On the Ballot

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives inSpearfish and offers this view of some items on the ballot this November in South Dakota; she can be contacted at collins1@rushmore.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Four proposed amendments to the state constitution are on the ballot this November, all sponsored by the Legislature. One is likely to generate some heat and another is arguable, but the other two probably won't lead to much debate. The most controversial is Amendment J, which would eliminate term limits for members of the Legislature who can now serve only four consecutive two-year terms in either House or Senate. Read more...

~

Mistaken Identity

Her Spearfish neighbors just can’t keep a secret about writer Lorraine Collins, whose talents reach beyond classy narratives and into the realm of neighborhood “handyman,” or so we thought!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MISTAKEN IDENTITY

By Lorraine Collins

Recently I received a remarkable invitation. I was invited to join The Handyman Club of America. I was “chosen from thousands of handy people” to become an official product tester. They wanted to send me a circular saw to try out. After I tried it, I had to send in a report of what I thought of it, but I could keep the saw. As I read on, I wondered why I was chosen for this job of “testing home improvement products around your house and keeping them for free” but my question was soon answered. “Why you?” the letter asked. “Well it’s no secret among your friends and family that you are an outstanding handyman.”

I looked at the mailing label again to be sure this letter had been sent to me, and it was. But the thing is, it’s no secret among my friends and family that you really don’t want to trust me with any sharp object. When I pick up a pair of scissors to cut something, anyone nearby leaps up to say, “Let me do that!” I’m probably most famous for stabbing a refrigerator to death trying to dislodge a frozen salmon. However, I have also punctured soda cans trying to open up one of those refrigerator twelve-packs, and anyone who has seen me trying to open up a childproof lid on a bottle containing a drug or cleaning product knows that whatever else I may be, I’m not “handy”.

I don’t know how I got on the mailing list of the Handyman Club of America, though it might be because I ordered something from a tool catalog for Christmas. This has made me think about how people sometimes do get labeled or identified on the basis of flimsy evidence, and also about how easy it is for con men or scam artists to fool us into believing they are someone they are not. Both of these situations are especially pertinent in an election year.

To begin with, I think many of us do use a kind of shorthand to identify who people are, and we make certain assumptions about them based on their political affiliation, what their job is, where they live, what church or civic organizations they belong to, and so forth. We tend to think we know people based on such things, but as political candidates have sometimes discovered, such assumptions can be wildly wrong. More than one candidate has been baffled at losing what was supposed to be a safe seat. It doesn’t pay to underestimate the diversity of opinions and experiences within any demographic group. Folks just don’t like to be labeled. And we don’t want to be taken for granted, either.

At the same time, we in the electorate have to remember the times we or our neighbors have been fooled by somebody who showed up at the door with an offer too good to be true. By now we may know that somebody in Nigeria really isn’t going to make us rich if we just give them our bank account number, and we know that any plan to make thousands of dollars in our spare time at home probably isn’t as good as it seems to be. But we may still be vulnerable to political candidates who look and act like the people we want, who say the things we want to hear, but who may also be offering us something too good to be true.

We in South Dakota are on the cusp a very interesting political season. We not only have several candidates, but there are also numerous ballot issues to consider. I hope we examine those issues as carefully as we do a contract to fix a roof or the latest offer from a credit card company. Things are not always what they seem there, either. Just think of the possibility of my being a member of the Handyman Club of America, and you’ll do the right thing.

Pennies from Heaven -- Dollars to Hell

Sad as it may be, only money seems to trump super delegates when it comes to winning a presidential nomination this year. Of course, last election we didn’t have a clue who these “super” folks were, but we’re learning fast just how deeply entrenched “good old boy” politics are in our political system. We’ll reserve comment about “super delegates” for another posting – this time we’d like to focus upon the insatiable greed used to fuel the presidential campaign machines.

At the end of January, according to the New York Times, Senator Barack Obama had raised a total of $140.6 million during this campaign, just ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton’s $138 million. Jointly, that amounts to about $276.6 million.

Also in January, Fox News was reporting an appeal for a mere $5.1 million to aid the half million displaced people -- mostly women and children -- needing humanitarian assistance in Kenya. Seems to me Hillary and Barack could have agreed to chip in a bit from their coffers to do something truly worthwhile.

Of course, there are equally-compelling human needs in this country, but it all seems to be off the radar scopes of those who see something much bigger than feeding the hungry and housing the homeless: personal political power.

