SDPB Radio Station Planned for Spearfish

It won’t be happening anytime soon, but a full-service South Dakota Public Broadcasting FM radio station is being planned for the northern Black Hills. It would be located in Spearfish.

The Federal Communications Commission has granted a permit to SDPB for construction of a 6,000-watt radio station that would replace the low power FM translators that serve Belle Fourche (91.9 Mhz) and Spearfish (91.1 Mhz). The new station will operate at 91.9 Mhz.

This is great news for those of us who often have to resort to the Wyoming Public Radio station at Sundance for a reliable signal. It’s difficult to hear the two translators outside the city limits of Belle Fourche and Spearfish. And the terrain of the northern Black Hills doesn’t allow a good signal from either Rapid City or Faith, the two nearest SDPB full-service stations.

-

The transmitter for the Spearfish station will be located at an existing tower site in north Spearfish. You may click on the map at left to see a larger image of the planned coverage area. Programming will duplicate KUSD-FM, the SDPB flagship station at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion.

The construction permit was granted on January 17, 2008 and is valid for three years. It will likely be toward the end of that three-year period before the station is operational.

South Dakota Public Broadcasting operates a statewide network of radio (NPR) and television (PBS) stations.

Us or Them

It's not a pretty place to be -- caught between the jackass and dumbo. But that's where more and more of us choose to be. The plight of the political Independent is among the topics served up this time by Spearfish free-lance writer Lorraine Collins. It should be required reading for South Dakota politicians of every stripe.

Us or Them

Lorraine Collins

-

I talked to a fellow the other day who served in our state legislature about a decade ago, representing an East River district. He had been elected as a Republican but when he got to Pierre he was made uneasy by the partisanship he found there. He thought he was supposed to represent everybody in his district, not just Republicans. He soon found out that the most important thing in the Legislature was what party you belong to. Members of the two political parties had different colored name badges just to make sure that they could instantly be identified so nobody would accidentally talk to a member of the other party without knowing it. And they sat in segregated areas of the House chamber, separated by an aisle. The two parties caucused separately to discuss upcoming legislation. The entire atmosphere, so far as he was concerned, was one promoting division and confrontation, rather than cooperation and problem solving.
-

He just might have put his finger on something that is beginning to be recognized as a problem throughout the country. In this interminable election season, we have heard a lot about a desire to change the tone of voice in America by promoting unity and cooperation instead of division and rancor. There has even been the rumored possibility of an Independent candidate because people are so fed up with partisan gridlock in Washington. Of course, it doesn't matter whether the next president is an Independent or not, so long as Congress is made up of warring factions locked in fierce partisan battles.

-

This does cause one to stop and think about why political parties exist at all, and why we are supposed to be blindly loyal to them or be cast into outer darkness. If you are an elected official who disagrees with your party's position on an issue you are a “maverick” and will be punished for it. You don't get good committee assignments or a preferred seat in the Legislature if you think for yourself and don't play along. I suppose this is how political parties keep their power over individual members, and power is what parties are all about.

-

So what is a person to do if she's not nuts about either the Republicans or the Democrats? Are Independents supposed to just sit down and shut up and let the parties slug it out? During this primary season we've heard of several states where people who are not affiliated with any political party were allowed to vote in the primary elections, and I've always liked that idea. I think it makes sense. If political parties don't care what you think because you're not a member of their group, then how can they try to win your vote come November? I was able to vote in primaries when I lived in a couple of other states without declaring what party I might be a member of, if any, and I liked that. I don't suppose that will ever happen in South Dakota.

-

It's hard to imagine an American political landscape without the two historic parties we've had for so long, and I wouldn't expect them to vanish. All of the structure of our government, whether in legislative or executive branches, seems predicated on the assumption that people bear one label or another. But still, the public is beginning to wonder what political parties contribute to the strength of the nation and the propagation of our long held ideals. Do they help us deal with our mutual problems and achieve our mutual aspirations, or do they promote division and conflict? I just ask the question because somehow, in today's political climate, “We the people” often seems to have changed to “Us or them.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free-lance writer Lorraine Collins lives in Spearfish.

Behind Closed Doors

How morbidly fitting that the death knell for an attempt to modernize South Dakota open records laws should be determined days earlier behind closed doors.

