Here we are again already

Our neighbor Lorraine Collins always has an interesting perspective on a wide range of topics. Here's another that should catch your interest -- and perhaps spur a comment or two. Her commentaries appear regularly in the Black Hills Pioneer, and this one appeared in the December 16, 2009 edition. She graciously allows us to share it with on-line readers here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe it's because as we get older time seems to go by faster, but it seems to me that it was just yesterday, rather than December a year ago, that Governor Rounds was delivering his 2008 Budget Address and asking Legislators to go home and encourage all their constituents to go out and buy something to help out with sales tax revenue. Apparently this didn't work because last week the governor delivered his 2009 Budget Address and said revenues were "flat" while expenses have been going up. But this time, he didn't ask the Legislators to go home and ask us to spend more money, presumably because he knows many of us can't.

According to his speech, unemployment is the highest since1985 and unemployed people don't buy a lot of stuff. The governor said that the number of people on Medicaid has now reached 110,000, with more people enrolling in the program in the last ten months than in the previous four years. It was pretty clear a year ago that we were going to have what's called a "shortfall" in terms of income versus expenses. That is, the state was in the same trouble many of its citizens are every month. And it still is.

As I listened carefully to the governor's address which largely consisted of a blizzard of statistics, I scribbled down various notes which I now have difficulty reading. But by now, there have been editorial comments, objections, amplifications, and suggested alternatives to the governor's proposed budget and I think I get the gist of it. The governor made a point of saying that 49 cents of every budget dollar goes toward education, from kindergarten to graduate school, and that 36 cents goes toward "taking care of people." So 85% of the state budget goes for education and social services, and one would have to be a Scrooge or a Grinch to object to that.

However, he said he could not increase state aid to education at all, although I thought there was a law that says schools are supposed to get an increase every year amounting to 3% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. It wouldn't have amounted to much this year, but it would have been something. It will be interesting to see what the Legislature does with that. Every year there are various proposals to increase state aid to education, to revise the formula or change the rules, and every year we seem to go along more or less as we have been.

In talking about a "structural deficit" the governor said the deficit isn't caused "by our spending being out of control." I guess it isn't, since we rank so low in state support to education that it' s embarrassing. However, Representative Bernie Hunhoff of Yankton, minority leader of the House, said that growth of state government has been at twice the rate of inflation and he thought there should be cuts in the bureaucracy. That might be a good idea, but whether that would make any significant difference in making more money available to education is something I tend to doubt.

The fact is, state just doesn't take in enough money to meet current expenses and the only way we've been able to maintain things as well as we have is that the federal government pitches in more money than we do. It was interesting to note that state revenues for the general fund to support the governor's budget amounted to $1.2 billion while federal funds amounted to $1.9 billion. So I don't think we should complain too much about federal interference in our state.

~

Governor Rounds closed his speech by remarking "We all believe in the common good." It's a good thing that taxpayers in the other 49 states are helping us out and I hope they continue to believe in our common good, until we can figure out how to come up with more money ourselves.
Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives in Spearfish. She can be reached at collins1@rushmore.com.

Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives in Spearfish. She can be contacted at collins1@rushmore.com.

A change of direction

Since we've been something of a rabble rouser when it comes to open government in South Dakota, we should give credit where credit is due. This is not in any priority order -- in fact, it basically starts with the late comers first.

God bless Governor Mike Rounds for seeing the light and accepting a philosophical change of direction for the state. His signing of a new open records law yesterday (3/19/09) was something of a turnaround for the governor, who has claimed previous versions were not strong enough in protecting individual rights. The new law, which takes effect July 1, importantly contains a presumption that government documents should be open to the public, unless there are good reasons for keeping them under wraps.

The new law is far from perfect, but it's lightyears ahead of what exists right now -- basically allowing bureaucrats at any government level to make decisions about what should and should not be open to the public. In other words, it generally presumed that only documents required to be kept by government would be made available -- if officials wanted to make them available.

I don't know what motivated Republican State Senator Dave Knudson to get behind and push for a new open records law. Perhaps he saw it as a good resume-builder for would-be gubernatorial candidates. Maybe he simply believed South Dakota was due for more open government. Whatever the incentive, he did his homework and navigated his SB-147 handily through the legislature. Thanks, Dave.

