The House convened at 9:00 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, the Speaker presiding.
The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Pastor Kent Atkinson, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance led by House page Amy Duxbury.
Roll Call: All members present except Rep. Davis who was excused.
March 20, 1997
March 21, 1997
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1055 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and
FORM.
House Bill 1055 repeals the early presidential primary in South Dakota.
In section 6 of the bill as passed, amending SDCL 12-6-4, lines 11 and 12, the words “, other
than a presidential election,” were stricken. Only in presidential elections do we cast ballots for
electors who represent the presidential candidate on the ballot without being nominated by a
petition or convention. The stricken language allows an exception to our state election practice
which requires a petition or convention nomination and allows the placing of electors names on
the presidential primary election ballot by a process other than a petition or convention.
The overstrikes as described above should be removed.
Once the above-described changes have been made, House Bill 1055 will be acceptable to this
office.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1084 and VETO the same.
I have met with representatives of the South Dakota Association of Towns and Townships, and I support them in their claim that the speed limit should be set at different speeds on township roads. Many township roads do not meet the design and construction and maintenance criteria of county highways. They are built to a lesser standard; they can take less pounding and are more inherently dangerous. However, this bill as passed is more confusing.
This language creates confusion in the law and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine
the intent of the Legislature.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1102 and VETO the same.
House Bill 1102 is entitled, An Act to authorize additional off-sale retail liquor licenses in
certain municipalities of the first class.
Currently, a package liquor license holder can only have three licenses statewide. As passed,
House Bill 1102 allows an unlimited number of additional licenses to those license holders. The
intent is to allow a store owner to add additional outlets in cities where they already have outlets
and to expand to new sites in larger communities of the state. In order to accomplish this, the
drafters crafted the bill to limit its effect to communities with a population in excess of ten
thousand people, roughly the eight largest cities in the state.
As written, this bill allows grocery store or convenience store chains to sell liquor in multiple
grocery stores or convenience stores within any community of more than ten thousand people.
The ultimate effect of this bill would be to put a liquor store in many more grocery stores than
current law allows today.
Two years ago, I vetoed a similar bill which provided for a license holder to hold three additional licenses in a single community. This bill goes further still. It would allow an unlimited number of additional off-sale licenses in every city of 10,000 and over. If six licenses was bad policy in 1995, then unlimited licenses is extremely bad policy in 1997.
The logical next step for the Legislature is to mandate there be no limit on the number of liquor
licenses in a community, thus allowing anybody to sell alcohol products. All this bill does is
reward the large operator at the expense of the small operator.
Additionally, this bill will make liquor more readily available in South Dakota's largest
communities. In Sioux Falls alone, there are over 35 off-sale retail liquor licenses available
today. There are also more than a dozen off-sale liquor licenses available in Rapid City. Many
of those licenses will be snatched up by the owners of grocery stores and convenience stores
currently subject to the three-liquor-license cap. The predictable outcome is that many more
retail businesses will also sell liquor.
This needs to be a concern for the Legislature as well as local law enforcement officials. The
more outlets which sell liquor, the greater the opportunity for liquor falling into the hands of
underage citizens. The very nature of large chain grocery stores and convenience stores, and
their hours of operation, frequently 24-hours a day, provide far greater access to liquor in a
much less controlled environment than found in package liquor stores.
Recent statistics from the State of Nebraska on sting operations in the Omaha area revealed that
grocery stores and convenience stores are three times as likely to sell to underage citizens as
package liquor stores. Over a four-month period, nearly one out of every three grocery stores
or convenience stores sold to underage citizens, compared to only one in ten package liquor
stores. Those are alarming statistics.
The South Dakota Highway Safety Office recently completed two months of compliance testing
at 300 alcohol establishments throughout the state. The testing found that in 98 cases, underage
citizens were able to make purchases. This is equally alarming.
There are genuine problems in this state with underage consumption. Legislators need only
look back to the first week of the Legislative session when four Yankton area teenagers were
killed in a two vehicle accident just east of the city. Alcohol was a contributing factor. Yankton
County Sheriff Dave Hunhoff's investigation revealed, "Two of the deceased youth had earlier
shoplifted two bottles of liquor from a Yankton grocery store."
While the drafters of this legislation have attempted to "beef" this bill up with token language
on "barriers" between the liquor and other parts of the store, they have failed to take the issue
seriously.
Second, the issue of barriers between liquor and other retail items does not even begin to
approach the language which both previous Legislatures and the current Legislature have
adopted relative to barriers.
Access to video lottery machines has been highly restricted by previous Legislative bodies.
Barriers from floor to ceiling are required, and constant monitoring by employees, video
cameras or mirrors are required. No such requirement exists for liquor products.
This same Legislature made tobacco products more difficult to obtain when it adopted HB 1182,
with only 15 dissenting votes. HB 1182 eliminated many locations where cigarette vending
machines can be located. Additionally, federal requirements mandate that anyone who appears
to be under age 26 be carded prior to purchasing tobacco products.
I cannot think of a single occurrence when a video lottery machine or a pack of cigarettes has
been a contributing factor in a fatal traffic accident, yet we have far more restricted access to
these items than we do to liquor. Liquor continues to be available and accessible to the public
in the same aisle where you find dairy products. Under this bill, liquor will be increasingly
available at more outlets with only token efforts to restrict access.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1138 and VETO the same.
House Bill 1138 is entitled, An Act to provide for a graduated driver's licensing system.