Apparently that’s what happened this week in Pierre when the House State Affairs Committee, chaired by Representative Larry Rhoden of Union Center, heard open testimony from six proponents of SB 189. They also listened to a single opponent, Jeff Bloomberg of the Bureau of Administration. The measure had already passed the Senate with bipartisan support.

Bloomberg’s last minute sandbag job in the House committee probably wasn’t even necessary. We’ve been told that a closed caucus of House Republicans – days earlier – allowed lobbyists against the bill to wax eloquent in their opposition. When the Wednesday morning public hearing came, SB 189 was pushed to the back of the committee agenda, allowing Chairman Rhoden to frequently chide proponents to hurry along with their testimony because of the “tight schedule.” Despite crossover Republican support, the bill was stopped cold on a 7-6 vote.

At the end of the hearing, Rep. Rhoden gave an almost gleeful benediction, harkening back to his displeasure – or “heartburn” as he put it – over an incident involving the release of public records some time back by the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

Black Hills Monitor has often criticized the Rapid City Journal, and we’re not always a big fan of the Argus-Leader. Alas, this seemed to be more of a grudge match between the Argus-Leader and Governor Mike Rounds. The Governor won this round. The media got its ears pinned back.

But the real loser was open government and the people of South Dakota.

While virtually all other states have modernized their laws with a presumption of openness for public documents, South Dakota continues to muddle along with a restrictive and confusing set of laws. SB 189 was a good measure, championed by Senator Nancy Turbak Berry of Watertown. Proponents promise to be bring the issue back next year.

Perhaps our biggest disappointment was with Rep. Chuck Turbiville of Deadwood. Our conversations with him led us to believe that he would give the measure a fair hearing. In retrospect, we didn’t know that a “fair hearing” would include a closed GOP caucus meeting with die-hard opponents of the bill.

It was a sad day for open government.

Remembering Russ

We lost a friend a few weeks ago.

Russ Bailey passed away January 27th at the United Retirement Center in Brookings, South Dakota. He was 77 years old. Our condolences go out to the entire Bailey family.

Many South Dakotans will remember Russ from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s as an on-air spokesman for South Dakota Public Broadcasting.

A native of Beverly, Massachusetts, he and his wife Marge were married in 1955. A career Air Force officer, Russ had assignments throughout the United States, Japan and Germany. After he retired as a Major, and they made their home in South Dakota, Russ became a key player in helping organize the Friends of South Dakota Public Broadcasting. He remained affiliated with Friends for some 20 years.

It was my good fortune to work with Russ during some of those years. He was an honest, no-nonsense fellow with a heart of gold. He spoke his mind and had the courage of his convictions. He was highly regarded by his many friends and colleagues throughout public broadcasting.

His obituary touched upon his varied career and the many activities for which he volunteered. Russ Bailey made the world a better place, and we’re all richer for having known him.

A Chance to Wear a White Hat

It was gratifying to see bi-partisan support for SB-189 today in the South Dakota Senate. The long-needed open records measure passed the State Affairs Committee 6-2 and will proceed to the Senate floor next week. The bill strengthens state open records laws, instituting a presumption of openness for all public records, except those that are identified as being closed.

The beauty of SB-189 is that it safeguards everything already protected as “confidential” or “closed” by state law, while implementing a presumption of openness for all other public documents.

Another bill, SB-186, breezed through the committee. It establishes a procedure for citizens to appeal if they are denied access after requesting a record. It is, in effect, South Dakota’s first-ever process similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Taken as a package, passage of these two bills would mark at huge step forward for South Dakota. Both will arrive on the floor of the Senate next week (Feb. 11-14). Both deserve strong support.

Let’s hope the full Senate will continue the bi-partisan effort that has come forward with this pair of good bills, SB-186 and SB-189, and give them quick approval.

There’s been an expectation that Governor Mike Rounds will veto any open records legislation, but I’m not sure that’s true. I’d like to think that the Governor will re-examine these amended measures and recognize that they have been transformed into very good bills.

He certainly can’t help but notice that there is a growing bi-partisan effort that backs this legislation, and that he has an opportunity to be the "good guy, demonstrating his open-mindedness and a commitment to open government. It’s that simple. Besides, I think the Governor would look good in a white hat!

SB189 - Good Open Records Legislation

It’s hard to imagine why any legislator wouldn’t support SB-189. It’s a good piece of legislation.