Democratic Senator Nancy Turbak Berry should certainly be acknowledged for giving high visibility to open government last year, when she introduced a similar open records law -- but without a lot of the politically-worded baggage necessary to get it through the legislature. Her early spadework, along with that of several others legislators, was critically important.

And, of course, a multitude of candidates last election thought it was important enough to publicly speak out and advocate a stronger open records law. Near the head of that list of folks was Nyla Griffith of Deadwood, a Democrat whose campaign last year for a seat in the State Senate fell short.

Certainly, South Dakota newspapers played a role in pushing through the new law, and they deserve recognition. However, this was NOT just a media deal. It was a citizen movement, and it was growing significantly. I suspect that had as much to do with final approval of the new law as anything. Politicians seem to sense such groundswells --- at least the good ones do.

A glimmer of sunshine

We’re delighted with Senator Dave Knudson’s leadership in getting a new open records law through the South Dakota Senate. The Republican leader from Sioux Falls introduced SB-147 in late January, and it has cleared the Senate – unanimously – and now awaits action in the House.

The legislation is important because it introduces a fresh new perspective regarding public records: unless there’s good reason to keep them closed, all public records are open for public scrutiny!

That would be a big change for South Dakota, which has one of the most restrictive laws in the country. Admittedly, SB-147 has a long list of records that would remain closed, and some of those provisions are vague enough that officials can still probably keep a lid on some information that should be made public, but we still support the bill because of its presumption of all records being open.

How the House and Governor Rounds will handle SB-147 is uncertain. Its bipartisan group of co-sponsors, ranging from Senators Adelstein and Heidepriem to Representatives Hunhoff and Faehn, bode well for the measure.

Rounds has been a staunch opponent of previous open records initiatives, and he managed to exert enough influence to get an open records bill killed last year. Early this session, reporter Bob Mercer quoted the Governor as saying that changing the law could inadvertently disclose personal information about private citizens that “a bureaucrat” had gathered.

Personal privacy is a valid concern, and Knudson and his co-authors have done a good job in SB-147 of protecting privacy; witness the laundry list of items that would remain closed.

Perhaps the Governor should be just as concerned about bad and potentially embarrassing government activities that public documents could reveal – but that are kept under wraps by “a bureaucrat” who wants to protect himself or his bosses.

Can you say “no-bid contracts”?

A step in the right direction

Black Hills Monitor has taken Governor Mike Rounds and his administration to task for giving little leadership in the area of open government. Their active participation in killing a good open records measure (SB-189) offered by Senator Nancy Turbak Berry of Watertown last year was disappointing. Their tactics were unconscionable.

On a separate but related issue, the Rounds administration opposed and defeated HB1233, which would have created a state web site containing public financial information and other state records. Ignoring the fact that such information is not as readily available to folks in Oelrichs, Wanblee, Kidder, Bruce -- or anywhere else outside of Pierre -- Rounds said it wasn't a matter of open government, it was a matter of accessibility. Excuse me? Then the Gov proceeded to say that it would cost too much to create such a web site and too much to maintain.

In a posting last March, we criticized the Governor on this issue and suggested that he might take a lesson from his fellow Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, whose administration had established a site called Checkbook Online, listing all major state expenditures. Yes, this was long before Sarah Palin's star began to rise in national politics.

I'd like to know what prompted Governor Rounds to change his mind about such a web site. Perhaps he found some money tucked away somewhere? In any event, last Friday (September 12) the Governor announced creation of OpenSD, a web site that he says "...will be the one place on the internet to go for government records and information...that will help our citizens be more informed, involved, and efficient...it will become the central portal to government information in South Dakota."

~

I doubt that the emergence of this new South Dakota web site had anything to do with Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate. And I'm certain it had nothing to do with Black Hills Monitor advocacy. I'd like to believe that Mike Rounds did it because it's the right thing to do.