As written, this bill would establish a step system for young drivers under the age of 16, rewarding good drivers and restricting the driving ability of young drivers who have traffic violations or alcohol-related offenses. Conceptually, this step system has great merit, but for all of the positive aspects of this concept, the implementation is clouded with questions and difficulty of administration.
The difficulty in administration does not fall exclusively on the Executive Branch of state
government. It also falls on local law enforcement officials, the Judicial Branch of state
government and the Clerks of Courts offices throughout the state. The bill would also create
a number of inconsistencies and conflicts in state law which will serve to muddy the water more
than clear it.
Implementation of this bill will necessarily start with the Driver's Licensing Exam Stations
around the state. The 22 county offices which operate satellite offices throughout the state have
no way of knowing which individuals can qualify for these minor permits at the time of
application. Currently, those offices do not have the ability to check drivers' license records.
To correct this, the Department of Commerce and Regulation would incur significant
programming and accessing expenses.
Under this bill, exam stations will become inundated with 15- and 16-year old drivers applying
for license upgrades. Current law provides for automatic upgrade to full licensure at 16, but this
bill requires a new application for each step in the system. It also requires an additional
application fee.
Once implemented, a completely different process must be put in place to monitor drivers age
14 and age 15, as the conditions under which they are permitted to operate a motor vehicle vary.
Local law enforcement will immediately be impacted. Officers will be asked to distinguish
between 14- and 15-year old drivers, and the time of the day they are permitted to drive, since
15-year-old drivers may be able to operate a vehicle for an additional hour--provided they have
not received a moving violation during the past six months. This means each stop must include
computer checks.
In order to determine whether a particular driver, age 15, can legally be driving at 7:30 p.m., law
enforcement officers will also have to have immediate access to the drivers' license records. Or,
in the alternative, the department will have to develop a method of recalling restricted minor
permits from individuals who have traffic violations and reissuing or otherwise identifying the
permit showing the appropriate limitations. Both the cost and the logistics of this process
boggle the mind.
In creating a graduated licensing system, the Legislature has also created a graduated violation
system for restricting those same privileges.
Under current law, any moving violation or violation of the conditions of a restricted permit
automatically triggers a 30-day suspension of the permit. A second violation results in the
department revoking the permit until the individual's sixteenth birthday or 90 days, whichever
is longer.
A minor permit holder (15 years old) is given greater latitude on his first traffic violation,
because it must be either reckless driving or exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 miles
per hour. No other traffic violation is considered, such as careless driving, exhibition driving,
over driving road conditions, racing on the highway, failure to yield, illegal turning, and so
forth, many of which can be, and frequently are, far more dangerous than exceeding the speed
limit by more than 20 miles per hour.
The establishment of the 20-miles-per-hour threshold is also arbitrary and does not take into
consideration a person exceeding the speed limit by 12 miles per hour on glaze ice versus a
person driving down the interstate 21 miles over the limit. The proposed bill also eliminates
the language regarding a violation of the condition of the minor permit. I am troubled about the
elimination of this provision for both the restricted minor permit and the minor permit.
Ironically, suspensions of 90 days and one year are identified for holders of minor permits for
second, third and subsequent offenses of reckless driving or driving more than 20 miles per hour
over the speed limit, while no corresponding step system exists for the restricted minor permit.
Theoretically, a 14-year-old driver could have a traffic violation for reckless driving, lose his
permit for 90 days, receive a second traffic violation for reckless driving, lose his permit for
another 90 days, and receive a third violation for reckless driving, yet only lose his permit for
an additional 90 days. A minor permit holder would lose his privileges for one year. This
makes absolutely no sense.
The bill fails from a consistency standpoint. Some drivers will be treated harsher than others
for the same violation. In some cases, reckless driving violations may be penalized more
severely than in others. In other cases, minor speeding tickets may keep some from achieving
full licensure before age 18, while others with two reckless driving convictions enjoy full
licensure.
Next, every Clerk of Courts across the state will be affected by this bill. In order to administer
and enforce this Act effectively, each Clerk of Courts will be required to establish a policy for
notifying the department of traffic violations for individuals with restricted minor permits, for
selected violations for reckless driving convictions, and for convictions for driving more than
20 miles per hour over the speed limit for individuals with minor permits. I dare say, the Clerks
of Courts have better things to do than sort through the various violations.
Section 3 of the bill which outlines the probationary nature of the permits and addresses suspensions and revocations of those permits conflicts with existing law. It says that a minor's permit shall be suspended for 90 days for a second reckless driving conviction. Under current law, SDCL 32-24-3, a judge is allowed to suspend the permit for up to one year. You can be sure defense attorneys will be quick to point out the lesser suspension. The practical effect of this section is to reduce the penalty for a second reckless driving conviction, but only for individuals holding a minor's permit and no one else. That is bad public policy.
Section 6 requires a six-month suspension for a conviction of underage consumption in a motor
vehicle. This conflict could have been eliminated by including the language "or as otherwise
required by law" in Section 3.
Section 7 of the bill creates an interesting administrative dilemma. That section indicates that
any current holder of a valid permit issued prior to the effective date of this Act must satisfy the
additional requirements of this Act in order to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle when that
permit expires. Not only does this create administrative headaches, without any notice it strips
certain citizens of specific privileges and rights previously granted them.
Finally, Section 8 has some unintended loopholes. The section places different burdens for
remaining violation free on minor-permit and restricted-minor-permit holders. Further, a young
person without a minor permit or restricted minor permit is held to a different standard. The
result is that some minors with recent violations will be able to upgrade to a full license and
some will not.
I am clearly troubled by the magnitude of problems created to administer this proposed law.
