Bluestem Prairie

SD Searchlight: South Dakota one of few states to saddle counties with public defense costs

On Thursday, Session Daily's Tim Walker reported in Judiciary panel advances $1.4 billion omnibus bill:

Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn (DFL-Roseville), the committee chair and bill sponsor, said the dollar figure represents a strong and long-overdue investment in the state’s judiciary system, noting that it includes significant increases in funding for public defenders, civil legal service attorneys, . . .

That's a far cry from the system here in the Rushmore State, although John Hult notes in the South Dakota Searchlight story below,"Minnesota funds all public defense at the state level, but allows counties to pitch in extra money."

South Dakota one of few states to saddle counties with public defense costs
By John Hult

All U.S. citizens have a right to an attorney when charged with a crime, even if they can’t afford one. 

Only 11 states, including South Dakota, use local rather than state dollars to pay for the vast majority of public defense.

Just one state relies more heavily on counties to pay the cost than South Dakota, and that state – Pennsylvania – is now considering a five-year, $50 million investment in public defense.

South Dakota’s 66 counties, meanwhile, have seen their public defense costs for criminal cases more than double in the last decade.

That’s true even though the state-mandated mileage and drive time reimbursement for the private attorneys who serve as public defenders in all but three counties hasn’t budged in more than 20 years – at $1 a mile.

Those facts were among a flurry of data points on offer Friday during the first meeting of South Dakota’s Indigent Defense Task Force. Gov. Kristi Noem signed legislation to create the task force earlier this year after lawmakers passed a bill supported by South Dakota Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven Jensen.

Jensen is concerned about the sustainability of South Dakota’s “hodgepodge” approach to meeting its constitutional obligation to provide legal services. Three counties have dedicated public defender’s offices. The rest contract with private attorneys or have attorneys on call.

With fewer lawyers in rural areas and higher-paying legal work available through private practice or in federal court, Jensen said, “judges are having more and more difficulty finding counsel to represent indigent defense in criminal and juvenile cases.”

“They’re saying, ‘I just can’t afford to travel three hours to provide defense,’” the chief justice said.

That’s a reality the task force’s co-chair, Judge Mike Day of Belle Fourche, deals with regularly. It’s difficult to find attorneys who are experienced enough to handle cases and willing to give up that much windshield time.

“I have lawyers that are driving over 200 miles one way to get to court in Corson County,” Day said.

The reality of rising costs, meanwhile, has been felt in county commission rooms all across the state.

“I’ve been a commissioner for a couple of years now,” said Hughes County Commissioner and task force member Randy Brown. “But I was extremely shocked by how much we’re spending on court-appointed attorneys and how much that cost continues to keep rising for us every year without any way of figuring out how to fund it.”

Hanging in the balance is each defendant’s right to legal representation, as well as the importance of “effective counsel.” Jensen told the group that appeals often originate with claims of ineffective counsel. 

State-by-state comparison offers guidance

The group invited representatives from the nonprofit Sixth Amendment Foundation to speak during the first meeting. The nonpartisan group studies public defense state-by-state, with an eye to effectiveness of counsel and U.S. Supreme Court case law on defendant rights.

It also offers guidance for states that seek to address issues with their own indigent defense funding, but Director David Carroll told the group that it doesn’t file or intervene in lawsuits or push for change in states that haven’t asked for help.

“Every state is unique, and we do not want to presume we understand the strengths and weaknesses of a particular public defense system until we listen and learn from local stakeholders,” Carroll said. 

Senior Attorney Aditi Goel of the Center offered a rundown of how differing states have approached and adjusted their models. Many of the states that previously relied on counties to fund legal aid have moved toward greater levels of state funding. Last year, Idaho pledged to move toward 100% state funding by 2024, for example.

Most of South Dakota’s neighbors already have similar setups. North Dakota and Montana fully fund indigent defense at the state level. Iowa funds defense for everything but municipal violations that are punishable by jail time. Minnesota funds all public defense at the state level, but allows counties to pitch in extra money.

Moving from county to state-level funding can help ensure that counties with smaller tax bases – often financially stressed counties with higher poverty rates – can continue to fulfill the constitutional obligation to provide for public defense without facing dire budgetary straits.

“Counties with higher levels of poverty are also called on to spend more of their available funds on social services, such as medical care for the uninsured and housing needs for the unemployed, leaving less money available to spend on the right to counsel for indigent people,” Goel said.

Options for South Dakota

Neil Fulton is the dean of the University of South Dakota Knutson School of Law, and he serves as co-chair of the task force.

Fulton, a former federal public defender, urged task force members to approach discussions on potential changes in South Dakota with an eye to effectiveness and efficiency. 

“We should think about what we have an opportunity to do, not an obligation to do,” Fulton said at the start of the meeting. “We have an opportunity to really talk about how we make recommendations on what an effective system for representation is. Everybody here knows that when you have excellent, effective, ethical counsel on both sides of criminal defense, it’s better for everyone.”

That was top of mind for House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, R-Pierre, after hearing from Carroll and Goel of the Sixth Amendment Center. Mortenson is one of two task force members appointed by the Legislature, the other being Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre. 

Mortenson told the group he’d like to return to the table in upcoming meetings to look at the experiences of states that have changed their approach to public defense in the past few decades.

Ideally, he said, he’d like to learn the outcome of public defense reform in states that have a few major population centers and a large number of smaller, more rural communities.

“Did it accomplish what it set out to accomplish?” Mortenson said. “Or did they spend a lot more money to get the same system, and different frustrations, but still frustrations?”

Carroll told the group that the Center would be glad to offer more assistance, but he also urged them to compile information on how South Dakota counties approach indigent defense.

Lake County State’s Attorney Wendy Kloeppner offered to reach out to the South Dakota State’s Attorney’s Association for input on individual county issues, since that group’s annual meeting is a little more than a month away. 

The Madison attorney said the task force should dive deep into the data and consider the potential ripple effects of any adjustments on the established practices from place to place. 

“I feel overwhelmed just thinking about where is the starting point?” Kloeppner said. “Is it personnel? Is it funding? Obviously, money is very important, but how much money and where from?”

The task force will meet again in April. 

