Secrecy in government hiring

Retired journalism professor and life-long ranch guy Bill Kunerth of Belle Fourche has been following the secrecy surrounding the hiring of a new superintendent for Rapid City schools. He re-visits key points he made some 30 years ago in an op-ed piece for the Des Moines Register about secrecy in the hiring of government officials.

(1) If candidates are identified some will be lost. And, although almost all candidates would prefer not to be identified, it is the weak and/or insecure ones who are most likely to refuse to apply if identified. The strongest, most competent ones will be the most willing to be identified. If not given the choice of anonymity, the best, serious candidates will usually apply. If there is a state law, as there should be, requiring identification – at least of the finalists -- then they would have no choice.

(2) In almost all employee-employer relationships at this level, the employee looking for another job is committed to or will usually tell the boss he is applying elsewhere (If he doesn't he may suffer more than if he did). And all employers take for granted that their most competent employees are likely to be looking to move into better positions. Good employees usually improve their current status if is known they are looking elsewhere.

(3) Even if a candidate is not identified, the likelihood of keeping the application of a high-level employee secret from an employer is remote. As soon as the application is received, the prospective employer is on the phone or mailing letters to several references. The references may be sworn to secrecy but that's highly unlikely.

(4) Secrecy breeds rumors and unfair publication of names--whether accurate or inaccurate. Although, my guess is that the South Dakota media are less aggressive about this than the media in most states, the common pattern is for the press to be nosing about, doing its best to uncover the names of candidates and it often goes with whatever reports it gets.

(5) Secrecy allows for a "good old boy/girl" situation in which, for personal or political rather than public interests, members of the hiring body do not consider excellent candidates. For example, a city council in a city manager form of government might be reluctant to hire a highly competent, independent manager who would clean up city departments, identify incompetent employees and root out favoritism. These candidates can be ditched without the public even knowing they applied. The same may be the case for a school board, whose main interest is in hiring a superintendent of schools whom it can manage.

(6) The most important stakeholders in the search for appointmive govermental officials are those most affected by those being hired, For example--in the search for a school superitendent, it is the teachers, students and their parents. In the hiring of a city manager or a police chief, it includes their potential employees but also the entire community. These are the parties who need as much information as possible about likely candidates before they are hired so they can provide valuable input.

(7) Only the job security of prospective appointees is considered in the discussion of identifying job candidates. Equal attention should be paid to the impact on the large number of persons who work for the candidate, especially in the case of school administrators. Many sub-administrators and teachers are likely to look for new jobs if their superintendent is doing so. And, in their cases, the appointments are often made after they sign contracts.

(8) A public agency should question whether or not it is wise to hire an individual who prefers a policy of secrecy in hiring. This is likely to be indicative of his entire philosophy about the city, county or school governance.

(10) Of course, the hiring agencies prefer confidentiality. They want as smooth a process as possible (no outside involvement) and they want as much control of the hiring process (candidates) as possible.

Bill Kunerth is a retired Professor of Journalism at Iowa State University in Ames. He lives in Belle Fourche.

More sunshine for Spearfish, too?

Beset by a myriad of problems, not the least of which was the recent attempted skewering of Councilman Sam Kookier, the Rapid City Council has made a step toward redemption.

Beginning tomorrow, according to the Rapid City Journal, a variety of council-related meetings will be streamed lived on the Internet. Importantly, these sessions of the Planning Commission, Public Works Committee, Legal & Finance Committee – as well as the regular Rapid City Council meetings themselves – will all be archived for citizens to access.

Not only will the meetings be available to watch, there’ll also be a variety of important documents ranging from meeting agendas to supporting documents previously available only to folks who actually attend meetings or specially request them.

It’s a nice step forward in civic responsibility, and the Rapid City Council – which has taken a lot of justifiable criticism of late – deserves a pat on the back for taking this most welcome and appropriate step.

The Spearfish City Council should pay attention and follow suit.

Last summer, Black Hills Monitor advocated a similar move for Spearfish, but received a cordial rebuff. City Administrator Greg Sund, who has since left his post, said “there doesn’t seem to be majority interest among the Spearfish City Council to adopt this technology,” perceiving that our interest was simply in seeing cable television coverage of council meetings.