For, as difficult as it may have been to follow my veto message, it is even more difficult to
follow and reconcile the problems identified for administration of this bill.
If we are to foster respect for the law, we must strive for consistency and fairness. This bill does
neither. The general public will find great difficulty in understanding and adhering to the
requirements of this bill.
The bill was intended to provide incentives for minors who use their driving privileges
responsibly and increase penalties for those who do not. Although the intent was sincere, the
result was not achieved.
I respectfully request that you concur in my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
House Bill 1143 seeks to reinstate a mandate on local school boards to establish staff reduction and
recall policies. This requirement was repealed by the 1995 South Dakota Legislature.
It is easy to be in favor of this bill, but on closer examination, the measure does not achieve what
the sponsors intended. Testimony in committee indicated that all school boards in the state already
have staff reduction and recall policies. Such policies are part and parcel of the teacher and school
board negotiation process. The teachers' union has demanded and received these policies in
virtually every school district.
A fair and workable policy regarding staff reduction and recall is a basic tenet of employer-
employee relationships. In instances where the employer is a school district and the employees are
teachers, responsibility for coming to terms is shared at the local level. If teachers and staff do not
care enough to demand and negotiate a fair policy, the presence of 14 words in statute which
require a policy, any policy, to be in place will not help. Proponents testified that staff reduction
and recall policies have been weakened since the repeal of the mandate in 1995. They did not cite
and I have not been given even one example to support this claim.
This bill neither corrects that nor ensures adoption of quality policies. It is simply “feel good”
legislation with no practical effect.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1163 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and
FORM.
House Bill 1163 is, An Act to provide a provision allowing any regional railroad authority to
opt out of the taxing authority provided pursuant to chapter 49-17A.
To clarify the Legislature's intent, I ask that the following changes be made to the final enrolled
bill:
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1167 and VETO the same.
Rural electric cooperatives were originally created by Congress in order to supply electric power
to those rural areas in the United States which so desperately needed it. By doing so, Congress
recognized that private business either could not or would not supply electric power to those
rural areas.
In creating rural electric cooperatives, Congress granted certain competitive advantages to those
rural electric cooperatives, most notably the ability to obtain financing at less-than-market
interest rates.
The legislation authorizing rural electric cooperatives was first passed in South Dakota in 1947.
Since that time, §47-21-2 has authorized rural electric cooperatives to do business only in
certain areas. By limiting the areas in which rural electric cooperatives could conduct business,
the Legislature has historically recognized the significant competitive advantage which that
federal legislation has given to rural electric cooperatives. In the past, rural electric cooperatives
have, from time to time, asked the Legislature for the authorization to engage in specific
business enterprises.
It has come to my attention that HB 1167 was introduced because of pending litigation which
has yet to be resolved. HB 1167, if enacted into law, would have a direct bearing on the
outcome of that litigation, now pending before the South Dakota Supreme Court. As a matter
of public policy, it is preferable to let the litigation be completed and the case be determined on
its merits before intervening in the court process with legislation.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1213 and VETO the same.
HB 1213 would authorize the imposition of civil penalties and allow any individual to file suit
and obtain costs and attorneys' fees against striking public employees.
I have consulted with the Attorney General and he agrees with me that this bill too broad, too
vague and clearly violates the freedom of speech and freedom of expression provisions of the
United States Constitution and the South Dakota Constitution. This bill is also unnecessary
given current law.
The severest constitutional problem is that this bill contains no guidelines or standards. Because
civil, not criminal, penalties are imposed by the bill, there must be consideration of (a) the type
of conduct, (b) the effect on the governmental entity, and (c) whether the action involves
striking alone or whether some aspect of free speech is also involved. But, the bill contains no
guidelines or standards for making those considerations.
What if two employees stand up, declare they are “on strike” and walk off their jobs. The bill says they can be penalized as much as $1,000 a day. What if they never come back? At what point do the penalties cease because, by never returning, they have quit their jobs. When does
the penalty end? After one day? Two days? Ten days? What are the standards to be applied
to determine the answers to these questions? The bill has none. In addition, what actions cause
the $1,000 fine? What actions would be worthy of only a $500 fine? What actions would cause
a $173.57 fine? Again, there are no standards and guidelines in the bill.
Another severe constitutional problem is that the proposed law would have a chilling effect on
the first amendment freedoms that are guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions for every
person. When a law prohibits a person from expressing himself or herself in a lawful manner,
it is a violation of both constitutions. Therefore, if this bill became law, South Dakota would
be sued in the same manner that the state was recently sued over the law involving public
employees speaking about striking. That law was repealed by this Legislature to prevent the
expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars in additional legal fees. This bill would create the
same kind of lawsuit and it would also cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.
The real solution is simple. If a public employee goes on strike, he or she should be fired_no
“ifs,” no “ands,” and no “buts.”
SDCL 3-18-10 already clearly prohibits public employees from striking. Under existing law,
an affected city, county, or school district has the ability to reprimand, suspend or terminate
employees and obtain injunctive relief against strikers. The individual city, county, or school
district currently has the ability to evaluate the nature of the employee action and to determine
whether it is so disruptive or widespread that court action is required. Therefore, House Bill
1213 is unnecessary given existing law.
If any lawyer claims that this bill does not violate the state and federal constitutions and would
not cause costly lawsuits, he or she should volunteer to defend the state free of charge and pay
any damages and any assessed legal fees and costs imposed on the state as a result of court
actions caused by this bill. Given those conditions, no lawyer would defend this bill.