This article from South Dakota Searchlight is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: The Brown County Courthouse in Aberdeen. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

 

Area legislators to host April 5 community meeting in Granite Falls about transfer of park to Upper Sioux Community/Pezihutazizi Oyate

In  Upper Sioux Community Pezihutazizi Oyate land transfer clears first MN House committee hearing and Upper Sioux Community/Pezihutazizi Oyate land transfer bill heard in two MN Senate committees, Bluestem Prairie has been following bills to transfer Upper Sioux Agency State Park to the Yellow Medicine Dakota Community.

Questions about the transfer are being raised in local communities, and local legislators are sponsoring an informational community hearing in Granite Falls on Wednesday, April 5. I posted a screenshot about the meeting from Senator Gary Dahms' latest constituent email at the top of this post.

Wesdnesday, the Marshall Independent's Steven Brown reported in Bills call for transferring ownership of state park to Upper Sioux:

Members of the Yellow Medicine County Board were visibly surprised when a briefing from representatives of the state Department of Natural Resources at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday left more questions than answers.

Scott Roemhildt, South Region director, and Ann Pierce, Parks and Trails director, briefed the commissioners on the progress of bills recently introduced in both chambers of the state Legislature. House Bill 2388 and SF 2250 would transfer ownership of the Upper Sioux Agency State Park to the Upper Sioux community. . . .

The Upper Sioux Community has expressed their interest in reclaiming ownership of the land for some time but no representatives were present at the meeting. . . .

On Thursday, Tom Cherveny reported for the West Central Tribune in Minnesota DNR committed to public engagement in transfer of Upper Sioux Agency State Park to tribal ownership:

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources supports the transfer of the Upper Sioux Agency State Park to the Upper Sioux Community , and is committed to opening a public engagement process for those affected.

Ann Pierce, director of the parks and trails division of the DNR, told the Yellow Medicine County Board of Commissioners on March 28 that public engagement is going to be essential to the process of transferring the park to tribal ownership

She said the department has staff developing a plan for community engagement, and is hoping the commissioners will help in the engagement process.

Pierce and Scott Roemhildt, the DNR’s regional director for the 32 southwestern counties, said legislation now moving forward in the House and Senate requires the DNR to identify the barriers to making that transfer happen and to recommend legislation to address those barriers. The legislation demands a full report by Dec. 15, 2023.

The DNR in December began conversations with federal officials on a possible transfer, they told the commissioners. The park and its approximate 1,400 acres were originally acquired with federal funds under the Land and Water Conservation Fund, known as LAWCON. Transferring ownership requires approval from the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. Pierce said there is a process that allows for the transfer, and the DNR is determining what has to be done.

. . . Roemhildt said Upper Sioux Tribal Chairman Kevin Jensvold has been requesting the transfer during meetings with the DNR — and with governor’s offices — for a number of years. He said the department responded by pointing out the complexities of making the transfer.

While the DNR did not initiate the legislation, DNR Commissioner Sarah Strommen and Gov. Tim Walz have publicly voiced their support for the transfer, Pierce and Roemhildt said.

Pierce said the DNR supports the transfer due to the extraordinary significance of the land to the tribal community.  . . .

Read the rest at the West Central Tribune. The county commissioners and mayor of Granite Falls seem skeptical. Those concerns will likely be raised at Wednesday's community hearing. 

In Info meeting planned April 5 in Granite Falls, Minnesota, on Upper Sioux park land transfer, Linda Vanderwerf reports at the Tribune:

An informational meeting about the possible transfer of state park land to the Upper Sioux Community is planned for April 5 at the Minnesota West Community and Technical College in Granite Falls.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. in the student center at the college and is open to the public. Those attending are asked to use the door to the student center on 11th Avenue.

Minnesota Sen. Gary Dahms, R-Redwood Falls, and Rep. Chris Swedzinski, R-Ghent, will host and moderate the discussion.

The purpose of the meeting is to answer questions people have about the proposed transfer of Upper Sioux Agency State Park land to the Upper Sioux Community . The transfer would close the park.

The Department of Natural Resources would develop a new state park in the area.

Two bills to authorize the land transfer have been heard by committees at the Minnesota Legislature this session.

The estimated cost of closing the park and purchasing land for a new park is estimated at about $6 million. Cost estimates for developing buildings, roads and trails for a new park have not been released.

Bluestem hopes there's a big turnout for the meeting. 

Screenshot: Announcement from Senator Gary Dahms', R-Redwood Falls, weekly newsletter.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Grumpy cats: South Dakota Republicans criticize program that provided $3.8 billion to state

There's not much more Bluestem can add to this analysis by South Dakota News Watch's Bart Pfankuch.

South Dakota Republicans criticize program that provided $3.8B to state
By Bart Pfankuch

South Dakota’s Republican congressional delegation and GOP Gov. Kristi Noem supported funding measures signed by President Donald Trump that provided more than $10 billion in federal funding to the state to battle and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

But they’re not so willing to praise a program approved by Democratic President Joe Biden that’s pumping nearly $4 billion more in pandemic relief money into the state and its communities, paying for projects as diverse as water and sewer systems, workforce housing infrastructure and programs to aid Native American tribes.

In congressional funding packages passed on a bipartisan basis between March and December 2020, South Dakota was allocated about $10.1 billion in coronavirus stimulus funding that helped keep state residents and the economy alive. Some of the money went directly to state government, while the majority was used to support businesses, individuals, health care providers and schools and universities during the pandemic.

But when it comes to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) enacted by Biden and congressional Democrats in March 2021, Republicans from South Dakota have been extremely critical of the program, even though it will provide an estimated $3.8 billion to the state through December 2026.

Of that total, about $1.4 billion in ARPA money is being given directly to the state, cities and counties for a wide range of programs to “support households, small businesses, impacted industries, essential workers and hardest-hit communities,” according to a state fiscal report obtained exclusively by South Dakota News Watch. The report also indicates that “these funds can also be used to make necessary investments in water, sewer and broadband infrastructure.”

Sen. Rounds called ARPA funding a ‘liberal wish list’

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., voted against the $1.9 trillion ARPA program, at the time calling it a “liberal wish list” and asserting that the spending program included “many giveaways to left-wing causes.”

