Argus Leader, Sioux Falls, Jan. 31
Procedural bills should be dismissed as power grab
In what’s become an annual tradition, the South Dakota Legislature is drawing more attention for discriminatory and downright puzzling bills than addressing the needs of the state. From anti-transgender measures to fighting against bans of plastic bags and straws, our lawmakers are making national headlines for all the wrong reasons.
And even with the deluge of bills filed late this week, there aren’t a lot of substantive policy proposals to analyze and debate.
Four bills filed early in the process did catch our eye, however, raising serious concerns about public transparency and good governance.
Collectively, House Bills 1001, 1002, 1003 and Senate Bill 3 are an attempted power grab by the legislative branch, as they try to wrest more independence from the executive branch. Specifically, they would cut from law the way our legislature chooses it leaders, conducts its daily business and keeps permanent record of that work, shifting those procedures into legislative rules.
The big issue here is legislative rules can be changed at any time, on the fly or even suspended completely with a simple majority vote. No notice needed. No public input or engagement. No checks and balances from the governor.
The separate branches of government are an intentional check on anyone becoming too powerful, and the potential for abuse of legislative rules is real. This isn’t the first time the legislature has tried to make these adjustments - House Speaker Steven Haugaard filed three similar bills just last year.
Proponents argue that having these processes in both statute and rules is needlessly duplicative and that the legislature shouldn’t have to consult the governor in order to conduct business. That argument won the day in the House, as all three bills sailed through on their way to the Senate (SB 3 is still in committee).
But such arguments either oversimplify the issue or are disingenuous. The fundamental way the legislature is set up, elects its leaders, conducts the people’s business and records history of that business were set up to be in the public eye on purpose.
Removing this language from law and exposing them to the free will of the day is not only a threat to transparency but also to potential abuse to solidify or prevent the transfer of power. We’ve seen some eyebrow-raising behavior in state legislatures around the country, and there’s plenty of recent evidence that our own legislature could use more public scrutiny, not less.
We urge the Senate to kill these bills in committee.
___
Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Jan. 30
We say
Name Change
THUMBS UP to Mount Marty College for taking the next, big step in what can only be considered its recent overall upgrade. On Wednesday, MMC officials announced that, as of July 1, the school will be known as Mount Marty University - a name change that more befits its status and better prepares it for the future. The actual concept of a name change isn’t new, as there was talk of something along this line back in the 1990s, for example. The change now reflects that key word in Mount Marty’s new branding - momentum. It’s another new development for a school that, lately, has been full of forward steps. Congratulations!
Meeting Day
THUMBS UP to another successful Yankton Day at the Legislature. The Yankton Area Chamber of Commerce’s annual pilgrimage to Pierre gave local officials and other interested parties another chance to meet face to face with state department heads who may otherwise be hard to speak with during the session. Many questions were answered and the delegation got a glimpse of upcoming programs that could assist in housing development, education and the area’s vibrant tourism industry.
Climate For Concern?
THUMBS DOWN to the potential prospect of a dust bowl hitting the United States, particularly the Great Plains, by 2025. That outlook was provided this week by Ellwyn Taylor, a retired Iowa State University climatologist, who spoke at the Southeast Research Farm’s annual meeting in Yankton. Taylor based his thoughts on historical data showing the most recent U.S. dust bowls occurred in 1847 and 1936. Given those cycles, the next one should be expected in 2025, although signs of it could come even earlier, he said. Taylor also spoke on the impact of climate change on agriculture, including a westward shift in the Corn Belt.
Leaving A Legacy
THUMBS UP to this week’s Gunderson Lecture at the University of South Dakota, featuring former South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard. The Republican from Dell Rapids served as lieutenant governor from 2002-2010 before winning two terms as governor from 2010-2018 (along with running mate Matt Michels of Yankton). While this week’s USD event was labeled a lecture, it was a conversation with USD Law School Dean Neil Fulton. The hourlong program featured an interesting inside look at the former governor’s personal and political life. Daugaard showed a sense of humor about himself along with fun glimpses during Fulton’s “lightning round” with “What is your favorite …” questions.
___
Aberdeen American News, Feb. 1
So it’s come to this- a debate about littering
We can all agree that littering is bad, right?
Not just bad, but ugly, dirty and completely annoying.
Litter has come to the forefront in recent years in relation to climate change and the rise of greenhouse gasses. The argument goes like this: the use of plastics is bad for the environment. The creation of plastics involves the burning of fossil fuels, which puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And when plastic decomposes, more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.
A 2017 article in Issues in Science and Technology, a quarterly journal published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine and Arizona State University, notes that “keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a waste management problem.”
That means that we should be careful with what we throw away - and, by extension, what we use before we throw it away.
But whether you believe that litter - or plastic - contributes to global warming isn’t the point here. We should all be able to agree that littering, in the broadest sense of the word, is not OK. Litter contributes to other problems, like harming animals and polluting waterways. And no one wants to see cigarette butts, fast food containers and plastic bags strewn across their neighborhood.
That last example - plastic bags - is part of a larger plastic discussion across the nation. Some cities have banned the use of plastic straws. Some states have started charging a small fee for plastic bags at the grocery store.
But in South Dakota a group of state lawmakers is taking the opposite approach, saying individual communities shouldn’t be allowed to ban bags, beverage straws and other containers.
Dana Loesky, a volunteer lobbyist with the Friends of the Big Sioux River, argues that plastic bags and other forms of waste are becoming a huge problem in South Dakota.
That’s no huge surprise. We’ve all seen litter, and it’s not a problem specific to a particular part of the country.
But state Sen. Jeff Monroe, R-Pierre, offered a curious take this past week. He said that plastic in some bodies of water is good because it provides habitat for animals.
“Every time I think about a plastic coffee can getting thrown in the river, it doesn’t bother me at all because it sinks to the bottom and it’s habitat for bait fish, habitat for crayfish, if you like to eat those, and I really don’t have a problem with that,” Monroe said Tuesday. “I really don’t see a big problem with this bill (that would keep communities from banning some plastic containers), protecting businesses, keeping costs down and relearning how to recycle plastic, and there are a lot of ways to do it.”
Monroe is right in that we should all be willing to recycle products that can be used again. And one plastic can thrown into a river will likely sink to the bottom and not do much harm. But what about 1,000 plastic coffee cans? What happens when the amount of trash is so great that it’s no longer invisible under water? What will the accumulation of trash do to that river?
Just because something is thrown away and we can no longer see it doesn’t mean it’s not there. When this happens over and over again, it certainly contributes to the accumulation. This leads to an “unnatural” habitat.
Animals do not require plastic coffee cans to survive. In fact, it’s hard to imaging they’re helpful at all.
Drink containers, garbage bags and garbage can liners are already on the state’s list of items that cannot be prohibited. Opponents of SB 54 want to keep the decision of whether to ban “auxiliary containers” at the local level.
Leaving decision-making up to local governmental boards is something the state Legislature often claims it wants to do. And certainly the state wants that freedom when it comes to topics discussed at the federal level.
So this bill is a bit of a head-scratcher.
It seems like we should all be agreement about one thing - littering does nothing to contribute to a clear, welcoming community, to say nothing of clear, clean water. Scientists tell us that plastic can take up to 1,000 years to decompose, so it’s never too early to start thinking about the effect our decisions have on our children, their children and their children after.
We are the cure for a dirty planet.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.