The City of Spearfish – a few years ago – made some really bad deals regarding cable television franchises. As those franchises with MidContinent Communications and Knology are renewed down the road, the city should be tougher negotiators, enabling an open government arrangement similar to those enjoyed by Pierre citizens. Franchise fees fund their Oahe TV operation, which covers city council and school board meetings and provides comprehensive Internet archives of those sessions.

We’re not sure that the Black Hills Pioneer on-line video initiatives spearheaded by former publisher Stewart Huntington include coverage of Spearfish council meetings. We've seen his folks covering legislative crackerbarrels at Black Hills State University, and that’s a good thing.

Whether it’s done by the private sector or the Spearfish City Council, video streaming and archiving of city council and related open meetings conducted by city government should be pursued. With all the disenchantment over government – particularly at the national level – our city fathers should be in the lead to help get more citizens involved in local government.

Our Spearfish City Council would be delivering one of the most valuable of city services: open and more accessible government.

Looking for transparency

It’s hard to cut through the crap.

Over the past many months, we’ve been bombarded with claims and counter-claims regarding health care reform. It’s likely to continue for the next several weeks with no real resolution in sight for the American people.

From assertions that we have the “best health care system in the world” to protestations that it’s “a broken health care system,” politicians and analysts of all stripes have hashed and re-hashed the topic with much hoopla but little clarity. Most of the dialogue has been in a less than thoughtful context, usually displayed in “point-counterpoint” sound bites with little substance.

We remain skeptical of the hyperbole offered from both sides of this squabble, but each has offered at least some evidence to justify their position – so it’s easy to be confused by the babble surrounding this important issue.

Passage of the Senate health care bill in the wee hours of December 21st was tainted with “compromise.” $100 million for the University Hospital in Senator Chris Dodd’s home state of Connecticut; exemptions from insurance fees for Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield; giving Florida a $ 3 billion to $5 billion sweetheart exemption from losing Medicare Advantage benefits; and numerous other deals.

None was more egregious than the $100 million federal payment for new Medicaid coverage in Nebraska – as well as an exemption from an insurance fee for Nebraska Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Mutual of Omaha.

Only days earlier, while visiting the Cornhusker state, we heard local radio stations playing sound bites in which Nebraska’s U.S. Senator Ben Nelson denied allegations that he and Nebraska had been threatened with federal cuts, if he didn’t support the administration’s health bill.

Rather than asking Nelson if he’d been threatened, reporters should have been asking him if he had been approached with bribes….er, “compromises.” Despite proclaiming that his vote “wasn’t for sale,” it was only a matter of hours before Nelson signed on to the health care package, greasing the skids to Nebraska for lots of federal money – at the expense of all other states.

But even these distasteful events weren’t what left us most disheartened.

Rather, it was the assurances offered earlier by President Obama that health care reform discussions would be out in the open and involve a wide range of players. They would even be aired on C-SPAN, he said. This turned out to be not true. There’ve been allegations that few senators even read the 2,100 page bill.

And when it comes time for a conference between the House and Senate versions of health care reform, it seems the president has chosen the West Wing of the White House as the location.

We believe our health care system is in serious need of reform, and we’re unconvinced that Congress is moving in the right direction. The fact that it has been back-room politics as usual, rather than the promised open deliberations, leaves us wondering if the only thing needing more attention than health care might be the Obama administration claim to "openness."

It’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see cameras in the West Wing, but President Obama could go a long way toward regaining citizen support by re-visiting his promise of government transparency and pushing for 11th hour C-SPAN coverage of this enormously important subject. But don't hold your breath.

Heartland Expressway woes

Our affection for Nebraska is rekindled each fall when the Cornhusker football team takes to the gridiron. We always enjoy our visits to the state -- ranging from family gatherings in the panhandle to observing sandhill crane migrations along the Platte River in the fall. One of our hobbies is adding information to Whitney Reflections, a website that chronicles the history of a tiny panhandle community. Nebraska was – and is – a great place to grow up. A good place to live.