It would give South Dakotans the same standing as other citizens of these United States. When we want to see a public record that is on file with a public office, it would put the burden on government to explain why we cannot see that record.

That’s a lot different than walking in to a courthouse and having to identify and cite the state law that says you’re entitled to see it.

Simply put, SB-189 would invoke a presumption of openness. Other legislation being considered (SB-186) would perpetuate a critical flaw in current law, which essentially places the burden on individual citizens to prove why they should have access to public documents.

SB-189 does not mean that all records would be open to the public. In fact, it cites the same laundry list of exceptions that now exists. As I said, it’s hard to imagine why anyone wouldn’t support SB-189.

It’s a fundamental reminder that we are a nation – and state – “…of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Might it be inconvenient for government officials? Probably. Just like having to conduct open meetings may be inconvenient. That is a small price to pay for helping ensure that our American tradition of open government remains intact.

And yet, there are legislators who would reject the bill simply because Governor Mike Rounds might veto it.

Some say that’s because it would encroach upon our privacy, and that’s poppycock. Those concerned with privacy issues should have kept SB-81 from marching to legislative oblivion. It could have made a real difference in protecting our citizens from identity theft by making it easier for consumers to freeze their own credit records. No, this issue is more of a vendetta between the Governor’s office and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper.

Most of us don’t give a tinker’s damn about who hunts with the Governor. And many of us are less than enchanted with the Argus-Leader. But there are more than just a few South Dakotans who believe in open government, and that includes good open records legislation.

Let’s hope SB-189 fares well in Pierre. It’s a chance for the legislature to be the good guys. If not, it’ll be a long year ahead.

Chantix may not be for...(anyone?)

Amid reports last week in the Wall Street Journal that Pfizer’s smoking-cessation drug Chantix might be tied to serious psychiatric symptoms came even more disturbing information about certain drugs.

The New York Times on Friday (February 1) reported that, according to the Food & Drug Administration, some drugs used to treat epilepsy, bipolar illness and mood problems double the risks of suicidal thoughts and behavior, and patients taking them should be watched for sudden behavioral changes. Read the story.

As health care in the United States becomes an increasingly prominent and volatile issue, certain things seem clear:

1) while our knowledge of medicine and capabilities to provide health care are enormous, our ability to actually deliver services is broken; and

2) drug companies spend enormous amounts on “research and development,” but talk little about how much they spend on advertising – luring Americans to believe a pill will cure whatever ails us;

I applaud those national media which aggressively report what’s going on at major pharmaceutical companies, but more needs to be explored.

What about the unparalleled extent to which drug companies go to indoctrinate the doctors of tomorrow – while they’re still in medical school – to a mindset that drugs are a cure-all?

What about pervasive advertising that serves only to lure more people into drugstores and pay higher prices for all drugs, many of marginal value, but including those that are life-saving?

A recent random sampling of ABC World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News found that some two-thirds of all advertising on the half-hour television programs was for pharmaceutical companies. Personally, I miss the dog food, automobile, and floor wax commercials of yesteryear! But they apparently can't pony up the kind of big bucks available to the drug companies.

It makes the drug culture of the ‘60s look lame by comparison.

Wide Open Spaces?

Lorraine Collins is a free-lance writer whose work appears regularly in the Black Hills Pioneer. We're pleased that she's given permission for us to use this piece.

We out here in the west have liked to think of ourselves as enjoying wide open spaces, and being people of open hearts and open minds, open to new ideas. But for some strange reason, we seem to have quite a bit of difficulty grasping the idea that government needs to be open, too.

Our state constitution still says that a simple majority of the legislature can close the entire legislature to the public and the media and do whatever it wants to in secret. There was an attempt to modify that last year, with Amendment F, which would have required a two-thirds majority to close the legislature, but the Amendment failed because it also included a lot of other things people didn’t like. (I don’t think it was ever explained why the legislature should be closed at all.)

A person who was a legislative page in the 1960’s told me that one of a page’s duties in those days was to stand in the hall to keep the public from coming into the committee room to see members at work. Thank goodness that has changed. But there are still frequent complaints about boards and commissions violating the open meetings laws.


Read the entire article...
-
Not Really the Wide Open Spaces
-
by Lorraine Collins, a free-lance writer from Spearfish.