Rounds told News Watch in a recent interview that ARPA, which included some funding for extended unemployment benefits as well as funding capital projects and numerous other government programs, led to an “overheating of the economy” that set the stage for increases in the national inflation rate. “Money went directly into bank accounts,” Rounds said.

U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., also voted against ARPA and said in an email to News Watch that the measure was enacted after the major impacts of the pandemic had subsided, and that money provided to citizens was “put into savings accounts or spent on non-essentials.”

“The American Rescue Plan was passed when our economy was already recovering well and American families had record savings,” he wrote. 

More SD News Watch: How South Dakota spent $14 billion of pandemic relief

Republican Gov. Kristi Noem blasted the ARPA program as “wasteful spending” that was falsely described as aid to states to fight COVID-19.

“Gov. Noem absolutely believes that the federal government’s wasteful spending, much of it at the behest of President Biden, was not necessary to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and is the single largest cause of the inflation that our nation now finds itself in,” Noem spokesman Ian Fury wrote to News Watch in an email in late February.

Fury went on to praise Noem’s decision to not lock down the state during the height of the pandemic.

“Who knows where our nation would be without South Dakota as the counter-example,” Fury wrote. “The federal government bailed out other states for their unconstitutional decisions, and the American people are paying the price every day at the grocery store, at the gas pump and with every purchase they make.”

States have to use federal funding or lose it

ARPA included a state-driven funding mechanism that allowed for significant local control over how the money was spent, Rounds said. However, if states reject the funding or don’t spend it prior to the deadline, the money will be returned to the U.S. Treasury and reallocated to other states.

The Idaho Legislature did that in early March when appropriators cut $28 million in ARPA funds from a program aimed at stabilizing economically challenged child-care centers. Lawmakers said they had questions about the state agency that was distributing the funds to day care providers; the funding was ultimately approved.

In South Dakota, ARPA funds continue to pay for a wide range of projects and programs. According to the state fiscal report, direct ARPA funds available through 2026 will pay for nearly $1 billion in program costs by the state, $172 million by counties, $38 million by Sioux Falls and Rapid City, $65 million by other cities, $275 million in other local projects and $115 million in other capital projects statewide.

Federal documents also show that ARPA provides up to $2 billion to be divided among eligible tribal governments across the country, including in South Dakota, with the Treasury calling it the “single largest infusion of federal funding into Indian Country.”

State Sen. Reynold Nesiba, D-Sioux Falls, minority leader in the Senate, said the state has been able to make “once-in-a-generation investments” in a number of projects due to the ARPA funding. In an email to News Watch, Nesiba pointed out that ARPA funds are being used in part to build a new $70 million state health lab in Pierre, a new 48,000-square-foot Lincoln Hall building on the campus of Northern State University and multiple sewer and water projects across the state.

“None of these major investments would have been possible without President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act,” Nesiba wrote.

He pointed out that no Democrat was invited to a bill-signing ceremony held by Noem when she gave final approval to a $200 million loan and grant fund to build infrastructure for new workforce housing projects in the state, $50 million of which came from ARPA funding.

“She failed to invite any Democratic legislators, although one quarter of the funds were from Biden’s ARPA, and every Democratic legislator in both houses voted for it,” Nesiba wrote. “The only opposition to this housing bill was from Republicans.” 

While some politicians opposed ARPA, they don’t want to return funds 

Rounds said he does not think it’s wise for South Dakota to return any ARPA funding, as congressional approval of the funding is now a matter of “water under the bridge.”

Instead, Rounds told News Watch that the state and other government entities should now focus on spending the billions of dollars on projects that will aid the overall state economy in a long-term context.

“Once the decision was made on a partisan basis that they were going to do it, then it’s a matter of each state responsibly spending the money they do have,” Rounds said. “You want to be able to use it to build your economy long-term. … If you invest it into South Dakota’s infrastructure, you’re probably helping do something that will help build the economy.”

Round said sensible uses of the money would be for internet accessibility, roads and bridges, and electric and water projects.

State Sen. Helene Duhamel, R-Rapid City, said she hopes to use ARPA funds to pay for millions of dollars in projects to enhance distribution of water to communities across the state. 

She was the lead sponsor of Senate Bill 156, which began as an effort to use $100 million in ARPA funding to help build a pipeline from the Missouri River to the fast-growing Rapid City area. That bill was later amended to make funding available for water projects statewide and to reduce funding to $50 million, but the measure died on a close House vote on the final day of the legislative session.

“I’m in the camp that if we don’t use this money and send it back, it’s not going to lower the federal debt, it will just go to other states,” Duhamel said. “You may agree or disagree whether we should have all this money out there. But it’s out there now, so South Dakota needs to take this golden opportunity to do everything we can to get our house in order because going forward, it could be a rocky road.”

U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the second-highest ranking Republican, said Congress needs to maintain a close eye on how ARPA and other COVID-19 relief funds are being spent.

“As we continue the important oversight of these tax dollars at the federal level, Republicans in Congress will continue to root out waste, fraud and abuse throughout the various COVID-19 programs to ensure Americans know exactly where their hard-earned dollars have been spent,” Thune wrote to News Watch in late February.

This article is republished here with the permission of South Dakota News Watch.

Photo: South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, Sen. Mike Rounds and Sen. John Thune greet President Donald Trump in Sioux Falls in 2018. Photo: Argus Leader file photo.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Did MN House District 53B Republican contender also donate to pro-pot state auditor candidate?

Keeping up the Minnesota Reformer's reporting on Minnesota Republicans' pushing pot-party candidates in political campaigns in swing districts--the better to tip the odds for a Republican victory--Deena Winter reported Thursday GOP helped pro-pot state auditor candidate raise enough money to get $29,000 subsidy.

Winter reports: 

A bevy of less-than-groovy Republicans made a flurry of donations to a pot party candidate last summer. 

The donations came days before a July deadline for Tim Davis of the Legal Marijuana Now Party to raise enough money to get a public subsidy for his state auditor campaign, giving him a cash infusion to potentially pull votes from DFL State Auditor Julie Blaha. . . .