The rationale goes something like this – if you’ll give me the money, I can then buy the advertising and other things I need in order to win the election and thus obtain the power necessary to help our country do better. So goes the perpetual game of intellectual charades that politicians play. Some start the game focusing on a desire to make things better, but few can withstand the realities of “buying the office.”

So many promises are made – so many implied – so many perceived -- that the candidates are soon transformed from attractive soaring butteflies to unsightly caterpillars, struggling to extricate themselves from back-room obligations incurred during the campaign. They yearn to be who they once thought they were – but to no avail. They’ve paid the price. In fact, we’ve all paid the price. But having paid to come to the dance, it's a rude awakening as victors realize "you gotta dance with them what brung you."

It need not be this way. We can change things, but first we have to know what's going on. The New York Times has done a pretty good job keeping track of presidential campaign funds. Take a look.

Alas, even as we might contemplate ways to change the system, presidential campaign avarice has reached a new high – or should we say low – when it was learned this week that Senator Barack Obama raised a record $55 million in February – just one month – outdistancing Senator Hillary Clinton’s $34 million.

We need to find a better way to choose our governmental leaders.

Kunerth: Legislature Has Work To Do!

Good friend Bill Kunerth of Belle Fourche is on a panel that regularly provides viewpoints to the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on a variety of issues. It's part of what they call Dakota Comments. The Legislature has been studying whether to adopt a code of conduct. Do we need one, in light of Ted Klaudt's actions in the past year? And if we do, what ought to be included in the code? Here's Bill Kunerth's take on the topic.

==============================

The state definitely needs a conduct code for legislators, and more. Some state codes spell out specific conduct prohibitions. e.g. improper sexual activities, alcohol and drug abuse. Others refer to general behavior.

I prefer the latter, such as in the Illinois code (I know, it’s a lousy state to use as an example) which cites “conduct unbecoming to a legislator or which constitutes a breach of the public trust.” Then, allow a bi-partisan ethics committee of legislators and/or an ethics commission of parties outside the legislature to define and enforce the rules.

The South Dakota Legislature does not have a permanent ethics committee but formed an ad hoc group to hear the case against Senator Dan Sutton. It was dissolved after the hearing.

In addition to rules on moral conduct, South Dakota needs to strengthen its accountability and openness laws. Our state ranked 50th in a 2002 Integrity Index of state governments which evaluated these areas. It was conducted by the Better Government Association and the Ford Center for Global Citizenship (check “BGA Integrity Index”) and judged freedom of information laws, whistle blower protection, campaign financing, gifts/honoraria, and conflicts of interest. Not much has changed since the study, except for a commission named by Attorney General Larry Long which is helping close some of the gaping loopholes in the state’s open records law.

South Dakota also received an F in a 2007 study on campaign disclosure by the UCLA Law School and Center for Government Studies. These reports make clear that the South Dakota Legislature has work to do in the areas of ethics, accountability and openness.

==============================================

Bill Kunerth is an Iowa State University Emeritus Professor of Journalism.

Go Stand in the Corner!

The Black Hills of South Dakota is a wonderful place to live. We’ve waxed positive on the numerous reasons for our love affair with this region – but there’s a fly in the ointment, and it might be categorized as “politics as usual.”

South Dakota ranks among the worst in the nation in the disclosure of campaign finances for political candidates. You can read the depressing details at the web site “Grading State Disclosure,” a project supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Results were announced October 17, 2007, and South Dakota received a big fat “F”!

While the report acknowledges improvements were made in campaign disclosure laws this year, we’ll likely remain near the bottom of the barrel when they do the survey again next year.

South Dakota is among the 10 states with the weakest public access to campaign finance records. Among deficiencies cited: our state does not have electronic filing; only Oklahoma and South Dakota don’t require the name or identity of campaign expenditures, even though they do require that the amount of expenditures be disclosed; and if you want to get a written copy of disclosure reports from Pierre, you’ll pay $1.00 per page – the highest in the nation. Most states charge between $ .10 and $ .25 per page.

Conditional kudos should be extended to those persons responsible for making some progress on strengthening disclosure laws. And we presume Secretary of State Chris Nelson is among them. If you visit the South Dakota Secretary of State web site, you’ll find a nice-looking template for campaign information, but not a lot of substance that’s easy to find. And when you do find it, you’ll likely have to work at deciphering many of the reports. Handwriting in some of the scans is very hard to read.

South Dakota is improving a bit with campaign disclosure – but it’s too little and too slow. We hope to see further improvement in the near future, but it’s not likely to come easy.