Joint Journal 03/23/1999 2:00 PM

     The President publicly read the title to

     HB 1053: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the open container law.

     HB 1075: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal certain provisions related to public school open enrollment procedures and tuition.

     HB 1076: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to appropriate federal funds for the continuation of the Visitation Enforcement Program Implementation Task Force.

     HB 1151: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the property tax levies for the general fund of a school district.

     HB 1179: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to appropriate money for the expenses of the legislative, judicial, and executive departments of the state, certain officers, boards, and departments, for support and maintenance of the educational, charitable, and penal institutions, the South Dakota Veterans' Home, for maintenance of the state capitol, and for support and maintenance of the state guard.

     HB 1207: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to increase the time period for which a driver's license is revoked for certain drug offenses.

     And signed the same in the presence of the Senate.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

EXECUTIVE VETOES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Lt. Governor Hillard and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 221 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and FORM.

Senate Bill 221 is, "An Act to clarify and revise certain provisions relating to the exchange of school lands and to declare an emergency."

Senate Bill 221 adds new language to SDCL 5-3-7 to allow for conditional land transfers involving school lands to be completed within two years and allows the Commissioner of School and Public Lands to promulgate rules. Section 2 of Senate Bill 221 is the emergency clause.

The attachment of an emergency clause to an act does not put it into immediate effect unless it comes within one of two exceptions named in § 1 and § 22 of Article III of the South Dakota Constitution:

(1) laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, and
(2) laws necessary for support of the government and its existing public institutions.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has interpreted these classifications. A law falling under the first classification is still subject to a referendum, but a bill falling under the second classification is not subject to a referendum. A declaration of an emergency is both null and void when a bill cannot reasonably be said to be an exercise of the state's police power nor in support of state government and its existing institutions. The fact that a bill is for support of state government does not mean a bill is "necessary" for such support.

Based upon the language of Senate Bill 221 and my own knowledge of the facts, this bill is not necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, nor is the bill necessary for the support of government and its existing public institutions.

Therefore, my Style and Form recommendation is to delete the emergency clause, Section 2 of Senate Bill 221, in its entirety.

I respectfully request you concur with my recommendations as to style and form.

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Lt. Governor Hillard and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 164 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and FORM.

Senate Bill 164 is, "An Act to prohibit certain practices by certain livestock packers and live poultry dealers."

The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that when interpreting legislative enactments, the Court must accept them as written. The most important rule of statutory construction is to determine and give effect to the intention of the Legislature, and legislative intent is derived primarily from the language expressed in the statute. The intent of a statute must be derived from the statute as a whole, from its language, and by giving it its plain, ordinary, and popular meaning. As a result, statements of "legislative intent" are not allowed in the South Dakota Code. The statements made in Section 1 of Senate Bill 164 are editorial comments that, however heartfelt, have no place in the codified laws of our State.

Therefore, my STYLE and FORM recommendation is that Section 1 of Senate Bill 164 be deleted in its entirety and the remaining section of the bill be renumbered.

I respectfully request you concur with my recommendations as to style and form.

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 97 and VETO the same.

Senate Bill 97 is entitled, "An Act to extend the time period during which previous driving while intoxicated convictions may be considered for determining subsequent offenses."

This bill will double the period of time from five years to ten years to determine if a violation of South Dakota's drunk driving law should be charged as a second, third, or subsequent offense.

We have to ask ourselves, "Just how long must a person pay for a mistake?" When you have the answer to that question, I think you will agree this bill goes too far. I really wish this bill could statistically alter South Dakota's traffic fatalities, but it won't.

At some point you have to agree a person has paid his debt to society, and we should no longer hold a mistake over his head. However, ten years is far too long.

It is ironic that some members of the Legislature are willing to let "druggers" encroach on our children's school zones and believe that everybody who does drugs deserves a second chance. Now we are saying, "If people are convicted of drunk driving, it will be held over their head for ten years." No other offenses, except felonies, are held over a person's head for ten years. In fact, a person is eligible for a pardon in this state in only five years.