Campaign finance records show Republicans donated over $1,000 to the Davis campaign in the days leading up to a July 18 deadline for Davis to raise at least $6,000 to get a public subsidy. . . .

In recent years, Republicans have been colluding with friendly candidates to run on the line of the state’s two marijuana legalization parties — Legal Marijuana Now and Grassroots Legalize Cannabis — in an effort to pull votes from DFL candidates.

While Winter mentions a number of individual Republican officer-holders and candidates by name, the article doesn't mention Steven Swoboda, though his $50.00 donation is likely included in the $1000 total.

If this is the same Steven Swoboda who ran as the Republican candidate in Minnesota House District 53B the contribution comes with another wrinkle in the collusion.

A pot party candidate was on the ballot in the district. Not quite a swarming hive, but another example of the Republican approach.

Laura Pride, a Legal Marijuana Now candidate, also ran in Minnesota House District 53B. Pride ran as an Affidavit Only candidate. so no campaign finance information is available at the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. According to the board, "If the candidate is going to receive more than $750 from supporters to get elected or wants to receive public money, the candidate must form a campaign committee

We won't speculate on Swoboda's motives on funding an up-ticket candidate from a party that's fielded a candidate in his own race, though we suspect the Minnesota Reformer is on to something.

Hansen's district was also targeted by an outside political action committee, the Alexandria VA basedPAC, Make Liberty Win, which spent 1000s on independent expenditures in 6 Minnesota Legislative races, as Bluestem reported last fall in Make Liberty Win's independent expenditures bring nastygram money to the Gopher State.

Neither the pot candidate nor the outside independent expenditures appear to have made much of a difference.

Pollinator champion and House Environment and Natural Resource Finance and Policy Committee Chair Hansen captured 54.36 percent of the vote, with Swoboda getting 39.28 percent of the vote and Pride 6.28 percent.  Davis received 876 votes, or 5.17 percent of the vote, in the district in the auditor's race.

Apparently, voters in the newly redistricted area were looking for a different kind of buzz.

Related post

• Omnibus environment bill aims to ‘correct past wrongs, prepare for future,’ committee chair says

Screengrab: A contribution by a Steven Swoboda to LMN party state auditor candidate Tim Davis. From Page 7 of the campaign's year end report.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Omnibus environment bill aims to ‘correct past wrongs, prepare for future,’ committee chair says

I watched the walk-through of the omnibus environmental bill this afternoon. 

Here's a report from Session Daily:

Omnibus environment bill aims to ‘correct past wrongs, prepare for future,’ chair says
By Margaret Stevens

Comprehensive is the word Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) used to describe the omnibus environment and natural resources finance bill.

Unveiled Tuesday with about $1 billion in spending, the bill includes provisions that aim to prepare the state for the effects from climate change, protect pollinators, fight aquatic invasive species, manage the spread of Emerald Ash Borer, guard against chronic wasting disease, and work on ways to get PFAS out of the environment.

Some of the more controversial provisions would put new regulations on pesticide treated seeds and Cervidae farms.

“It’s a proposal that corrects past wrongs, recognizes the present and prepares for the future,” Hansen said, adding the bill is about problem-solving. “There are topics here we have discussed for many years that it provides solution for.”

he House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee went through the delete-all amendment to HF2310 Tuesday. The committee plans to mark-up and take action on the proposal Wednesday.

The bill contains 2024-25 General Fund appropriations for the Department of Natural Resources ($472.84 million), Pollution Control Agency ($233 million) and Board of Water and Soil Resources ($98.66 million), as well as other organizations.

[MORE: See the detailed spreadsheet]

Much of the DNR appropriation would be to maintain current levels of service and provide funding for the department to improve its programs and properties.

The funding would include:

• $157.46 million for forest management;
• $100 million for parks and trails;
• $51.67 million for ecological and water resources; and
• $24.5 million for fish and wildlife.

There would also be funding for the Lawns to Legumes program, zero-waste programs, and to develop protocols around microplastics.

There would be $18.7 million to address the cumulative effects of siting polluters in environmental justice areas – those that are historically poorer and with larger non-white populations.

The bill would also authorize spending $79.3 million on about 85 projects from proceeds of the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. A separate bill for the projects, such as studying if lichens could be air quality monitors, extending trails, renewing access to a North Shore vista and monitoring old growth forests has already been approved by the committee and sent to the House Floor.

[MORE: See the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund spreadsheet]

Among the scores of policy provisions included in the bill are those that would:

• transfer ownership of the Upper Sioux Agency State Park near Granite Falls to the Upper Sioux Community;
• reestablish an PCA Citizens Board with authority to weigh in on the permitting process;
• allow municipalities to prohibit the use of pesticides that harm pollinators;
• require an inventory of manure storage areas and require feedlot owners show they can pay for closure requirements;
• tighten requirements for bags and food packaging marked biodegradable;
• establish Lowland Conifer Carbon Reserve within some state forests that could put timber and peat harvesting restrictions;
• allow fines up to $100 for dumping trash such as cigarette butts and offal on frozen lakes; and
• allow the PCA to act on odor complaints.

Throughout the bill are provisions that would regulate the use of PFAs — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals — called forever chemicals because they don’t break down and may affect human health. Provisions could require disclosures and ban their intentional use in many products such as ski wax, children’s products, and firefighting foam.

Among the notable Pollution Control Agency appropriations are:

• $45 million for Governor’s Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment block grants;
• $35 million to modernize Pollution Control Agency data systems;
• $25 million for grants to reimburse local public water supply operators’ efforts to address PFAs; and
• $18.7 million to implement an environmental justice, cumulative impact analysis.

Proposed fee increases

The bill would also increase fees for state park permits and various licenses. DNR officials have sought the increase for several years to keep pace with increasing costs.  

Potential increases include an annual state park permit fee would rise from $35 to $45, and a one-day permit from $7 to $10; lifetime angling fees for adult residents would jump from $574 to $689; and one-day fishing licenses for adults would increase from $12 to $15.

***

What's in the bill?

