Random thoughts on some of
the extraneous nonsense going on in the South Dakota Legislature –
Disclaimers – I am a Partisan and I seek partisan advantage when I deem it
appropriate, however partisanship has its place. I believe in the value of
conferences and have attended many over the years (and some were political junkets
including several resorts and the Republic of China.) The value of conferences I
learned over the years, whether political, professional, or volunteer were
almost never the subject matter of the meeting but what I learned from my
interaction with colleagues and peers. Sharing common experiences with others who
had similar duties and challenges was always more beneficial than the conference
subject matter.
In the past several months
there has been considerable noise about creation of partisan staffs in the
Legislature and having the State pay for memberships in non-government
Legislative Associations, specifically American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) a Conservative group.
I like conservative groups
and think they can impact the process. I just don’t think it is very
conservative that the government augments their efforts with public money.
I favor the conservative
group Freedom Works that provides public policy solutions to elected officials.
For the record - Conservatives Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett organized Freedom
Works with strong support from David Koch. I also favor the private work of the
American Conservative Union that was founded by William F Buckley, and is
currently chaired by a friend and former colleague, Al Cardenas. While I like
these groups, they are not deserving of public support.
Paying for partisan legislative
staff is a horrible idea. The purpose of the Parties in the Legislature
(because we have a two party system) is to organize the government; elect
Officers, organize Committees and appoint Committee Chairmanships – that’s it.
Since the best I can determine it was a Republican idea to create the partisan
staffs, why would the far stronger South Dakota GOP want to extend an
organizational benefit to the weaker Democrats by offering them paid staff? If
it is a good idea then the stronger and better financed GOP should hire staff
from Party funds not Government funds. No reason to help the opposition.
The only contrary yet
positive idea heard in this debate was from Rep. Rev. Steve Hickey.
Representative Hickey opined there is a need for more legal help from the
Legislative Research Council to help Legislators in drafting legislation.
Certainly if the need exists it could be provided by additional non-partisan
LRC staff like is currently provided.
Concerning Legislative
Travel and non governmental memberships –
In the recent past, all
out of State legislative travel was furloughed because of shortfalls in State revenues.
Obviously the Republic didn’t fall, thus questioning the necessity of such non-essential
travel. Senator Shantel Krebs I understand proposed renewing the ban on travel
and was defeated by a wide margin.
Now the GOP majority has
extended travel and paying memberships to Legislative Associations. In the case
of ALEC, they may have handed the Democrats a political issue. More importantly
while they find they may have pulled a fast one on the South Dakota taxpayer
(over a $50 annual membership) I question why would those that believe and
espouse smaller government want to have the State pay for their non government
partisan activity?
ALEC may provide important
conservative ideas, some of which I support but the State of South Dakota
should not pay.
The State Legislature also
participates in the National Conference of State Legislatures. While the NCSL
is billed as non-partisan, de facto that is not the case. NCSL studies issues
and in most cases proposes government-based solutions. Consequently many
Conservatives feel that ALEC that looks more toward non-governmental solutions
provides a balance.
Thus it seems reasonable
to me, if Legislators are going to participate and if the State is going to pay
that each Legislator be given a small allowance (maybe $500 or $750) annually
and be allowed to use it to attend whichever conferences they choose. The
balance of the cost could be borne from their personal funds or their campaign
accounts (that in detail provide the source of the income and expense detail.)
As always such an idea provides the proverbial slippery slope – that today's $500
annual allowance is next year’s $2500 one.
As noted collaboration can
be a good idea but why not let the non- government funded parties pay? Can’t more technology be employed – Webinars,
websites, facetime and the like. Private enterprise accomplishes quite a bit
these days without travel. With a little creativity and sticking to our
conservative free enterprise principles our Legislature might do the same.
