The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Pastor Howard Grinager, followed by the Pledge
of Allegiance led by Senate page Alexandra Alspach.
Roll Call: All members present except Sen. Maher who was excused.
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Secretary of the
Senate has had under consideration the Senate Journal of the thirty-seventh day.
All errors, typographical or otherwise, are duly marked in the temporary journal for
correction.
And we hereby move the adoption of the report.
The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
President of the Senate
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I return herewith Senate Bill 102 and VETO the same. Senate Bill 102 is An Act to modify and
continue the lease agreement on the Black Hills Playhouse.
I veto SB 102 first because it violates Article III, Section 23, of the South Dakota Constitution
which prohibits enactment of any special or private law. SB 102 unquestionably operates solely
to extend the lease franchise of one individual leaseholder. It unquestionably operates to alter
legal rights and obligations arising under solely one contract. It unquestionably cannot apply
to any other situation. The act is therefore unconstitutional and I veto it for that reason.
I secondly veto SB 102, because, as a matter of public policy, I think it is improper to intervene
legislatively in a matter of pending litigation. The Black Hills Playhouse initiated litigation to
interpret and enforce certain elements of the existing lease; the state has asserted issues as
counterclaims. That matter is currently pending before the trial court. I do not think the
legislature should intervene to alter or determine the rights of parties to pending litigation and,
therefore, veto SB 102 for this reason as well.
Finally, the Act attempts to impose conditions on the Black Hills Playhouse that the State has
consistently requested and the Black Hills Playhouse has failed to comply with. Many of the
buildings on site have life and safety code violations which must be corrected before they can
be occupied. Those violations have developed over time and have not been addressed by the
Playhouse. Similarly, the act seeks to impose a requirement that the Playhouse develop a fund
for infrastructure needs. The state has requested that the Playhouse provide adequate funds for
infrastructure repeatedly and that request has not been complied with. The conditions imposed
by SB 102 have been requested and not accepted by the Black Hills Playhouse. In short, SB 102
may well result in no actual change of circumstances for the operation of the Playhouse unless
the Playhouse steps forward financially to meet its obligations.
Therefore, for these reasons, I respectfully request that you concur with my action and sustain
my veto.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
Governor
The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
President of the Senate
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I herewith return Senate Bill 121 and VETO the same.
Senate Bill 121 is entitled, "An Act to require the Department of Education to promote certain
programs for children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing."
Senate Bill 121 requires the Department of Education to establish and implement a program and
policy which promotes the education of children who are deaf and hard-of hearing. The
program and policy shall be disseminated to all school districts and other local education
agencies. Further, the program and policy require school districts to implement many specific
instructional methods that are already required by federal law or extend beyond federal law. The
bill is simultaneously redundant and restrictive.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act requires a student's individual
education program team to "consider the communication needs of the child and in the case of
a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs,
opportunities for direct communication with peers and professional personnel in the child's
language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including
opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode." The
federal requirement has the same intent as sections 1 and 2 in the bill. Additional federal
regulations mirror sections 6, 7, and 8 of the bill.
However, sections 3 and 4 of the bill exceed federal expectations. Section 3 calls for virtually
all personnel working with children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing to be specifically trained
to work with those children and their special education teachers or interpreters are required to
be proficient in the primary language mode of those children. While schools recognize the
importance of disability related training and information for teachers, it would be very difficult,
for example, to make certain a special educator was proficient in American Sign Language, if
that was the child's primary language mode. Section 4 of the bill calls for school districts to
make certain that children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing "have an education with a sufficient
number of language mode peers who are of the same or approximately the same age and ability
level and with whom the children can communicate directly, or as appropriate through the use
of qualified interpreters." This is just not possible in our rural districts and, I believe, even our
larger school districts would struggle with this requirement.
The South Dakota Constitution places the obligation for many of the bill's requirements on the Board of Regents. The Regents also have the resources to carry out their obligations. The
Department of Education does not have the resources to establish and implement a program
without additional FTE and funding.