The following are selected bills that have been incorporated in part or in whole into the omnibus environment and natural resources finance bill:

• HF50 (Hansen)
• HF81 (Jordan)
• HF245 (Jordan)
• HF389 (Hansen)
• HF462 (Bierman)
• HF592 (Lislegard)
• HF637 (Lee)
• HF638 (Freiberg)
• HF645 (Lee)
• HF672 (Lee)
• HF673 (Lee)
• HF674 (Lee)
• HF722 (Hansen)
• HF742 (Norris)
• HF897 (Brand)
• HF955 (Hansen)
• HF1000 (Brand)
• HF1202 (Becker-Finn)
• HF1283 (Hansen)
• HF1315 (Pursell)
• HF1317 (Hansen)
• HF1338 (Fischer)
• HF1421 (Hansen)
• HF1423 (Kozlowski)
• HF1424 (Becker-Finn)
• HF1514 (Hansen)
• HF1834 (Vang)
• HF1945 (Hansen)
• HF2076 (Pursell)
• HF2082 (Hansen)
• HF2126 (Hansen)
• HF2171 (Hansen)
• HF2193 (Feist)
• HF2304 (Curran)
• HF2324 (Hansen)
• HF2348 (Tabke)
• HF2353 (Pursell)
• HF2354 (Pursell)
• HF2368 (Hansen)
• HF2387 (Hansen)
• HF2388 (Stephenson)
• HF2693 (Hollins)
• HF2761 (Hansen)
• HF2831 (Finke)

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the walk through of the bill:

 

Photo: DNR Commissioner Sarah Strommen testifies before the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee March 28 in favor of HF2310, the committee’s omnibus budget bill. (Photo by Catherine Davis).

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

News release: Dr. Marion Garcia will no longer serve as Executive Director of BAH & State Vet

Back on August 22, Bluestem Prairie posted Regulatory capture or new top cop? MNBOH appoints Marion Garcia state veterinarian:

A press release just in from the Minnesota Board of Animal Health announces the appointment of Dr. Marion Garcia as Executive Director. The state agency has the mission to "protect the health of the state’s domestic animals through education and cooperation with veterinarians, producers, owners and communities."  . . ,

While changes in the structure of the Board of Animal Health are being proposed in the Minnesota House, a news release received  from the board within the hour notes a change in leadership:

Board of Animal Health announces change of leadership

St. Paul, Minn. - The Board of Animal Health announced today that Dr. Marion Garcia will no longer serve as Executive Director and State Veterinarian for the Board, effective immediately. The members appreciate Dr. Garcia’s service protecting the health and welfare of Minnesota’s livestock and companion animals.

The Board will initiate a search for qualified candidates immediately. Dr. Brian Hoefs has been appointed to the role of Interim Executive Director and State Veterinarian. Dr. Hoefs has been a member of the Board’s leadership team since 2019 and has a deep understanding of the agency’s mission and operations to carry the agency forward until a successor is appointed.

The Board of Animal Health remains committed to serving Minnesotans by protecting animal health through education, collaboration and disease prevention and response through its talented and dedicated staff.

We'll keep an eye on any and all changes.

Related posts

• Board of Animal Health should be restructured  
• Would #mnleg change to Board of Animal Health structure short circuit regulatory capture? 
• Legislative Auditor's report on Board of Animal Health oversight of deer farms isn't pretty
• Run, Bambi, run! What will auditor's "BAH’s Oversight of Deer & Elk Farms" report reveal?

Photo: "The Minnesota Board of Animal Health is guided by a six-member citizen board appointed by the governor." These are the photos at the top of the Board of Animal Health's About page.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Silicon Valley Bank’s closure rocked banking world. Can it happen in South Dakota?

I once dated a talkative bank examiner, which was much more helpful for understanding the banking industry than my creative writing graduate degree. 

Fortunately, Stu Whitney has taken a look at South Dakota's banking industry for South Dakota News Watch.

SVB’s closure rocked banking world. Can it happen in South Dakota?
By Stu Whitney

At first glance, the forced closure of California-based Silicon Valley Bank and New York’s Signature Bank on March 10 – and the government action to quell the ensuing financial crisis – seemed worlds away from South Dakota’s regional banks.

Silicon Valley and Signature were coastal entities servicing mainly technology startups, with billions of dollars in deposits from venture capitalists vested in long-term government bonds, a far cry from the business model of most Great Plains community lenders.

But fiscal tremors have spread wide enough to put South Dakota bankers and politicians in a tough position, vouching for the security of the state’s financial systems and mindful of the notion that when it comes to potential bank runs, perception is reality.

“The key thing is for people to remain calm,” South Dakota Bankers Association president Karl Adam said from Washington, D.C., where he met with Sens. Mike Rounds and John Thune as part of a previously scheduled banking summit. “This is no time to take out your money to bury in your backyard or put it under your mattress.”

South Dakota banks respond proactively to California failures

That message gained urgency on March 13, the Monday after the banks failed. State treasurer Josh Haeder got a call from First Premier Bank in Sioux Falls, the state’s bank for more than two decades. 

First Premier bankers assured Haeder that general fund deposits were safe and highlighted the differences between the portfolios of Silicon Valley and Signature and South Dakota’s 41 state-chartered banks.

Those institutions, with combined assets of nearly $23 billion, range in size from First Bank & Trust in Brookings, which has $4.2 billion in total assets, to Andes State Bank in Lake Andes with $23.3 million. The number of South Dakota-based banks grows to 57 when including nationally chartered institutions such as Sioux Falls-headquartered Citibank and Wells Fargo.

Nationally chartered banks – which also include Pathward (formerly Metabank) in Sioux Falls and CorTrust Bank in Mitchell – have a permit granted by the federal government, while state-chartered banks are overseen by the South Dakota Division of Banking. Both offer FDIC insured deposits and are federally regulated, but administrative and consumer protection matters are handled by the Division of Banking for state-chartered institutions.

The call to Haeder was not the only one First Premier made. The state’s sixth-largest bank, with more than $3.5 billion in total assets, contacted all depositors with accounts of greater than $250,000, the ceiling set by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to have deposits automatically insured.

“We have about 30,000 checking accounts, and of those we have 429 above the $250,000 limit,” said First Premier CEO Dana Dykhouse. “We wanted to assure them that the California bank (Silicon Valley) was an outlier and completely opposite of what we’re doing. None of them opted to pull out.”