I respectfully request that you concur in my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1218 and return it with the following recommendations as to STYLE
and FORM.
Because changes to the same section of law are made, yet are different, the bill signed last will take
precedence over the previously signed bill. SDCL 2-14-16.1 reads as follows: “If two or more acts
amending the same section of the code of laws enacted by § 2-16-13 are passed during a legislative
session, each amendment shall be given effect, even if both acts have differing effective dates unless
the amendments conflict or a contrary intent plainly appears.”
In order to ensure that the entirety of changes made in both bills to the same section of law are
enacted and codified, I recommend that House Bill 1218 be changed to include the one change to
§ 26-7A-26 included in Senate Bill 122, but not included in House Bill 1218.
Because the final engrossed and enrolled version of bills comes to this office without line numbers,
the change I recommend refers to the Senate State Affairs Committee Engrossed version of the bill.
On page 2, line 17 of the Senate State Affairs Committee Engrossed bill, after “26-11-4” insert “or
a child who is being tried in circuit court as an adult pursuant to section 1 of Senate Bill 122 as
previously enacted by the Seventy-second Legislative Assembly of the South Dakota Legislature”.
I have signed Senate Bill 122 into law, and I respectfully request that you concur with my action on
House Bill 1218.
Note: Following is a comparison of the two sections as they are currently enrolled in each bill. Differences are in bold:
| HB 1218 - Section 3. | SB 122 - Section 4. |
|
That § 26-7A-26 be amended to read as follows: 26-7A-26. No apparent, alleged or adjudicated abused or neglected child may be securely detained at any time in a jail, lockup, or in any type of detention or temporary care facility containing adult prisoners. An apparent, alleged, or adjudicated child in need of supervision or an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated delinquent child fourteen years of age or older may be held in detention in an adult lockup or jail if physically separated from adult prisoners subject to any restrictions under this chapter or chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C. An apparent, alleged, or adjudicated child in need of supervision or an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated delinquent child may be held in an adult lockup or jail for up to six hours for purposes of identification, processing, interrogation, transfer to juvenile facility, or release to parents if the child is physically separated from adult prisoners. A child who has been transferred to adult court pursuant to § 26-11-4 may be held in detention in an adult lockup or jail if physically separated from adult prisoners. A child who has attained the age of majority who is under the continuing jurisdiction of the court may be held in detention in an adult jail or lockup. |
That § 26-7A-26 be amended to read as follows: 26-7A-26. No apparent, alleged , or adjudicated abused or neglected child may be securely detained at any time in a jail, lockup, or in any type of detention or temporary care facility containing adult prisoners. for purposes of identification, processing, interrogation, transfer to juvenile facility, or release to parents if the delinquent child is physically separated from adult prisoners. between the ages of fourteen and seventeen years of age may be held in an adult lockup or jail for up to seven days if physically separated from adult prisoners. adult lockup or jail if the child is fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years old and the child is alleged to have committed an offense defined as a crime of violence under subdivision 22-1-2(9) or of sexual contact under § 22-22-7. An apparent, alleged, or adjudicated child in need of supervision or an apparent, alleged, or adjudicated delinquent child fourteen years of age or older may be held in detention in an adult lockup or jail if physically separated from adult prisoners subject to any restrictions under this chapter or chapter 26-8A, 26-8B, or 26-8C. A child who has been transferred to adult court pursuant to § 26-11-4 or a child who is being tried in circuit court as an adult pursuant to section 1 of this Act may be held in detention in an adult lockup or jail if physically separated from adult prisoners. A child who has attained the age of majority who is under the continuing jurisdiction of the court may be held in detention in an adult jail or lockup. |
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1233 and VETO the same.
HB 1233 seeks to place a two-year moratorium on new hospital beds in South Dakota in an attempt
to restrict the development of specialized hospitals.
This bill is a one-sided attempt to protect large hospitals from competition with others who could
offer limited health care services more cost-effectively for consumers. Competition should be
encouraged, not restricted, in the health care industry just as it is in other sectors of the economy.
Using the South Dakota Medicaid program as an example, we see a substantial difference between
costs for some common outpatient surgical procedures at ambulatory surgery centers
(ASC)/specialized hospitals as compared to some hospitals. There is also proof that the costs of
these particular procedures in general hospitals have been driven down in communities with
ASC/specialized hospitals.
As just one of many examples, Medicaid reimbursement for an outpatient tonsillectomy in 1995
averaged $1,155 at hospitals located in communities without an ASC or a specialized hospital.
Reimbursement to hospitals in communities with ASC/specialized hospitals averaged $877.
Reimbursement for that same procedure in ASC/specialized hospitals was $369.
Clearly, competition benefits consumers with quality services and lower health care costs.
Unfortunately, consumers and their concerns were noticeably absent from the debate of HB 1233.
I heard plenty from those with financial interests on both sides of the specialized hospital issue but
nothing from consumers who must pay the cost of health care. As Governor, I have a responsibility
to represent the needs of those consumers and the state, one of the largest consumers of health care.
South Dakota spends $330 million each year for medical care through its Title XIX program and
over $27 million in additional spending to fund medical services for employees.
This bill does absolutely nothing to reduce current health care costs for consumers or to prohibit the
cost of health care from rising in the future. It does nothing to restrict hospital growth or
construction in any area other than inpatient beds. It does nothing to prevent large hospitals from
continuing to buy up physician groups and rural hospitals.