~

Now that the information is starting to flow, maybe it can be organized in a more user-friendly way. State bureaucrats, lobbyists, and policy wonks in Pierre will no doubt find it reasonably understandable, if they explore it closely. The rest of us will have to work harder navigating through the information -- not because we're incapable of understanding it, but because it's presented in a typically bureaucratic way. Even Alaska's Checkbook Online, which is far more robust that OpenSD, appears created by folks who would find Reader's Digest confusing, because it's clearly written and organized for common folk.

~

But OpenSD is a good first step! Congratulations to Governor Mike Rounds and others who've made this happen.

~

Now, about that open records legislation...

Rounds legacy -- a shroud?

Mike Rounds has done a pretty fair job as Governor of South Dakota. While he doesn’t have a stellar record regarding education issues, I was impressed with his creativity and diligence in helping to breathe new life into the old Homestake Mine in Lead. Economic development issues seem to be his forte’.

But if there is a lingering blemish on his tenure, it’ll surely be his reluctance to support open government – despite his claims to the contrary. This contrast is painfully vivid in his May 7, 2008 essay in the Rapid City Journal. He was responding to the question: “Why did you veto HB 1233, an act to create a web site making certain state government financial information available?”

The Governor contended that the bill was not an open government bill – it was, instead, “an accessibility bill.” Surely he understands that unless one has access to public documents, it really doesn’t make much difference whether records are open or closed.

Governor Rounds concluded his piece by writing “I am committed to a practical approach to put the state’s financial information on the Web, in a form that does not create needless expense.”

I take that as good news. It would suggest a turnaround from his approach last year of virtual non-participation with the Attorney General’s task force established to deal with open government. The most public participation contributed by the administration seemed to be their last-minute appearance at legislative committee meetings to speak out against open records measures like SB 189. Of course, that doesn’t count behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sabotage efforts to bring real transparency to South Dakota government.

The Governor said that the folks who wrote HB 1233 “don’t fully understand the structure and operation of the state of South Dakota’s finances.” While I don’t know who wrote HB 1233, I do know that that our state “chart of accounts and classifications of expenditure” cited by the Governor – as well as other state government operations – need not be all that complicated. But keeping a veil over these activities creates the illusion of complexity.

Those who control accessibility should understand that they are temporary custodians of public records, and that these documents – just like the State Capitol (and the Governor’s Residence) – belong to the people of South Dakota.

I hope that the Governor’s professed commitment to open government means that he’ll be working with both sides of the aisle in a genuine effort give South Dakotans better access to the process of government. His input and support could help ensure a positive step forward for open government. It would be a shame for his accomplishments to be overshadowed by the larger cloud of political secrecy.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

I believe that much, if not most, of the travel done by our congressional delegation and their staffs is justifiable in doing their jobs. I suspect some isn’t.

But just how much do they travel? Where do they go? Why? How much does it cost?

Many of these questions and others are answered in a fairly new web site I discovered this week. It also includes salaries and other financial information relative to our tax dollars. Take a look at the site http://www.legistorm.com/ and see what you think. I promise that it’ll keep you busy for a while!

It would be good to see such an initiative in South Dakota. A few state governments – Alaska comes to mind – have launched web sites that post state expenditures.

Thus far, there’s been no appetite amongst the administration of Governor Mike Rounds to make this kind of information available on line. Perhaps that’ll change down the road – with a good bit of nudging!

Please Mr. Sun

Opponents of open government in South Dakota are a crafty lot.

First, they killed open records legislation introduced last session because it was a threat to “personal privacy.” Never mind that the measure kept intact all existing record exclusions protected by state law.

Now, another effort to put more sunshine on the business of state government has been quashed. Governor Michael Rounds vetoed HB 1233, which would have established a state web site allowing South Dakotans to track just how the state spends their money. Although the measure had passed the legislature earlier, there weren’t enough votes in the Senate this week to override the veto. This time, opponents claim the cost of more open government may be too high.

-

At least, that’s the line promoted by the governor, according to Kevin Woster in the Rapid City Journal this week, “Rounds vetoed the measures, saying it had technical problems and that it was unclear what information would be designated for release. The governor also said it could cost more than $600,000 to establish and $100,000 a year to operate.”