Review shows South Dakota banks are stable

A News Watch review of South Dakota’s largest banks shows all of them are above the federal requirement for risk-based capital ratio, a measurement of whether an institution has enough liquid capital on hand to sustain operating losses.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, on the heels of the Great Recession, the permanent floor requirement for Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 4.5%, while banks are considered “well-capitalized” with a ratio of 8% or higher. Tier 1 capital refers to a bank’s core capital, including equity and disclosed reserves.

Among South Dakota’s 20 largest banks, the average Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 14.84%, ranging from First National Bank in Fort Pierre (24.04%) to First National Bank in Yankton (9.85%), according to FDIC data.

But Adam, whose banking career began nearly 30 years at Dakota State Bank in Blunt, knows that the trickle-down nature of bank failures means everyone must stay vigilant to avoid downturns in public confidence. 

There’s also concern of “over adjustments” by regulators that will place new burdens on banks as well as added responsibility for insuring FDIC deposits as part of the government response.

“This situation is rattling to all Americans who have banking relationships,” said Adam. “We understand the importance of a strong financial system; it’s what we hang our hat on every day. We would be remiss not to dig into this and pay close attention while making it clear to people that the safest place for their money is in the bank.”

Larger banks ‘too big to fail’

Rounds, who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, told News Watch that the fallout for South Dakota banks could come not from the Silicon Valley/Signature failures but political and regulatory aftershocks. 

The Banking Committee will hold a March 28 hearing to assess management missteps and determine how the San Francisco Fed and state bank regulators missed signs that Silicon Valley was in trouble. Rounds said he also wants more information on government efforts to cover depositors’ losses and how that might affect smaller banks.

To forestall panic in the aftermath of the bank failures, the FDIC used a “systemic risk” exception to guarantee all deposits, regardless of the amount. The money for that action comes from fees generated from assessments to banks. But there are unanswered questions about a “special assessment” invoked by the FDIC and how much banks will be charged.

“That’s a really important part that has to be addressed,” said Rounds, adding that separate investigations into the bank failures are forthcoming from the General Accountability Office and the Federal Reserve Inspector General.

The problem for some smaller South Dakota banks is that businesses or nonprofits with more than $250,000 in deposits might look to move their accounts into larger national banks that are seen as “too big to fail” because “the full faith and credit of the federal government will stand behind them and deposits will be protected, one way or another,” said Rounds. Some of those conversations took place when news spread of the bank closures, he added.

“A number of banks had (large depositors) that came and expressed concern about whether their deposits would be covered,” Rounds said. “It appeared that if those mid-sized to large businesses started pulling out of the small banks, it could be detrimental to those community or regional banks. I think that’s the issue for South Dakotans that needs to be addressed.”

Different from Great Recession when 1 South Dakota bank failed

The most recent bank failure in South Dakota occurred in July 2009. The South Dakota Division of Banking closed BankFirst in Sioux Falls for operating with impaired capital amid the mortgage loan crisis and Great Recession. 

It was one of 140 banks closed nationally in 2009, to be followed by 157 in 2010, compared to zero in 2021 and 2022. The first South Dakota bank to close prior to that came in 1992, meaning the state has had one bank closure in the past three decades.

“The concern right now is much different than the Great Recession that started in 2008,” said Adam. “That was a capital issue, with bad loans and bad assets. What these two institutions (Silicon Valley and Signature) had was a mismatch of their securities portfolio from a duration point of view and a liquidity run.”

Silicon Valley and Signature had a flood of tech-based deposits fueled by COVID stimulus funds and, because they weren’t making loans, invested a large percentage of that money in 30-year government bonds, normally a sound investment. 

But rising interest rates from the Fed reduced the current value of those bonds, so when the tech companies started to struggle and sought to withdraw funds, SVB didn’t have enough liquidity and started to cash in bonds at a loss, which alarmed depositors even more and led to a run on the bank.

“It wasn’t like the days of George Bailey in ‘It’s a Wonderful Life,’ where people were standing outside the bank and you could mitigate it by locking the door,” said Adam. “There was social media paranoia, people were texting each other, and they had phone apps that allowed them to move money and move it very quickly. In one day, there was more than $40 billion that was moved out of that institution.”

Communication with customers is key

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen moved quickly to stem the tide by ensuring that all depositors would be made whole. 

Some in Congress want to take things further by temporarily insuring every bank deposit in the country through a broadened insurance program similar to action taken after the 2008 financial crisis, while others have broached the idea of stiffening the FDIC’s risk-based capital requirements.

Haeder, a former regional director for Rounds who is in his second term as state treasurer, wants hearings and investigations to take place before new legislation emerges.

“Some folks just want to hurry up and get something passed because they see a problem,” he said. “The component you always have to look at is human error. Let’s say the feds overlooked this. You could have the best bills and best laws in the world, but if people are looking away or not paying attention for some reason, that becomes a problem.”

Adam agrees with that assessment but also knows that pointing fingers elsewhere won’t help build confidence in South Dakota banks. 

He sees communication as the key, explaining to customers the different types of banking portfolios and strategies, how banks undergo “stress tests” to show they can handle operating losses, and letting taxpayers know that they won’t be on the hook for any insurance programs used to protect deposits.

“There was trauma to the system, nobody liked it, and now we need to slow this train down a little bit and find a path forward,” said Adam. “We have the best financial system in the world, and we want to continue to protect and improve upon it. We’re going to make it very clear that from our point of view and perspective, slow and steady wins the race.”

TIER 1 RISK-BASED CAPITAL RATIO FOR SOUTH DAKOTA'S LARGEST BANKS

(Ratio compares core equity capital of a bank to its risk-weighted assets)

First National Bank (Fort Pierre) 24.04%

1st Financial Bank (Dakota Dunes) 21.10%

First Savings Bank (Beresford) 19.32%

First Premier Bank (Sioux Falls) 17.96%

Pioneer Bank & Trust (Belle Fourche) 17.14%

One American Bank (Centerville) 16.19%

Citibank (Sioux Falls) 15.44%

First Fidelity Bank (Burke) 14.66%

First National Bank (Sioux Falls) 14.12%

Security Savings Bank (Canton) 13.16%

Pathward (Sioux Falls) 13.09%

Dacotah Bank (Aberdeen) 12.76%

Reliabank (Estelline) 11.98%

Wells Fargo (Sioux Falls) 11.95%

Cortrust Bank (Mitchell) 11.85%

BankWest (Pierre) 11.50%

American Bank & Trust (Sioux Falls) 11.18%

First Dakota National Bank (Yankton) 9.85%

The FDIC’s permanent floor requirement for Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 4.5%, while banks are considered “well-capitalized” with a ratio of 8% or higher. Note: Some banks are not listed because they use other measures such as Tier 1 Leverage Ratio as their federal reporting requirement.