In fact, in recent years, one of South Dakota's largest hospitals has expanded so aggressively that it could be argued the hospital almost has a monopoly on health care in its region of the state. It has purchased and now manages several rural hospitals and nursing homes in its area. It has constructed a free-standing outpatient surgery center, developed a home-health care business, and started a physician/hospital organization (PHO) with a third-party administration/insurance component. It
has also started an outpatient mental health services business even though an independent survey
indicated that the area already had four times the number of nonmedical mental health providers
needed for the area. If this hospital and other hospitals want to compete against existing specialty
providers, they should not object when other specialty providers attempt to compete against them.
That's why HB 1233 is so unfair.
The reality is the moratorium proposed by this bill would mean fewer choices and could reduce
access to health care for consumers.
Contrary to what supporters of HB 1233 may lead you to believe, this bill is not about protecting
rural hospitals. By nature, specialized hospitals are for-profit entities that simply will not enter
marginal markets in rural areas. Specialized hospitals compete not with rural facilities, but with
large hospitals in South Dakota's most populated areas. The locations of existing and planned
specialized hospitals in our state bear this out.
South Dakota's moratorium on nursing facility beds was frequently cited as a precedent for the ban
in HB 1233, an inappropriate and inaccurate comparison. Unlike the nursing facility moratorium,
there is simply no objective data to support a ban on either hospital beds or specialized hospital beds.
For the past 10 years, the overall number of hospital beds in South Dakota has steadily decreased
due to market forces and changes in the health care industry. Today there are about 400 less hospital
beds in South Dakota than there were only 10 years ago.
Additionally, the nursing facility moratorium resulted in an estimated $70 million in savings to
individuals and the state and led to a more effective system of long-term care, offering in-home,
community-based, and institutional care. Supporters of HB 1233 were unable to offer any evidence
that a moratorium on hospital beds would spur the development of less costly alternatives to hospital
care or result in cost savings for the state or consumers.
Supporters of HB 1233 stated a moratorium was needed to keep the industry “on hold” so the impact
of this issue could be studied for two years, but the bill does not call for a study. It makes no sense
to stop innovation and flexibility in the health care industry because of allegations of a potential
problem. I will call for a study of hospital inpatient health care services as measured by cost, access,
and quality. However, that study must happen prior to a knee-jerk change in public policy.
There are also concerns with the mechanics of the bill, in particular, Subsection (4) of Section 4
purports to exempt from the moratorium those projects for which the Department of Health has
approved construction plans by March 1, 1997. From a practical standpoint, there is no final
approval of plans by the health department. In reality, the plan review and approval process can take
many months and even years as numerous changes are made as a result of ongoing review by
department engineers. Therefore, the bill cannot be effectively administered.
For example, does the March 1, 1997, deadline apply to the first submission of a plan? Does it apply
to each revised plan? Does it apply to minor changes or only substantial changes? Who determines
what is substantial and what is minor? Is the changing of the building's structure substantial or
minor? Is a revision of the design for placement of electrical outlets substantial or minor? Would
it matter how many outlets are changed? If so, how many?
Even if the mechanical problems with this bill were corrected, this legislation is inherently flawed.
It addresses a problem which has not been demonstrated to exist and regulates competition which
is better left to the marketplace. In a clear departure from prudent public policy, it seeks to impose
restrictions on certain sectors of the health care market and regulate competition without a clear and
convincing public health objective.
From a consumer perspective, HB 1233 is bad public policy in that it does not seek to reduce health
care costs and essentially prohibits future innovative, cost-effective alternatives to inpatient health
care. The cost of health care has exploded. There is and should be more to life than working to pay
for sickness and injury. Double digit annual increases in the cost of health care have only been
reduced as the amount of fair, free competition in the health care field has increased.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1234 and VETO the same.
House Bill 1234 is intended to provide a payment of one hundred dollars each month to legislators
for constituent services when the Legislature is not in session.
I have signed House Bill 1205, the bill that raises legislators' prepaid reimbursement authorized by
SDCL 2-4-2 by twenty dollars ($20) a day while the Legislature is in session. However, I cannot
support House Bill 1234. I do not believe that the people of South Dakota have ever intended to pay
part-time Legislators when they are not in session. Further, the precedent this legislation sets is
contrary to the long history of free and willing service our forefathers established at statehood and
has continued to flourish and serve the citizens of South Dakota well for over one hundred years.
The Legislators today serve with the knowledge and expectation that their neighbors and friends will call on them with comments and questions. It is inconceivable to me that we as a State should now
want to pay Legislators to listen to their constituents when they have been willing to listen without
additional pay for one hundred and eight years.
Further, I do not believe the Legislators are entitled to the “constituent service allowance” under the
provisions of Article III, Section 6 of the South Dakota Constitution, which provides as follows:
The terms of office of the members of the Legislature shall be two years; they shall
receive for their services the salary fixed by law under the provisions of § 2 of Article
XXI of this Constitution, and five cents for every mile of necessary travel in going
to and returning from the place of meeting of the Legislature on the most usual route.
No person may serve more than four consecutive terms or a total of eight consecutive
years in the senate and more than four consecutive terms or a total of eight
consecutive years in the house of representatives. However, this restriction does not
apply to partial terms to which a legislator may be appointed or to legislative service
before January 1, 1993.
A regular session of the Legislature shall be held in each odd-numbered year and
shall not exceed forty legislative days, excluding Sundays, holidays and legislative
recess, except in cases of impeachment, and members of the Legislature shall receive
no other pay or perquisites except salary and mileage.
A regular session of the Legislature shall be held in each even-numbered year
beginning with the year 1964 and shall not exceed thirty-five legislative days,
excluding Sundays, holidays and legislative recess, except in cases of impeachment,
and members of the Legislature shall receive no other pay or perquisites except salary
and mileage. (Emphasis added.)
