. Pay attention to any statements he might make on this subject.
How did this thing turn out? Did young Mr. Nelson and this Russell fellow mop the floor? I hope Sibby went for some first-hand reporting.
@coralhei: coralhei CAHeidelberger
Nelson walks out before Cutler can chew him out.
46 minutes ago
So what happened? Nobody show to the hearing they asked for?
I caught just the tail end of the audio after work. Rep. Nelson was trailing off into personal complaints about the loss of his family time, with which I sympathize, but which didn't seem to be moving the discussion and evaluation of the allegations forward. I read on Twitter that Lora Hubbel was present as well.
Gift of family time is part of being a legislator. In fact it is why many don't run.
Still, perhaps Nelson (like Nemec above) has a point, that sacrificing that time for an arguably illegitimate hearing with no clear rules and a very vague agenda is not a fair sacrifice to demand.
We all enjoy family time. I'm going to be mighty pissed if I find out that young Mr. Nelson missed his family time because he intentionally screwballed around and postponed this hoedown or was late for it. That would be bad. Bitching about problems of his own creation.
And I'm positive that is not the case. Why is there no media coverage of this event? I am not sure it happened in the public light. Is Rasch and that Russell guy conspiring to keep this secret too?
The Legislature webcast the event live and should be archiving the audio online: http://legis.state.sd.us/interim/2011/Documents.aspx?Committee=53