So it’s been with considerable disappointment that we’ve watched Nebraska government foul up the Heartland Expressway project. That’s the four-lane highway that’s been long planned to connect Rapid City, South Dakota with Denver, Colorado via the Nebraska panhandle. The project is an integral part of the Great Plains International Trade Corridor, a proposed four-lane artery which will connect the metropolitan cities and regional trade centers of the Great Plains from Canada to Mexico.

Our first clue to the Cornhusker confusion was understandable quibbling over a route for the expressway. Even the citizens of Crawford, Nebraska – which is smack dab in the middle of the route that the expressway probably should take – seem resigned to the fact that the expressway will by-pass them.

By-pass surgery is the least of the problems facing the Heartland Expressway. It appears Governor Dave Heineman and the Department of Roads are about to do a transplant and leave out a few important arteries. Heineman says that instead of a four-lane roadway, portions of the expressway in Nebraska will probably have to be downgraded to a “super two-lane” highway. Say what?

There are those who contend that if the Heartland Expressway were closer to Lincoln and Omaha, it would already be done. I doubt it, but I understand the regional cynicism that permeates the panhandle. Western Nebraska has long been a mere afterthought in Lincoln. State officials point out that the state is sparsely populated, and it may simply not be able to afford to complete the project as planned.

Sparsely populated? Hmmm. Sounds like South Dakota – and yet…

In the nearly five years we’ve lived in Spearfish, we’ve watched the South Dakota portion (SH-79 & US-385)) of the Heartland move ahead without much difficulty or fanfare. It is complete from Rapid City to Hot Springs, and we now observe lots of work taking place between Hot Springs and Oelrichs.

The Chadron Record reports that the Nebraska Departent of Roads has released its construction plans for fiscal year 2010. “The 487 million budget includes $162 million of federal stimulus funds but has little Heartland Expressway work scheduled.”

So if all of this foot dragging concerns you, perhaps you’ll want to be in Gering on Wednesday, August 5th, when government workers from the Federal Highway Administration and the Nebraska Department of Roads conduct a meeting. A department spokesman says they “could” discuss the Heartland Expressway, as well as other area projects.

But don’t plan on attending the meeting. We’re told it’s a closed session.

The Chadron Record and other media report that the August 5th gathering in Gering will be "closed to the public." While officials may hide behind an interpretation of the Nebraska Open Meetings Act that might accommodate a self-serving closed session, it’s hard to imagine that the public will be well served by such a ploy. That meeting should be open to the public.

There is occasionally good reason for closing a meeting of public officials -- but we doubt that this is one of them. Public workers using public funds driven by public policies to complete a public project. But not open to the public?

Perhaps Governor Heineman can give a good reason why he won't attend (he earlier said he would, but then said he had a "scheduling conflict") -- and, more importantly -- why the session will be conducted behind closed doors.

Oahe TV: Pierre depends on it

While attending the 2009 South Dakota State Historical Society History Conference in Pierre last month, I noticed a young man videotaping the various speakers and struck up a conversation with him.

Patrick Callahan is a “one-man show” for Oahe TV, operated by the City of Pierre. It was a serendipitous meeting, since just the evening before – while sequestered in a room at the Kings Inn – I watched a Pierre City Commission meeting on Oahe TV, an “access” channel provided by the cable television franchisee.

What impressed me about the broadcast was its professionalism. This was not a one-camera, high school production (with apologies to high schools and C-SPAN, which can and do produce some outstanding material with a single camera). The City of Pierre contracts with Callahan to run Oahe TV and can be rightfully proud of this service, which provides a close-up view of city government and school board activity in the Pierre and Fort Pierre communities.

Think of it as a local C-SPAN-type service.

Callahan says the city uses part of the cable franchise fee paid by Midcontinent Communications to run Oahe TV. It’s about an $83,000 line item in the city budget, but Oahe TV also contracts out to folks like the State Historical Society convention and other events to help off-set costs.

That’s a small price to pay for the resources delivered by Oahe TV. Not only are their informational programs available on cable television, they’re archived and available on the worldwide web. Take a look at their website at www.oahetv.com. It includes a comprehensive local weather site, too.

From time-to-time, I’ve happened across a “Government Channel” on Knology Cable in Spearfish. I’ve never seen anything but Rapid City meetings televised, and many of those have been poorly produced – bad audio or video, or both. Pierre does it well, and Mayor Laurie Gill says "the community has come to depend on it."