Source: FDIC

This article is republished here with the permission of South Dakota News Watch.

 

Photo: CorTrust Bank in Sioux Falls.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

No omnibuzz in MN Senate Agriculture bill

Reding my way through the Minnesota House Agriculture Committee's omnibus bill and that posted by the Minnesota Senate Committee on Agriculture, Broadband, and Rural Development, I was surprised to see a gap in the budget: the upper chamber omitted funding for the statutory pollinator research account established in the agricultural fund.

The Senate committee version( on the committee calendar as scs1955a-3 DE (PDF))is scheduled to be heard tomorrow afternoon.

We're puzzled by the Senate committee's decision to leave out this statutory account.

On March 22, the Senate committee heard a request to fund the account as part of Protection Services in the Governor’s Department of Agriculture Minnesota Budget Recommendations Bill Walkthrough. A screenshot of the Protection Services budget request presented to the committee is at the top of this post.

What's more, according to the Senate's  Committee Hearings and Actions for S.F. 39, on March 6, the bill was amended and laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus bill. SF39 is a bill to fund the pollinator research account account; its chief author is Brooklyn Center DFLer Mary Kunesh. She serves on the committee.

The House companion bill is HF47. Its chief author is South St. Paul Democrat, House Environment Committee Chair and pollinator champion Representative Rick Hansen, who sits on the House Agriculture committee and continues to farm family heritage acres in Southeastern Minnesota.

As I said at the top of this post, I'm puzzled--nah, baffled why committee chair Aric Putnam, DFL-St. Cloud, left the statutory pollinator research account out of the omnibus bill.

Regulatory capture by ag-chemical industry lobbyists? Inexperience as a committee chair? A traumatic childhood experience with a squash bee or wasp sting? Secret loathing of monarch butterflies?

Those concerned about pollinators--an important part of Minnesota's food production system--can only hope someone on the committee offers a friendly amendment tomorrow to put funding and mention of the statutory pollinator research account back into the agriculture omnibus.

It's mostly a good bill--but it needs the buzz.

Note: In an earlier version of this post, Senator Putnam's first name was misspelled. Bluestem apologizes and has corrected the copy.

Screenshot: From the Governor’s Department of Agriculture Minnesota Budget Recommendations Bill Walkthrough presented to the Minnesota Senate Committee on Agriculture, Broadband, and Rural Development.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

House passes private prison prohibition

Over the years, Bluestem has written extensively about the CoreCivic-owned Prairie Correction Facility in Appleton, MN.

We were happy to see Dam Wolgamott's bill banning private prisons pass on the floor of the Minnesota House on Friday night, especially after hearing the Republican minority caucus's pity party for the city of Appleton. 

Former Minority Leader Kurt Daudt offered an amendment on the floor, one that would have the state rent CoreCivic's facility--for which the privare corrections corporation hasn't secured a contract to house federal or state convicts since it closed the facility in 2010. Nothing like a little corporate welfare.

Perhaps the most absurd weepy talking point in the Republican death song for the west prairie town was the refrain about Appleton's drop in population beginning in 2010. In fact, the town's drop in population between 2000 and 2010 was mostly because of the--wait for it--loss of the prison population itself.

There's the population arch from US Census figures found on the Wikipedia page for the town:

1980	1,842		3.0%
1990	1,552		−15.7%
2000	2,871		85.0%
2010	1,412		−50.8%
2020	1,392		−1.4%

Yes, in the ten years after the prisoners departed, the town lost ten people. Heaven know why they stuck around with the facility closed, if what the Republican lawmakers said outloud is true.

From Session Daily:

House passes private prison prohibition
By Tim Walker

Minnesota’s only privately owned prison is the Prairie Correctional Facility, built by the city of Appleton.

The 1,600-bed, medium-security prison opened in 1992, and although maintained, has been vacant since closing in 2010.

Rep. Dan Wolgamott (DFL-St. Cloud) said he has several reasons for it to stay closed, but foremost on his list: “Public safety is not for sale.”

“Criminal justice is a core responsibility of our state government. It should be done by those who are accountable to the public, not who are incentivized by profits,” he said at a news conference prior to Thursday’s House floor session.

Wolgamott sponsors HF1200 that would ban the Department of Corrections from housing inmates in privately owned jails and prisons.

As amended twice, the House passed the bill 70-61 late Thursday. It now goes to the Senate.

Privately owned prisons have a business model that incentivizes keeping prisoners incarcerated longer, Wolgamott said, and that runs counter to the state’s efforts to rehabilitate people and reintegrate them into society.

“Providing public safety is a core responsibility of government. Minnesotans deserve a corrections system that keeps them safe by reducing recidivism” House Speaker Melissa Hortman (DFL-Brooklyn Park) said in a statement. “Corporations are required to put their profits first. Prison corporations have a record of being more dangerous for staff and incarcerated individuals. It's time for us to take a clear stand and say that private prisons will not be allowed to operate in Minnesota.”

Rep. Kurt Daudt (R-Crown) unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have allowed the Department of Corrections to house inmates at the Prairie Correctional Facility, provided the department leases the space and staffs it exclusively with public employees.

He said the Appleton prison is much newer than any of the state’s other 11 prisons and would therefore provide better services to inmates, help relieve overcrowding at other prisons, and may delay or prevent the need to build another prison. It’d also boost employment in the area.

Wolgamott said those reasons were not compelling enough to overcome the disadvantages of using the facility: it’s too far from a major hospital, which would jeopardize inmate safety; and it’s too far from the metropolitan area, where many of the inmates’ families would likely be living.