The bill language is very broad and thus subject to different interpretation. The Department of
Education must establish a program and policy. The department must make sure school districts
understand and implement all of the bill's provisions. The bill sponsors believe it is necessary
to "raise awareness" or to "continue the conversation." However, the bill language states
otherwise. School districts and the department will be in a vulnerable position if challenged in
the implementation.
The Department of Education, Board of Regents, and advocates for deaf and hard-of-hearing
children are currently working together to revise the interagency agreement and craft a transition
plan for the South Dakota School for the Deaf. Both entities have been very open with the deaf
community and are seeking input from that group. Please allow this process to work prior to
passing Senate Bill 121. The bill has a delayed implementation date. If, following the work of
the Department of Education, the Board of Regents, and the deaf community, we find that
legislation is still necessary, that remains an option. I believe the bill is well intended. I also
believe we can accomplish the goals of the sponsors without the bill.
Therefore, I respectfully request you concur with my action. If the South Dakota Legislature
sustains my veto, the Department of Education and the Board of Regents will work to
accomplish the bill's goals while not mandating an undue burden on local schools.
Respectfully yours,
M. Michael Rounds
Governor
The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
President of the Senate
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I return herewith Senate Bill 169 and VETO the same. Senate Bill 169 is An Act to limit the
subrogation of certain insurers unless and until the insured is made whole.
I agree with the sponsors of SB 169 that the current system in South Dakota which allows insurers to recover their subrogation interest ahead of any recovery by an injured party is inequitable and should be changed. I veto SB 169, because, I believe, it swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. I think, a compromise which moves injured parties to the front of the line, while not placing the subrogation interests of insurers entirely at the end of the line, is the appropriate policy balance which should be struck.
I believe, a change in this area is appropriate, but must contain more compromise than SB 169
does. I would support an effort by the State Bar to work on a proposal over the interim to
present next Session. I think such a proposal should consider limiting the types of damages that
must be fully satisfied as "made whole" prior to a subrogation interest being recovered, some
rebuttable presumption that settlements within insurance policy limits leave an injured party
"made whole," or some type of proportionate recovery system. While I am skeptical of
arguments that SB 169 will result in a drastic increase in insurance premiums, I do have a
concern that the total reversal of policy in SB 169 will just trade one imbalance for another.
Injured parties should not remain strictly at the back of the line, but I do not think the order of
the line should simply be reversed.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully request that you concur with my action
and sustain my veto.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
Governor
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that on March 23, 2010, I approved Senate Bills 2, 64, 65,
66, and 69, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that on March 24, 2010, I approved Senate Bills 49, 62, 80,
81, 88, 97, 98, 100, 103, 105, 108, 114, 115, 125, 134, 139, 148, 149, 155, 156, 168, and 184,
and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that on March 25, 2010, I approved Senate Bills 78, 172,
188, and 195, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that on March 26, 2010, I approved Senate Bills 12, 21, 22,
58, 67, 75, 104, 106, and 141, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary
of State.
Which motion prevailed and the President announced as such committee Sens. Knudson,
Dempster, and Heidepriem.
Which motion prevailed and the President announced as such committee Sens. Knudson,
Dempster, and Heidepriem.