Spearfish Ward 2 councilman Paul Young tells me there's been some discussion about such a service in Spearfish over the years, but nothing has ever come of it. It seems to me it would be a valuable tool in helping make city government more transparent and accessible.

The City of Spearfish is already pretty progressive. It has developed a great City Park, and numerous neighborhood parks provide most neighborhoods with a delightful place to picnic and let the kids play. We’re particularly fond of the five-mile bike/walking path that abuts Spearfish Creek. Perhaps the greatest testament to the wisdom of city fathers in building the path: it is used extensively.

Making city government more accessible and transparent through a service modeled after Oahe TV in Pierre would be another valuable asset for Spearfish. Like the bicycle path, it, too, would be used extensively, and we’d be a better community for it.

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”?

...into the sunshine: SB-147

We were pleasantly surprised Thursday (1/29) to see a new open records measure introduced by State Senator Dave Knudson and a bi-partisan group of legislative leaders. SB-147 emerges with the presumption that public documents should be accessible to the public unless there is ample justification for keeping them confidential.

That's light years ahead of existing law, which basically presumes that records are closed to the public unless specifically identified as "open." There are lots of exceptions in this new measure -- maybe too many -- but it's a big step in the right direction for South Dakota.

Congratulations to Senators Knudson, Heidepriem, Rhoden, Turbak Berry, and several other legislators in both the Senate and House for stepping forward with this important piece of legislation.

Take a look at SB-147.

I think the legislature will pass this bill -- or some form of it -- this session. But don't expect the Governor to sign it with a smile, if he signs it at all.

With the fiscal crisis enveloping state government, this will likely be one of a handful of "non-fiscal" topics to get much attention. We look forward to watching the story evolve.

Resolutions

Lorraine Collins has a wonderful way with words -- and her approach to resolutions for the new year seems right on target. We've often opined on open government, and we were delighted to see her suggest improving open government as a reasonable resolution for the 2009 South Dakota Legislature. Here is her column penned for the Black Hills Pioneer:

More than once, I’ve pointed out that January is no time to be making resolutions. Resolutions should be made in the spring of the year when everything seems possible, or perhaps in the autumn, when everything seems necessary. Except for this arbitrary calendar, why do we believe that January begins a New Year and therefore requires New Years resolutions? Some time ago, March was considered the beginning of the New Year. That was in the Gregorian calendar, so I’ve often tried to defend my lack of making resolutions in January by saying, “Well, I still go by the Gregorian Calendar. I’ll get around to this in March.”

This does not necessarily convince anybody, but it gives me an excuse for not suddenly, in the dark of winter, trying to think about reforming myself. However, since the South Dakota Legislature meets in January, I guess they cannot wait until March to think about what they should do to improve their previous performance. So I’ve been thinking about what resolutions the South Dakota Legislature should have.

When making resolutions it’s best to be realistic, not choosing a goal that is clearly going to be unattainable. That just leads to early discouragement and abandonment of the effort. So our legislators should not dream of accomplishing something like making our state rank number one in state support for public education. But how about some more modest goal, like attaining the rank of 47th? That would be an improvement over our present ranking of 50th and it would demonstrate that we’re embarrassed by our current status and are serious about trying to improve ourselves. We might make it only to 48th, but we’d have taken that first step and could feel we were on the right road.

If tackling such a difficult subject as improving state support for education seems too daunting, the legislature could try something else, like improving some other area in which our state ranks last. How about improving our status regarding open government? According to the Better Government Association, we rank at the bottom there, too.

The BGA ranked states on matters such as laws pertaining to freedom of information, whistleblower protection, campaign finance, open meetings and disclosure of conflict of interest by lawmakers. If a state got a 100% rating in each of these five areas, it would be rated at 500%. South Dakota achieved just 162%. In terms of freedom of information, we actually got a zero. Our highest rating was in laws relating to disclosure of conflicts of interest where we climbed up to 42nd place.