Volunteering to help others is one of the many things that makes South Dakota a special place.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
House Bill 1246 is An Act to elect trustees to control and manage drainage districts and to declare
an emergency.
In the third sentence in Section 4, the last phrase ". . . within five days after the date of the order for
the election. . . " cannot be reconciled with the election process provided for in Sections 2, 3 and 4.
Under that election process, landowners petition the county commission to form the district, and at
the next commission meeting, the commission enters an order providing for an election within 45
days. The county auditor must then publish a notice of the election for two consecutive weeks, and
there must be at least 10 days from the last published notice before the election. Because of the
requirement for two consecutive weeks of publication, it would not be possible for the last
publication to be "within five days after the date of the order for election."
The inclusion of the phrase, "within five days after the date of the order for election" was simply a
drafting error in the bill as originally submitted. It serves no purpose and the bill in its most
appropriate form would delete the phrase entirely. That sentence would then read, "The last
publication may not be less than ten days before the date of the election."
Once the above-described change has been made, House Bill 1246 will be acceptable to this office.
The Honorable Rex Hagg
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1253 and VETO the same.
House Bill 1253 is, An Act to establish a visitation enforcement program within the Unified Judicial
System, to create a Task Force to provide for its implementation, and to make an appropriation of
federal fund authority therefor.
Part of the bill proposes the creation of a Visitation Enforcement Program Implementation Task
Force. This Task Force would be made up, in part, of South Dakota Legislators appointed by the
majority and minority leaders of each political party of the Legislature.
No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which he was elected, be
appointed or elected to any civil office in the state which shall have been created, or
the emoluments of which shall have been increased during the term for which he was
elected, nor shall any member receive any civil appointment from the Governor, the
Governor and senate, or from the Legislature during the term for which he shall have
been elected, and all such appointments and all votes given for any such members for
any such office or appointment shall be void; nor shall any member of the Legislature
during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within one year thereafter,
be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state or any county
thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he shall have been
elected. (Emphasis added.)
The explicit language of this constitutional provision prohibits appointment of a member of the
Legislature to any civil appointment. The power to appoint granted in Section 1 of House Bill 1253
falls within this constitutional prohibition.
Notwithstanding the intentions of the sponsors, it is impossible to reconcile this well-intentioned
legislation with the constitutional mandate of Article III, Section 12. When a proposed law and the
Constitution are in conflict, the Constitution must prevail.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
Rep. Gabriel moved that the House do now recess until 10:30 a.m., which motion prevailed and
at 9:21 a.m., the House recessed.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change
of style and form of HB 1055 as found on page 938 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV,
Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
of HB 1055 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 53, Nays 13, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 3
Yeas were:
Apa; Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine;
Collier; Crisp; de Hueck; Derby; Diedrich; Duxbury; Eccarius; Fischer-Clemens; Fitzgerald;
Gabriel; Gleason; Hassard; Jaspers; Johnson (Doug); Jorgensen; Kazmerzak; Kooistra; Kredit; Lee;
Lockner; Madden; Matthews; McNenny; Monroe; Moore; Munson (Donald); Napoli; Pummel;
Putnam; Richter; Roe; Rost; Schaunaman; Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow; Sperry; Van Gerpen;
Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Windhorst
Nays were:
Cutler; DeMersseman; Duniphan; Fiegen; Haley; Hunt; Koetzle; Konold; Koskan; Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Wick; Speaker Hagg
Excused were:
Davis
Absent and Not Voting were:
Duenwald; Hagen; Lucas
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form approved.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change
of style and form of HB 1163 as found on page 945 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV,
Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
of HB 1163 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Nays were:
Barker; Koetzle
Excused were:
Davis
Absent and Not Voting were:
Duenwald
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form approved.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change
of style and form of HB 1218 as found on page 948 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV,
Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
of HB 1218 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 66, Nays 2, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 1
Yeas were:
Apa; Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine;
Collier; Crisp; de Hueck; DeMersseman; Derby; Diedrich; Duniphan; Duxbury; Eccarius; Fiegen;
Fischer-Clemens; Fitzgerald; Gabriel; Gleason; Hagen; Haley; Hassard; Hunt; Jaspers; Johnson
(Doug); Jorgensen; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Lucas; Madden;
Matthews; McNenny; Monroe; Moore; Munson (Donald); Napoli; Pederson (Gordon); Peterson
(Bill); Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Rost; Schaunaman; Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow; Sperry; Van
Gerpen; Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Wick; Windhorst; Speaker Hagg
Nays were:
Cutler; Lockner
Absent and Not Voting were:
Duenwald
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form approved.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change
of style and form of HB 1246 as found on page 954 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV,
Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
of HB 1246 be approved?"
The Speaker ruled that the vote on HB 1246 is considered final passage. Since a two-thirds
majority vote was required for original passage, a two-thirds majority vote is still required.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 65, Nays 2, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 2
Yeas were:
Apa; Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine;
Collier; Crisp; Cutler; de Hueck; DeMersseman; Derby; Diedrich; Duniphan; Duxbury; Eccarius;
Fischer-Clemens; Fitzgerald; Gabriel; Gleason; Hagen; Haley; Hassard; Hunt; Jaspers; Johnson
(Doug); Jorgensen; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Lockner; Lucas;
Madden; Matthews; McNenny; Monroe; Moore; Munson (Donald); Napoli; Pederson (Gordon);
Peterson (Bill); Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Rost; Schaunaman; Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow;
Sperry; Van Gerpen; Volesky; Waltman; Wetz; Wick; Speaker Hagg
Nays were:
Fiegen; Windhorst
Excused were:
Davis
Absent and Not Voting were:
Duenwald; Weber
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
Rep. Weber moved that HB 1084 be placed to follow HB 1253 on today's calendar.