The real problem is not the number of years in the statute. The problem is the number of deals being cut by state's attorneys and judges. We all know of cases where individuals were on their seventh, eighth, or ninth drunk driving charges, but were still charged with a first or second violation because of these deals.

Lengthening the time will only make it more difficult on those people who rarely violate the laws by giving the state's attorney an extortion tool to elicit a plea to a lesser offense. I know that happens, because I have been both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and have seen both sides.

If we have a problem, we ought to deal with mandatory charges and make our laws uniform across the state, rather than doubling the exposure for some of our citizens and having little or no impact on others.

I have no sympathy for people who continue to violate our drunk driving laws, and I take a back seat to no one in trying to get drunks off our streets and highways. But, I also understand human

beings make mistakes, and ten years is an excessive amount of time to hold that mistake over their heads.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 99 and VETO the same.

Senate Bill 99 is entitled, "An Act to provide special assessment authority to ambulance districts."

Senate Bill 99 allows the board of directors for an ambulance district to place a special assessment against the real property within the district. The special assessment can be used as a substitute for the general property-tax levy.

I don't object, at least in the case of an ambulance district, to the use of a special assessment such as a per-household fee instead of property tax.

What I do strongly object to in Senate Bill 99 is that the special assessment can be IN ADDITION to the tax levy. State law has limited an ambulance district to levying no more than sixty cents of tax per thousand dollars of taxable value. With Senate Bill 99, an ambulance district's board of directors could use a special assessment to go beyond that limit.

Even worse, Senate Bill 99 also says, "No limitation applies to a special assessment, except that a special assessment may not be used to pay any obligation beyond the current business year." In other words, an ambulance district would no longer have ANY limit on the amount of revenue it could take from the taxpayers.

Senate Bill 99 is an open-ended appropriation. There would be no limits and no controls on how much money an ambulance district taxes and spends. That is opposite of the steps we've taken in recent years to reduce property taxes and hold down government spending.

I understand that the sponsors intended a special assessment to be an alternative to property tax for an ambulance district, but this bill does not offset one against the other. There must be a limitation on the amount of revenue that can be raised. Taxpayers must be protected.

I respectfully request that you concur in my veto.

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 128 and VETO the same.

Senate Bill 128 is entitled, "An Act to criminalize the possession of certain contraband in juvenile correctional facilities and the delivery of certain contraband to juvenile correctional facilities."

Senate Bill 128, as drafted, contains ambiguous language that conflicts with existing statutory definitions and may be unenforceable as a result. It also fails to address thoroughly the possession of serious contraband in juvenile correctional facilities, leaving significant gaps, which will allow certain offenders to avoid prosecution for these offenses.

Senate Bill 128 attempts to prohibit a juvenile from possessing alcohol, drugs, or weapons in a juvenile correctional facility and creates a Class 6 felony for delivering this type of contraband to a juvenile in a juvenile correctional facility.

However, Section 1 of the Act makes possession of this contraband "an act of delinquency," rather than a criminal offense (felony or misdemeanor). This language is unprecedented in state law and conflicts with the statutory definition of a "delinquent child," found in Chapter 26-8C of the South Dakota Codified Laws. Under 26-8C-2, a delinquent child is defined as a child, who "has violated any federal, state or local law or regulation for which there is a penalty of a criminal nature for an adult," with exceptions for misdemeanor traffic, hunting, fishing, boating and park laws, petty offenses, and underage consumption of alcohol. Therefore, in order for a behavior to be an "act of delinquency," there must be a violation of an offense for which there is a penalty of a criminal nature for an adult. There is no such provision under Section 1 of Senate Bill 128.

In addition to this ambiguity, use of the term, "an act of delinquency," will also prohibit a child charged under Section 1 of this Act from being transferred to adult court for the possession of serious contraband in a juvenile correctional facility. For example, a prosecutor may want to transfer a 17-year-old juvenile with a gun in a detention center or Department of Corrections facility to adult court. However, since this bill doesn't create any penalty of a criminal nature, transfer to adult court and prosecution therein is not an option.

Finally, current state law allows persons to remain in juvenile custody until they turn 21 even though they may be age 18 or older and, therefore, are no longer juveniles. Therefore, in the event a person age 18-21 is caught with alcohol, drugs, or weapons in a state juvenile facility, this Act would not apply since the Act is specific to juveniles (under age 18).