What excuse do we have for being the most secretive state in the union? We do seem to have a penchant for secrecy, I admit. I was surprised to learn recently that state law keeps secret the names of people who hold video lottery licenses. I suppose that 20 years ago when the state video lottery program was started, there may have been some concern about protecting license holders from gambling opponents, though I don’t know why. We don’t hide the owners of liquor licenses because some people are opposed to alcohol. If there ever was any kind of justification for secrecy regarding video lottery, it certainly wouldn’t seem to exist now. And a business that apparently generates over 200 million dollars a year shouldn’t have a lot of secrecy, should it?

I’ll stop my list of recommended resolutions for our state legislators with just these two: get us off the bottom of the list in education funding and in having open and transparent government. That may provide challenge, but if legislators have open minds and stout hearts, I think they can do it.

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

South Dakota..."failed miserably"

Good friend Bill Kunerth delivered the bad news, which we somehow had managed to avoid for several weeks: South Dakota has again failed miserably in a national survey conducted by the Better Government Association. One of our continuing disappointments is the fact that, in general, South Dakota politicians place little value on open government, and this fact has come home to roost in this report. South Dakota ranks dead last among all 50 states in the 2008 BGA study, which included extensive examination of five critical areas:

Freedom of Information (FOI) Laws
Whistleblower Protection Laws
Campaign Finance Laws
Open Meetings Laws
Conflict of Interest Laws

~

Here’s an excerpt from their report:

Overall, the BGA - Alper Integrity Index reveals that states have taken a patchwork approach towards promoting integrity which indicates a lack of the proper amount of concern regarding integrity and corruption. The BGA hopes that this study will help spark a renewed focus and debate on these issues in all the states and ultimately lead to the improvement of the laws we reviewed...

The top five states in our survey were New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Washington and Louisiana. The bottom five states were Montana, Tennessee, Alabama, Vermont and South Dakota. The top five states tended to do well relative to their sister states across all the laws while the bottom five under-performed or failed miserably across all the laws we reviewed.

You can find all the gruesome details on-line at BGA-Alper Integrity Index.

We don’t believe there’s widespread corruption in South Dakota government, but it would be naïve to think it doesn’t exist. What should alarm citizens is the fact that conditions exist that readily foster corruption and malfeasance. The BGA study was “conceived as a tool to describe the extent to which each state has protected itself against possible corruption and made its processes open and accountable to its citizens.”

South Dakota has so much about which it can be proud. Open government is not one of them. With a lot of encouragement from interested citizens, perhaps the 2009 legislature will move aggressively to turn this around. There’s no better place to start than by revisiting Senator Nancy Turbak Berry's open records bill that was scuttled by legislative leaders last year.

Who failed?

We were pleased to see the Rapid City Journal, which still seems to be struggling to find its niche in the expanding media marketplace, opine strongly against a closed meeting conducted by a “Finance Review Committee” of the Rapid City School District.

With all the changes at the Journal over the past 36 months, it’s good to see them sticking to their editorial guns when it comes to open meetings.

And then there’s the school district.

According to the Journal, a group of local leaders was selected by the school district to review district financial affairs and make recommendations to the board. That’s a smart proactive thing to be doing in these tough economic times. Dave Janak, budget manager for the district, is reportedly consulting with the committee and is quoted as saying that the committee is “an arm of our office.” Our hats off to these business folks taking time to help the school district.

We’ve often noted that it’s a whole heck of a lot easier to do business outside the view of the media and the public. But it’s dangerous for the institutions to work with that mindset – and even more dangerous for the public. That’s why we have open meetings laws. There are ample provisions for conducting closed meetings -- personnel, legal, and other sensitive topics – but invoking them should be rare.

Most troubling are the remarks by Superintendent Peter Wharton, indirectly quoted in the Rapid City Journal, that he has no say in whether the public is allowed into the meetings. It sounds to me like he may have shortchanged the committee on guidance regarding their work and how to accomplish it legally.

And committee chairman Dennis Popp says the group isn’t elected and doesn’t represent anybody. Usually, school superintendents and chiefs of police aren’t elected either, but they’re required to do the public’s business….in public!

A retired school superintendent friend of mine said it best when I asked him how many folks would likely attend a public meeting of a financial review committee: “Nobody.”