Which motion prevailed and HB 1084 was so placed.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1102 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 939 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section
4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Rep. Hunt moved that HB 1102 be placed to follow HB 1084 on today's calendar.
Which motion prevailed and HB 1102 was so placed.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1138 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 941 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section
4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Rep. Richard Brown moved that HB 1138 be deferred until Wednesday, March 26th, the 40th
legislative day.
Which motion prevailed and the bill was so deferred.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1143 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 944 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 1143 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 31, Nays 37, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 1
Yeas were:
Barker; Broderick; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Chicoine; Collier; Cutler; de Hueck;
Duxbury; Fischer-Clemens; Gleason; Hagen; Haley; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Kooistra; Lee; Lockner;
Lucas; Pummel; Roe; Schaunaman; Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow; Sperry; Volesky; Waltman; Weber;
Wetz
Excused were:
Davis
Absent and Not Voting were:
Konold
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1167 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 946 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 1167 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 57, Nays 12, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Apa; Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Cerny; Chicoine; Collier; Crisp;
Cutler; de Hueck; DeMersseman; Diedrich; Duenwald; Duniphan; Duxbury; Fischer-Clemens;
Fitzgerald; Gleason; Haley; Hassard; Jaspers; Johnson (Doug); Jorgensen; Kazmerzak; Koetzle;
Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Lockner; Lucas; Madden; McNenny; Monroe; Moore;
Munson (Donald); Napoli; Pederson (Gordon); Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Schaunaman;
Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow; Sperry; Van Gerpen; Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Windhorst
Nays were:
Brown (Richard); Derby; Eccarius; Fiegen; Gabriel; Hagen; Hunt; Matthews; Peterson (Bill); Rost;
Wick; Speaker Hagg
Excused were:
Davis
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect,
the Speaker declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding
Speaker Pro tempore Hunt now presiding.
Nays were:
Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brown (Jarvis); Collier; Crisp; de Hueck; DeMersseman; Derby;
Duenwald; Duniphan; Fiegen; Gabriel; Hassard; Hunt; Johnson (Doug); Kazmerzak; Koetzle;
Kooistra; Koskan; Kredit; Lockner; Madden; Matthews; McNenny; Monroe; Munson (Donald);
Napoli; Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Rost; Schaunaman; Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow; Sperry;
Van Gerpen; Volesky; Wetz; Windhorst; Speaker Hagg
Excused were:
Davis
Absent and Not Voting were:
Duxbury
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
Rep. Gabriel moved that the House do now recess until 2:00 p.m., which motion prevailed and
at 12:34 p.m., the House recessed.
The House reconvened at 2:00 p.m., Speaker Pro tempore Hunt presiding.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1233 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 951 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1234 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 953 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 1234 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 11, Nays 58, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Collier; Fischer-Clemens; Hagen; Haley; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Kooistra; Lockner; Lucas; Sokolow;
Waltman
Nays were:
Apa; Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine;
Crisp; Cutler; de Hueck; DeMersseman; Derby; Diedrich; Duenwald; Duniphan; Duxbury; Eccarius;
Fiegen; Fitzgerald; Gabriel; Gleason; Hassard; Hunt; Jaspers; Johnson (Doug); Jorgensen; Konold;
Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Madden; Matthews; McNenny; Monroe; Moore; Munson (Donald); Napoli;
Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Rost; Schaunaman; Schrempp;
Smidt; Sperry; Van Gerpen; Volesky; Weber; Wetz; Wick; Windhorst; Speaker Hagg
Excused were:
Davis
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1253 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 955 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 1253 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Nays were:
Brown (Richard); Crisp; Duniphan; Eccarius; Gabriel; Hassard; Hunt; Johnson (Doug); McNenny;
Monroe; Munson (Donald); Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Richter; Smidt; Wetz; Wick;
Windhorst
Excused were:
Davis
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect,
the Speaker declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1084 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 938 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section
4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Rep. Weber moved that HB 1084 be deferred until Wednesday, March 26th, the 40th legislative
day.
Which motion prevailed and the bill was so deferred.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1102 pursuant to the veto of the Governor
and the veto message as found on page 939 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section
4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Rep. Duenwald moved the previous question.
Which motion prevailed.
The question being "Shall HB 1102 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Nays were:
Apa; Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine;
Collier; Cutler; Duxbury; Fiegen; Fitzgerald; Gabriel; Gleason; Hunt; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Konold;
Kooistra; Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Lockner; Lucas; Moore; Munson (Donald); Peterson (Bill); Putnam;
Richter; Rost; Schrempp; Smidt; Sokolow; Sperry; Van Gerpen; Waltman; Weber; Wick
Excused were:
Davis
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
Rep. Gabriel moved that the House do now recess until 4:30 p.m., which motion prevailed and
at 3:45 p.m., the House recessed.