The operative word here is “could.” Alaska has reportedly implemented such a web site at far less than cited by the Rounds people. As usual, there’s little specificity as to what the “technical problems” might be. Like he did with open records, the governor is likely to sit on this issue until it’s forced to a vote. Then he’ll introduce a spewing of general objections without specifics, designed to scare the daylights out of voters who otherwise would opt for sunshine.

Our state representatives and state senators represent you and me, the citizens of South Dakota. Despite the fact that over 80% of these legislators supported this bill, Governor Rounds vetoed it. Hiding behind “costs” and vague “technical problems” is disingenuous. It is becoming increasingly evident that the governor is uncomfortable with truly open government. He could take a lesson from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (at left), whose Open Checkbook program is the latest in a growing nationwide movement to make information about state spending more readily available.

Alaska, in the “land of the Midnight Sun,” is truly making an effort to put sunshine on state expenditures. We South Dakotans can’t find even a ray of such transparency at high noon in Pierre.

His penchant for doing business in private – beyond the scrutiny of the public – detracts from the good work of Governor Rounds and his administration.

Pew suggests SD planning stinks

“South Dakota has never shown much interest in long-term planning or performance measurement. Quite a few other states are in a similar boat, but many of them make up for it, at least in part, by using specialized agencies or departments to do performance audits and evaluations. This effort is non-existent in South Dakota and has little chance of developing. Leaders here don’t think this is much of a problem” --

Pew Center Report Card for South Dakota

The folks conducting this nationwide evaluation of state government performance didn’t have a lot of good things to say about South Dakota. The state does have a hefty “rainy day fund” of about $1 billion and many of South Dakota’s governmental functions run smoothly – but that’s about it. The report was released yesterday (3/3/08) in Washington, D.C. by the Pew Center on the States, a project funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Our state garnered a B- when a similar study was done three years ago. In the latest Pew report, Grading the States 2008, we’ve slipped to C+ and some folks in Pierre don’t see much of a problem. Of course, we’re also at the bottom of the barrel with teacher pay, and that hasn’t given government insiders much heartburn either.

Not surprisingly, South Dakota fails miserably in the “Information” category. We're at the bottom of the barrel with a D+. The report notes that "around the world and across the nation, growing demands for public sector transparency and for public access to services 24/7 are spurring a new level of creativity in meeting citizens’ legitimate needs, as well as improving internal business processes...Grades in the Information category in 2008 ranged between As in five states (Michigan, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Washington) and D+s in New Hampshire and South Dakota." The Information category has little chance of any substantial improvement any time soon. Governor Rounds, abetted by the legislature, trashed a good open records bill this session (SB 189). It might have enriched the public records that could have become available online.

Kudos, however, are appropriate for a strong reserve fund, which officials say is for major emergencies only, such as natural disasters. Pew acknowledges that our state has one of the best-funded pension systems in the country, that we maintain low debt loads and that we have “a budget comfortably in structural balance.”

That said, the tenor of the report is not very encouraging. And long-range planning is the major culprit. Pew says transportation is one area “that cries out for long-term planning.” The report cites an $11 million hit that the state took in 2007 when the federal government required South Dakota to boost Medicaid payments. A new fly in the fiscal ointment is the lawsuit brought by some 59 school districts, charging that the education system in South Dakota is underfunded.

Pew reports that if there's a major judgment against the state in that case, well……that might be enough to cause some of the smugmugs in Pierre to begin thinking about some serious long-range planning. But don't count on it. The states with the highest scores in this report have made accountability and innovation a priority. In most categories, South Dakota hasn't been accused of either.

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.

An Inconvenient Concept?

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds has many fine attributes. And I like his position on most issues. But listening to him tip-toe around the topic of open records on South Dakota Public Radio yesterday, it was clear that he just doesn’t grasp the concept that our public records should be presumed to be “open records” for the public. His examples of how the Governor’s office would be impacted made it obvious that open records would be inconvenient…..at least for the Governor!

Perhaps he should read the letter about open records written to legislators by Bill Kunerth of Belle Fourche, a staunch advocate of open government.

There’s also a good column written by Chuck Baldwin of Vermillion that appears in the Rapid City Journal and the Black Hills Pioneer. Both the Baldwin and Kunerth pieces are worth a read!