Here are the Minnesota House Information Services YouTubes of the floor debate:

Part One:

Part Two:

Related posts:

• Private prison prohibition heads to House floor
• Republican Senate & House federal PACs took $5000 from CoreCivic PAC in 2018
• Disconnect: town hall attendees want prison repurposed as inmate mental health care facility
• MN Sen. Andrew Lang and Rep. Tim Miller to hold Dec. 11 town hall on Appleton's private prison
• MN Republican Senate & House federal PACs took $5000 from CoreCivic PAC in 2018
• Probably didn't read Art of the Deal: Miller a-okay with buying $15 million prison for $99 million 
• Swift Co Monitor endorses Falk, & all Tim Miller got was some lousy cash from CCA execs
• #Mnleg ordered study: Appleton private prison bed rent more expensive than county jail cell.
• Opposition to CoreCivic bid to re-open Appleton Prison as ICE detention center meet to Tuesday
• Land Stewardship Project: LSP member leaders oppose ICE detention facility at Appleton prison
• West Central Tribune coverage of opposition to possible use of Appleton CoreCivic prison by ICE
• Bill Ingebrigtsen wants to convert closed Appleton Prison into a mental health facility
• Immigrants for Sale: Will Appleton's shuttered private prison open in human trafficking scheme?
• Tim Miller's Prairie Correctional Facility flyer: clueless about DHS & DOC funding distinctions 

Photo: Aerial view of Appleton, Minnesota. The prison is on the bottom third of the photograph.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

South Dakota interest groups spend 1000s on social events for lawmakers, with no disclosure

I'm speechless. From South Dakota Searchlight:

Interest groups spend thousands on social events for lawmakers, with no disclosure
By Joshua Haiar

PIERRE — Politicians, lobbyists and liquor dealers gathered in the back room of a restaurant.

It was mid-January, a couple of weeks into South Dakota’s annual legislative session.

Everybody was unwinding after a long day at the Capitol, chatting and mingling. 

Pork roast was on the menu. People lined up for drinks at the bar.

The atmosphere was social, but it was also an opportunity for lobbyists and industry stakeholders to cultivate relationships with lawmakers and, ultimately, influence legislation. 

And it was all thanks to the South Dakota Licensed Beverage Dealers & Gaming Association, an interest group that represents bars, restaurants and casinos statewide.

Nothing about the event was subject to public disclosure — who was there, what was talked about, or how much money the host group spent on food and drinks for lawmakers. 

South Dakota’s lobbying disclosure laws don’t apply to the “Legislative Social Calendar,” which included 109 events during this year’s January-to-March legislative session. The South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry maintains the calendar on behalf of the dozens of organizations that host events.

On this year’s calendar, auto dealers and truckers invited legislators to “Pierre’s largest sundae bar.” Electric utilities hosted a lunch not only for lawmakers but also for the public utilities commissioners who regulate the industry. The National Guard, health care organizations, bankers, and the trust industry were among the hosts of other events, including breakfasts, luncheons, mixers, dinners and socials.

Disclosure laws riddled with exemptions

State laws require the secretary of state to keep a directory of registered lobbyists, listing their names, employers, contact information, and the subjects of legislation they plan to lobby about, among other information.

State laws also require lobbyists and their employers to file annual expense reports by July – roughly three months after the annual legislative session ends – showing “all costs incurred for the purpose of influencing legislation.”

But there are exemptions in the law for lobbyists’ own meals, travel, lodging, phone calls and other “necessary personal needs” during the legislative session.

Those exemptions mean that many expenses are never disclosed. Flipping through the hundreds of annual disclosure forms from lobbyists and their employers often reveals nothing more than the names of the lobbyists and their associated organizations. The expense fields on the forms are often left blank. 

A state law also allows gifts from lobbyists to individual lawmakers to a cumulative value of $115.47 in a calendar year (the number is adjusted annually for inflation). But that cap is riddled with exemptions written into the law. Those exemptions include any food, entertainment or beverage provided for immediate consumption, and any service or event intended “to educate or inform” public officials on matters of public policy.

In other words, events on the social calendar are exempted from disclosure.

Gift limit also weakened by exemptions

There was no limit on the value of gifts to legislators until Initiated Measure 22, a ballot measure passed by voters in 2016 that introduced a $100 limit. Beyond that provision, IM 22 was a massive anti-corruption measure that also created a publicly funded campaign finance system, established an independent ethics commission, and put new limits on campaign contributions, among other reforms.

However, in 2017, opponents of IM 22 convinced a judge to put the law on hold, and the Republican-controlled Legislature repealed the law. Legislators then enacted some individual provisions of IM 22, including the $100 limit with annual adjustments for inflation and numerous exemptions.

David Owen is president and chief lobbyist for the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce & Industry, which maintains the Legislative Social Calendar. He said whatever people think about the social-calendar events, the exemptions in current law clearly allow them to happen without public disclosures.

“Should that be a publicly recorded expense?” Owen said. “Our decision after IM 22 was no, that’s food and drink for immediate consumption and those conversations are something we want to foster, not inhibit. And so the secretary of state does not collect that information.”

Free food and drink provided by interest groups to legislators has thus become an accepted part of the legislative process in Pierre, according to Jordan Mason, a lobbyist for the Freedom Caucus Network, a subgroup of Republican lawmakers. 

“And that’s the problem when people say, ‘We don’t have corruption.’ I’m like, ‘It’s institutionalized,’” Mason said.

Owen acknowledged that some of the events on the social calendar are open to the public while others are open only to the host group, lawmakers, other state officials and their spouses. And he understands how those events invite criticism.

“They’re only open to, say, the membership of the Auto Dealers Association so that the public can’t flow in and out of there,” Owen said. “And so, in that case, you’re kind of restricting access to those.”

That’s something Weiland also recognizes, which is why he said it should all be disclosed in public documents. 

“I don’t know if there is a direct correlation between a dinner and corruption, but I do think it’s the transparency issue,” Weiland said. “Does a steak dinner buy your vote? I think that’s maybe a bridge too far. But transparency is the antidote to that.”

This article is republished online Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Image: Illustration by Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6