By closing the meetings, the district and the committee have caused us to wonder why.

The Journal quotes Popp as saying “we don’t feel it would be fair to give the recommendations to the media before the board.”

Mr. Popp should understand that the “media” are something of a surrogate for the public, and this is not an issue of fairness to the board. It’s about the law and conducting business within the healthy view of the citizens served by the school district.

The public wins with C-SPAN

I have been a fan of C-SPAN for many years, and I’ve always appreciated their even-handedness in programming. For nearly 30 years, their coverage of Congress and other entities has been superb, offering the American public an opportunity to observe government in action, without editing or commentary. It’s a function that I long felt public broadcasting could and should have served – an unfettered purveyor of high quality public affairs programming focusing on government.

Perhaps such a role for public broadcasting was a bit optimistic, recognizing that a substantial amount of its funding comes from federal and state governments, allowing it to be a whipping boy when things go awry “at the Capitol.” Nonetheless, I wish I had pushed even harder for such a role for public broadcasting during my earlier years in public broadcasting. I proposed such a service several times to the Mississippi legislature -- probably not the ideal venue for such a state service.

C-SPAN was created in 1979 by the U.S. cable television industry and was, I believe, largely the brain-child of Brian Lamb. It was a stroke of genius at just the right time. In these days of heightened media bias – and it does exist – it’s refreshing to find a broadcast service that strives for objectivity and fairness. And their nearly 300 employees usually get it right. According to their website, about 30 million viewers tune in to C-SPAN every week.

When Karen and I retired and took to the road a few years ago, the availability of C-SPAN Radio was a key factor in our subscribing to XM satellite radio, and it was a good investment.

C-SPAN isn’t for everyone, but I find myself mesmerized by the gavel-to-gavel coverage of much floor and committee action in both the U.S. House of Representative and the U.S. Senate. It’s a wonderful insight into the public machinations of our government, albeit sometimes a bit unnerving.

Will Rogers would likely say it’s a pretty good way to keep an eye on the hired help.

Think globally -- act locally!

The United States is in the middle of an eroding economy – a financial crisis the likes of which we’ve not seen in three-quarters of a century. There’s been something of a national debate about a $700 billion federal bailout to save the economy (really to save the big banks and financial institutions – with only “trickle down” benefits to taxpayers, who will foot the bill). Actually, there’s been no real debate about this at all. Not even the presidential candidates have dared candor, assuming they have original thoughts on how to help resolve the crisis. There’s been no public hearing. Nothing. Nada. We’re expected to “trust” the guys who got us in to this mess to get us out.

Indifference, ignorance, and – make no mistake about it – backroom deals with little or no public scrutiny – have led us to this dire point.

As we wring our hands and worry about what will happen next, it’s time to clean house and start rebuilding confidence in government, and we should start locally. We’re within weeks of casting ballots for people and issues that will directly impact our daily lives.

That’s why I’m supporting Nyla Griffith of Deadwood to represent District 31 in the South Dakota State Senate. Her record as a small business owner, service on the Deadwood City Commission, and her many contributions to civic activities have convinced me that she is a smart choice to succeed Jerry Apa in the Senate. Nyla has declared an unswerving commitment to open government. For me, that’s a clincher.

Unless and until we have truly open government, we’re likely to condemn ourselves to the arrogance that many elected officials fall victim to after gaining office. Accountability is the key, and it comes only to the extent that we insist on knowing what our government is up to and what it's doing.

That’s as true in Deadwood and Spearfish as it is in Pierre and Washington, D.C.

A life-long South Dakotan, Nyla Griffith has taken to the streets, going door-to-door in the district, in an effort to garner support for her candidacy. Last I heard, she’d passed the 3,000 mark and is still meeting with would-be constituents at their front doors. That kind of populist campaigning is hard work, but it reflects a real commitment that I believe will serve this area well in the state legislature.

And her commitment to open government is like a breath of fresh air. I’m proud to give my support to Nyla, and I hope others will take a look at her background – and her priorities – and vote for Nyla Griffith on November 4th.

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...

What happened in St. Paul?