New Open Records Law -- Past Due

Students of history have little problem finding examples where citizens became complacent and ended up losing many of their freedoms.

Bit by bit, seemingly innocent and harmless encroachments occur – almost invisibly – until one wakes up and finds them gone and is either unwilling or unable to reacquire them.

And so it is with South Dakota’s open records laws. In these United States, most of them anyway, public records are presumed open and available for public scrutiny unless action is taken to specifically close them. In South Dakota, government agencies generally operate on the premise that they can close any records that they are not required by law to keep. And that premise is driven by a wrongheaded state law.

As journalists and many genealogists can tell you, it can be a difficult – if not impossible – task to obtain even the simplest of public documents. The South Dakota open records law is confusing to citizens and government employees alike.

According to an article by Bill Harlan in the Rapid City Journal (“Open-records bills coming to South Dakota”) there are several legislative bills in the works to change things, but they may be no less confusing. A Government Openness Task Force was set up to examine the issue but has not yet endorsed any specific plan.

We’ll be watching this issue closely and encouraging folks to do the same. More than that, as the proposals come forward, we need to aggressively support a strong bill, if we find one in the mix.

Change would be good.

How to Help Our State

Lorraine Collins of Spearfish is a free-lance journalist whose work is seen frequently in the Black Hills Pioneer newspaper. Here is her latest offering.

---------

I’ve been looking for a coat for quite a long time, now. I know just what I want. It’s the coat I had about 45 years ago. Hudson’s Bay, of “car coat” length, in soft wool, with a nice collar that could be turned up against the wind. Every time I see pictures of me in that coat I don’t spend any time looking at how young and slender I was then. I just stare at that coat. I’ve spent some considerable time this fall looking at coats in several cities and towns trying to find one like that, but I just haven’t found any. This makes me feel bad, not only for myself, but for the state of South Dakota.

When Governor Rounds gave his annual Budget Address to a joint session of the legislature last month, he explained that, “our income stream at state government is based on consumption”. We rely on sales tax in this state and people have not been spending as much money as they need to in order to keep the state coffers in good shape. He told the legislators to “go back home and tell people to buy.” I want him and our local representatives to know that I’ve really been trying. Actually, I did buy a new chair, and that was pretty expensive, but I’m probably not doing everything I could to help our state.

Realizing this, I’ve come up with an idea about how to help South Dakota get the income it needs even though I haven’t been able to buy as much as I should. It might help an economy based on consumerism when consumers are not doing their part.

My idea is the “alternative sales tax” like the “alternative minimum income tax” I’ve been hearing so much about. I think the idea of the “alternative minimum income tax” was that very rich people who can hire really good accountants could figure out how to avoid paying the federal income tax. So this alternative tax makes them pay at least something. It worked for a while. But the trouble is that it’s now causing a lot of hardship for people who are not multi-millionaires but still pay a bigger tax. Though this may have given the alternative tax idea a bad name, I would still like to consider an “alternative sales tax” for South Dakota.

Let’s say that you go into a store and look at something, maybe try it on, look at the color but you’re not sure, so you return it to a clerk. Then maybe you pick up something that Aunt Enid might like for her birthday, but decide against that, too. So in the end you buy nothing. As you leave, the clerk gives you a slip of paper that says you owe the State of South Dakota 4% of what you didn’t buy. I know this sounds outrageous, but think about it! You didn’t spend $200 for a coat you didn’t like, but you are still contributing to the state’s wellbeing! And if you take the $200 you didn’t spend and put it in a savings account, you could be reliving that old American idea of thrift, which used to be a virtue before it became our patriotic duty to go to the mall. But even though you’re selfishly saving money instead of spending it, you are still helping South Dakota.

I know this is tough, but we who live here have to do something to help our state. I know our state also depends on the Video Lottery but I don’t like to gamble. And even though the governor is disappointed by the fact that the cigarette tax is bringing in less money than anticipated, I really don’t want to take up smoking in order to pay a dollar a pack in tax to help out. But I don’t want to be accused of being a slacker. So unless the legislature can come up with some new concepts this year, I think they should at least consider my idea and help our state.

----------

Our thanks to Lorraine Collins for letting us use her material at Black Hills Monitor.