The House reconvened at 4:30 p.m., Speaker Pro tempore Hunt presiding.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Conference Committee respectfully reports that it has considered HB 1227 and the
amendments thereto made by the House, and the disagreement of the two houses thereon, and
recommends that HB 1227 be amended as follows:
"
And that the title to HB 1227 be amended as follows:
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
LARRY E. GABRIEL M. MICHAEL ROUNDS
KAY S. JORGENSEN BARBARA EVERIST
PAT HALEY BERNIE HUNHOFF
House Committee Senate Committee
MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has passed HB 1253, the
Governor's veto notwithstanding. We return herewith the enrolled copy of the bill.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has appointed Sens. Jim Dunn,
Rounds, and Hunhoff as a committee of three on the part of the Senate to meet with a like committee
on the part of the House pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-second
Legislative Session.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has appointed Sens. Jim Dunn,
Rounds, and Hunhoff as a committee of three on the part of the Senate to meet with a like committee
on the part of the House 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.
Rep. Gabriel moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of considering the
Conference Committee Reports on HB 1222, 1227, and 1243 on the 40th legislative day.
The question being on Rep. Gabriel's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose
of considering the Conference Committee Reports on HB 1222, 1227, and 1243 on the 40th
legislative day.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 58, Nays 7, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 4
Yeas were:
Barker; Belatti; Broderick; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine;
Collier; Crisp; Cutler; de Hueck; Derby; Diedrich; Duenwald; Duniphan; Eccarius; Fiegen; Fischer-
Clemens; Fitzgerald; Gabriel; Gleason; Hagen; Haley; Hassard; Hunt; Jaspers; Johnson (Doug);
Jorgensen; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Lucas; Madden; Matthews; McNenny;
Monroe; Munson (Donald); Napoli; Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Pummel; Richter; Roe;
Rost; Schaunaman; Smidt; Sperry; Volesky; Weber; Wetz; Wick; Windhorst; Speaker Hagg
Nays were:
Apa; Kazmerzak; Lockner; Moore; Schrempp; Sokolow; Waltman
Absent and Not Voting were:
DeMersseman; Duxbury; Putnam; Van Gerpen
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the motion carried, and the rules were suspended for the sole purpose of
considering Conference Committee Reports on the 40th legislative day.
Rep. Hagg moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first
reading to, dispensing with referral to committee of and placing on the calendar of the 40th
legislative day a bill pertaining to limiting annual property assessment increases.
The question being on Rep. Hagg's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of
introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with referral to committee of and placing on the
calendar of the 40th legislative day a bill pertaining to limiting annual property assessment increases.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 55, Nays 14, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Belatti; Brooks; Brosz; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Cerny; Chicoine; Cutler; de Hueck;
DeMersseman; Derby; Duenwald; Duniphan; Duxbury; Eccarius; Fiegen; Fischer-Clemens;
Fitzgerald; Gabriel; Haley; Hassard; Hunt; Jaspers; Johnson (Doug); Jorgensen; Konold; Kooistra;
Koskan; Kredit; Lee; Madden; Matthews; McNenny; Monroe; Moore; Munson (Donald); Napoli;
Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Rost; Schaunaman; Schrempp;
Smidt; Van Gerpen; Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Wick; Windhorst; Speaker Hagg
Nays were:
Apa; Barker; Broderick; Collier; Crisp; Diedrich; Gleason; Hagen; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Lockner;
Lucas; Sokolow; Sperry
Excused were:
Davis
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the motion carried and the rules were suspended.
Rep. Cutler moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first
reading to, dispensing with referral to committee of and placing on the calendar of the 40th
legislative day a bill making an appropriation for certain higher education grant programs.
Nays were:
Apa; Brooks; Duenwald; Fiegen; Hassard; Jaspers; Johnson (Doug); Kazmerzak; Koskan; Kredit;
Lucas; McNenny; Napoli; Pummel; Richter; Wetz; Windhorst
Excused were:
Davis
Absent and Not Voting were:
DeMersseman; Gabriel
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the motion carried and the rules were suspended.
HB 1282
Introduced by:
Representatives Hagg, Brown (Richard), Cerny, Cutler, DeMersseman,
Derby, Duniphan, Fischer-Clemens, Hassard, Jorgensen, Lee, Madden, Matthews, Napoli, Pederson
(Gordon), Schaunaman, Van Gerpen, Weber, and Wetz and Senators Aker, Benson, Brown (Arnold),
Ham, Johnson (William), Kleven, Vitter, and Whiting
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act
to limit annual property assessment increases.
Was read the first time.
HB 1283 Introduced by: Representatives Cutler, Apa, Barker, Broderick, Brown (Richard), Chicoine, Collier, Crisp, Diedrich, Duniphan, Duxbury, Eccarius, Hagen, Jorgensen, Konold, Kooistra, Matthews, Moore, Munson (Donald), Pederson (Gordon), Peterson (Bill), Pummel, Roe,
Schaunaman, Smidt, Sokolow, Sperry, Van Gerpen, Volesky, and Wick and Senators Valandra,
Albers, Brown (Arnold), Dennert, Everist, Flowers, Hunhoff, Hutmacher, Kloucek, Lange, Lawler,
Morford-Burg, Munson (David), Olson, Reedy, Shoener, Symens, and Whiting
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act
to make an appropriation for certain higher education grant
programs.
Was read the first time.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1055 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State
of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1163 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State
of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1218 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State
of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1246 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State
of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 8.
Rep. Cutler moved that a committee of three on the part of the House be appointed to meet with
a like committee on the part of the Senate pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for
the Seventy-second Legislative Session.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Hagg, Gabriel,
and Haley.
Rep. Cutler moved that a committee of three on the part of the House be appointed 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 and is ready to adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he
has any further communicaiton to make to the Legislature.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Gabriel, Cutler,
and Haley
Rep. Gordon Pederson moved that the House do now adjourn, which motion prevailed, and at
5:34 p.m. the House adjourned.