Watching helmeted police officers wield batons outside the Republican National Convention in St. Paul was a little disconcerting. Nonetheless, knowing that there would likely be thousands of demonstrators ranging from curious idealists to seasoned agitators, it’s not surprising that local authorities wanted to make sure that the demonstrations didn’t get out of hand.

In retrospect, it appears they did a pretty good job, despite the severe criticisms leveled by advocacy journalist Amy Goodman and a handful of others, including Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver. Goodman and two of her colleagues at Democracy Now! were among the reporters covering demonstrations in the streets of St. Paul when they were hauled off with demonstrators during an altercation. They were given citations and then released. They've not yet been charged with anything.

Journalists should be free to practice their craft. They shouldn’t be harassed. But despite their press credentials, they shouldn’t be treated any differently than the rest of us. If they choose to imbed themselves in a crowd of demonstrators, they must know they run the risk of being caught in a mess, if a disturbance occurs. If police tell demonstrators – or journalists – not to cross a line, it’s prudent to heed their directive. Apparently, Democracy Now! anchor Amy Goodman felt she should be given celebrity treatment.

Almost immediately, Free Press mobilized an e-mail campaign, asking tens of thousands of people to sign a petition demanding that all charges against all journalists be dropped. They delivered that blanket petition to St. Paul City Attorney John Choi. It was during a classic television ambush of Choi that the overblown egos of a few attending journalists were revealed.

Dennis Moynihan of Free Speech TV unabashedly asked Choi, “couldn't you, with your power, waive or dismiss those charges right here on the spot with all these cameras here? Don’t you have the power…in recognition of the 50,000 people who’ve seen the arrest video?”

Choi didn’t miss a heartbeat in responding.

“Sure, I have the power, but let me tell you why that would be the wrong decision. When you make decisions about prosecution and justice, you shouldn’t do it because a lot of people have cameras in your face and want you to make a decision on a whim. In my opinion, justice requires that we review the cases carefully and seriously, and then make the right decision.”

Amen. And good for John Choi for standing up to the intimidating media folks who invaded his office. We trust, however, that there will be a serious investigation into exactly what did happen in the streets of St. Paul, and to what degree -- if any -- police might have overstepped their authority. That would be an even finer moment for Mr. Choi.

I admire some of Amy Goodman's work. And freepress does a good job in battling media consolidation. We applaud them for those efforts. But better they continue that fight than whimsically interceding on behalf of advocacy journalists who care less about objectivity than creating headlines.

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!

Earmarks Top Ten! - Oink Oink!

The end justifies the means. As long as we go home with the bacon.

That seems to be the stance taken by our South Dakota congressional delegation to criticism that South Dakota ranks in the top 10 states for receiving federal earmarks. The rankings are the handiwork of the Citizens Against Government Waste, which annually identifies political pork in their “Congressional Pig Book.” It's worth reading.

Senators John Thune and Tim Johnson along with Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wasted no time in defending earmarks. The Rapid City Journal this morning (4/3/08) said Herseth Sandlin agreed with her counterparts in the Senate that earmarks pay for “essentials,” not waste, in South Dakota.

It is apparently lost on Herseth Sandlin and our Senators that it’s not the projects that are funded to which many of us necessarily object, it’s HOW they’re chosen and funded. Like it or not, earmarks are outside an appropriate budgetary process. Simply put, earmarks are bad public policy.

If earmarks are the only way South Dakota and other states can obtain legitimate federal funding for “essentials,” we are, indeed, in deep political do-do. And, unfortunately, members of Congress will never apologize for “bringing home the bacon,” much less change the way they do the public's business.

They’ve not yet discovered that it’s tainted and stinks to high heaven.

Earmarks often are the means of political pay-offs, favoritism, and good-ol'-boy backroom deals. Those with seniority are most adept at obtaining earmarks, thus adding clout to the notion that the only way South Dakota (and other states) can get their “fair share” of federal funding is by continuing to re-elect incumbents to deliver the goods.

In short, we are slipping even further down the slopes of good government. We become less a nation of laws and more a nation of men (with apologies to Rep. Herseth Sandlin, because she’s deservedly a part of the club.)

We may not be able to alter the ban on federal term limits, but this sad situation points to the need for it – and an obvious need to overhaul the budgeting process in Washington, D.C.

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.