Sen. Knudson moved that the Senate do now recess until 10:30 a.m., which motion
prevailed and at 10:08 a.m., the Senate recessed.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 102 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 680 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article
IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall SB 102 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 27, Nays 6, Excused 2, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Ahlers; Bartling; Bradford; Dempster; Fryslie; Gant; Garnos; Gillespie;
Gray; Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary); Haverly; Heidepriem; Howie; Hunhoff (Jean); Jerstad;
Kloucek; Knudson; Merchant; Miles; Nesselhuf; Peterson; Schmidt; Turbak Berry; Vehle
Nays:
Brown; Nelson; Novstrup (Al); Olson (Russell); Rhoden; Tieszen
Excused:
Hundstad; Maher
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 121 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message found on page 681 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 30, Nays 4, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Ahlers; Bartling; Bradford; Brown; Dempster; Fryslie; Gant; Garnos; Gillespie;
Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary); Haverly; Heidepriem; Howie; Hundstad; Hunhoff (Jean);
Jerstad; Kloucek; Knudson; Merchant; Miles; Nesselhuf; Olson (Russell); Peterson; Rhoden;
Schmidt; Tieszen; Turbak Berry; Vehle
Nays:
Adelstein; Gray; Nelson; Novstrup (Al)
Excused:
Maher
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 169 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 682 of the Senate Journal as provided in Article
IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall SB 169 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 21, Nays 13, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Ahlers; Bartling; Bradford; Dempster; Gillespie; Hanson (Gary);
Heidepriem; Howie; Hundstad; Jerstad; Kloucek; Merchant; Miles; Nelson; Nesselhuf;
Peterson; Rhoden; Schmidt; Turbak Berry
Nays:
Brown; Fryslie; Gant; Garnos; Gray; Hansen (Tom); Haverly; Hunhoff (Jean); Knudson;
Novstrup (Al); Olson (Russell); Tieszen; Vehle
Excused:
Maher
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
MR. PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Rave,
Faehn, and Bernie Hunhoff as a committee of three on the part of the House to meet with a like
committee on the part of the Senate pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the
Eighty-fifth Legislative Session.
Also MR. PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Rave,
Faehn, and Bernie Hunhoff as a committee of three on the part of the House to meet with a like
committee on the part of the Senate to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to inform him
that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to ascertain if he
has any further communications to make to the Legislature.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has passed HB 1240 over
the veto of the Governor. The veto message of the Governor is found on page 861 of the House
Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in passing HB 1240, the veto of the
Governor notwithstanding.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has passed HB 1060 over
the veto of the Governor. The veto message of the Governor is found on page 862 of the House
Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in passing HB 1060, the veto of the
Governor notwithstanding.
Sen. Howie moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving
first reading to, dispensing with committee referral, and immediate consideration of a bill
relating to the federal health care laws.
The question being on Sen. Howie's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole
purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with committee referral, and
immediate consideration of a bill relating to the federal health care laws.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 14, Nays 20, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Brown; Gant; Garnos; Gray; Haverly; Howie; Nelson; Novstrup (Al);
Olson (Russell); Rhoden; Schmidt; Tieszen
Nays:
Ahlers; Bartling; Bradford; Dempster; Fryslie; Gillespie; Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary);
Heidepriem; Hundstad; Hunhoff (Jean); Jerstad; Kloucek; Knudson; Merchant; Miles;
Nesselhuf; Peterson; Turbak Berry; Vehle
Excused:
Maher
So the motion not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the President declared the motion lost.
Sen. Knudson moved that the Senate do now recess until 1:30 p.m., which motion
prevailed and at 11:30 a.m., the Senate recessed.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1060 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 862 of the House Journal as provided in Article
IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall HB 1060 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
Yeas 33, Nays 0, Excused 2, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Bartling; Bradford; Brown; Dempster; Fryslie; Gant; Garnos; Gillespie;
Gray; Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary); Haverly; Heidepriem; Howie; Hundstad; Hunhoff (Jean);
Jerstad; Kloucek; Knudson; Merchant; Miles; Nelson; Nesselhuf; Novstrup (Al); Olson
(Russell); Peterson; Rhoden; Schmidt; Tieszen; Turbak Berry; Vehle
Excused:
Ahlers; Maher
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1240 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 861 of the House Journal as provided in Article
IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall HB 1240 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 31, Nays 2, Excused 2, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Adelstein; Bartling; Bradford; Brown; Dempster; Fryslie; Gant; Garnos; Gillespie;
Gray; Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary); Heidepriem; Howie; Hundstad; Hunhoff (Jean); Jerstad;
Kloucek; Knudson; Merchant; Miles; Nelson; Nesselhuf; Novstrup (Al); Olson (Russell);
Peterson; Rhoden; Tieszen; Turbak Berry; Vehle
Nays:
Haverly; Schmidt
Excused:
Ahlers; Maher
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding.