Off to a slow start: 2012 SD Legislature

Last week journalist Bob Mercer expressed slight frustration in a post titled; Is This Why We Have A Legislature?

The state House of Representatives this afternoon had only one item on its Friday calendar of business. That was a commemoration recognizing the Yellowboy rifle, a .44-caliber lever-action made by Winchester after the Civil War. The connection was the supposition that “nearly one-half of the people in South Dakota” carried the rifle in the years leading up to statehood. Like nearly all commemorations, the House didn’t bother to discuss it. The House spent 19 minutes in session before adjourning for the day. The Senate started late, allowing this scribe to hear two opening prayers and say the Pledge of Allegiance twice on the same afternoon. The Senate deferred all of its business calendar to Thursday, Jan. 19. The Senate spent 10 minutes in session before adjourning at 1 p.m.

Today the Watertown Public Opinion was singing the same tune: Should Legislative Sessions be Shortened?  This session was already abbreviated from 40 down to 35 days and with the Janklow funeral we are now down to 33. So, the Watertown Public Opinion is wondering…

Do we really need a 35-day session every year? Does the cost justify the return? We realize like in any business - and don't kid yourself, government is a business - there are busy days and down days. But every year it seems like there are more than a few days where the Legislature has little or nothing on its agenda to productively occupy its time. Maybe it's time to look at ways to modify the session. Instead of having 35-day sessions, why not look at lowering them to 25 or 30 days with an option of extending them by "x" number of days if warranted. Or perhaps we could take a cue from our neighbor Nebraska, where the Legislature meets every two years instead of every one.

Lots of chatter these days about how wonderful it would be if we had "part-time congresses" and legislatures that met every other year. We heard it again from Rick Perry in the South Carolina GOP debate last night: a part-time Congress. Would a "part-time congress" ensure that only the old, white and wealthy demographic could serve? South Dakota lawmakers are part-part-part time. I'm discovering only the retired can really fully meet the demands back in their districts and in Pierre. As it is, part-time legislators serve alongside full-time lobbyists, lawyers, department heads and all the rest have staff to help them. Yet the legislator is the one portrayed as inept as we are the ones who are public. Not complaining, just saying.

Here's the comment I left at the Watertown Public Opinion article.

No, [the SD legislative session] shouldn't be shortened. This article and Mercer's gives the impression we are just sitting on our hands these early days of session as there is nothing to debate on the floor the first week. Reality is, there was little idle time last week as we were getting bills ready, pitching them to colleagues seeking co-sponsors, meetings with lobbyists to understand what matters will be on the table, etc, etc. It takes a few days to get other legislators to sign on, and a few more to get the bills through a committee and that means not much is happening early on in terms of floor debates. I'd think most legislators were surprised we shut down for two entire days for the funeral and that those days weren't added on to the end of session. (Would Janklow have canceled session for two days? Maybe so. Or maybe he'd have made us go late into the night.) It'll be crunch time these remaining days as we wade through 500 or so bills in thirty days or less. There are enormous issues to sort out and though it sounds wonderful to talk about "part-time congresses" and legislatures that meet every other year, the public is better served with more time not less.

It's the calm before the storm in the SD Legislature right now. Surely you have a thought.  Share it with me.