Rep. Brian C. Liss says a lot of stupid things. His justification for referring HB 1133 is not one of them:
Rep. Brian Liss, R-Sioux Falls, said he supports the idea of planning, but the measure passed by this year's Legislature is flawed because it would allow lawmakers to stay on the planning committee for a year after they've retired or lost elections.
"They will be sticking around for roughly an extra year after they've lost their election. This makes it harder to throw the bums out," Liss told The Associated Press ["State Lawmaker Seeks Public Vote on Planning Panel," AP via Rapid City Journal].
Read the text of HB 1133, and you'll see Rep. Liss is absolutely right. The new Legislative Planning Committee will consist of eleven legislators appointed by the leadership to study up to six topics a year, gather public input, and propose legislation. Planning Committee members will serve two-year terms, from January 1 to January 1 of even-numbered years. For instance, members appointed this year once HB 1133 comes into effect would serve until January 1, 2014. At least three members must be reappointed for another term "to provide continuity."
But what if the voters don't want continuity? Suppose Senator Russell Olson lands a spot on this committee (because he's so good at studying and soliciting public input). Suppose the voters of District 8 decide this November that they've had enough of Russell Olson going to Pierre and making bad decisions. District 8 can (and should!) replace Russell Olson with Charlie Johnson. Johnson would take office in January 2013, but HB 1133 guarantees that, if he's a member of the Planning Committee, Russell Olson could continue to make his voice heard at the Capitol in a position of privilege not available to regular citizens for another whole year.
A simple amendment to HB 1133 to specify that terms end at the beginning of odd-numbered years would have avoided this problem. And it's a shame to see a good idea for legislative planning get sandbagged by one small problem.
But subverting the will of the voters is no small problem. The voters' voice is final: when we say Russell Olson is done, he's done. Legislators serve as the voice of their constituents, not independent consultants. When voters declare that a new person speaks for them, the old speaker should step aside completely.
Bring me a petition, Brian. I'll sign.
The voice of the voters is not final: remember a few years ago when the voters decided that school should start after Labor Day and the legislature changed the law a couple of years later?
It was not an oversight for the bill to allow legislators to serve after their term.
The legislature, by its very design, is supposed to have power spread out over the entire body to avoid being co-opted by the exectuive & judiciary as well as to avoid other such abuses of power.
In this case, think of the faux investivative hearing held this January where it went against every facet of the legislature's rules on how to conduct such inquiries & determinations. We want to give more power to the very same people who have shown they have no qualms about lying to the caucus, the press, or the public? This bill was every power hungry politicians dream.
Michael,
There's a big difference between amending a bill and having someone who has been defeated in an election continuing to serve.
I agree with Cory. The legislature has been steamrolled by the governor during recent sessions. This study committee could help level the playing field, however, defeated members should not serve on it.
This was before 2008.
I wish everyone would sign their real name.
I had to look it up...the year was 1984 that the voters of SD approved starting school after Labor Day.