While the goals of this bill are laudable, due to the ambiguity in language and gaps in application, I respectfully request that you concur with my action. To address these concerns, I am proposing a new bill for your consideration. I would ask that you concur with my veto of Senate Bill 128, vote to suspend the rules, and introduce this bill which I believe addresses the intent of the sponsors without the problems identified above.

March 16, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 138 (SB 138) and VETO the same.

This bill was designed to provide limited liability for the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). While I am certainly in strong support of the intent of SB 138, I believe the bill is confusing and does not provide the protections the sponsors of the bill were seeking.

The bill lacks a clear definition of who is provided immunity from civil liability and under what circumstances the immunity would apply. I am particularly concerned with the sentence in section 4 that states "This immunity applies only if the requirements of section 2 of this Act are fulfilled." I believe this could potentially conflict with the provisions of section 2. For instance, the person providing cardiopulmonary and AED training who is provided immunity in section 4 has no control over whether the defibrillator is maintained and tested according to the manufacturer's operational guidelines (subdivision (2) of section 2). Yet his immunity is dependent upon whether the person acquiring the AED has complied with the requirement.

Also, as I read the bill, it does not appear as if any protection is provided to the trained individual who used the AED to render emergency care or treatment. Finally, I believe there needs to be very clear definition of who would be covered under the existing Good Samaritan law (SDCL 20-9-4.1).

To address these concerns, I am proposing a new bill for your consideration. I would ask that you concur with my veto of SB 138, vote to suspend the rules, and introduce this bill which I believe meets the intent of the sponsors without the confusion of the original bill.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 188 and VETO the same.

Senate Bill 188 is, "An Act to limit the application of capital punishment." Its purpose is to prohibit the execution of any person who was less than sixteen years of age at the time when he or she committed the crime for which he or she was given the death sentence. The bill also prohibits the execution of persons who are "mentally retarded."

I agree philosophically with both of the prohibitions. I also appreciate the efforts made by the sponsors in introducing Senate Bill 188 and the efforts of all of the legislators who considered the amendments that were made to the original bill.

Even though the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that persons under the age of 16 cannot be executed. I agree with the sponsors' wishes to place that prohibition in state law.

However, there are several problems with the definition and the application of the "mental retardation" prohibition.

1. The definition of "mentally retarded" in Senate Bill 188 is too broad.

The bill states that the term "mentally retarded" includes "any person with significant subaverage general intellectual functioning and deficits in adaptive behavior." That definition comes from SDCL 27B-1-1 and has been a good, workable definition for use in human services, education, and other programs. However, the imposition of

a penalty that ends a person's life requires greater specificity and clarity so mistakes are not caused by varying interpretations.

                What is "subaverage?" What are the components of "general intellectual functioning?" What is "adaptive behavior?" Adaptive to what? Because "deficits" is plural, there must be more than one kind of deficit in adaptive behavior. What are the "deficits?" Are there definitions for these conditions that are clear and measurable through testing or are they subjective terms that can change according to who is doing the evaluation of "general intellectual functioning" and "adaptive behavior?"

                Without clear definitions, an inmate will be able to game the system to his or her advantage.

            2.    Because there are no time limits or procedural limits on the use of the "mental retardation" claim, death penalty inmates could wait until all other appeals and delays are exhausted and then make the "mental retardation" claim in order to start several more years of appeals and delays.

            3.    The bill does not specify whether the claim of "mental retardation" can be used by current death row inmates or by only those sentenced after the bill would have become law.

                There are existing death penalty cases in South Dakota that have been moving through appeals processes for many years. Even though "mental retardation" has never been raised as an issue in these cases, would Senate Bill 188 allow those inmates to now claim that they are mentally retarded? It would be wrong to start these exhausting appeals processes all over again because a new law allowed the use of the "mental retardation" claim in those cases.

            4.    The bill does not state at what point in time the inmate had to be mentally retarded in order for the state to be prohibited from executing that inmate.

                If an offender was mentally retarded at the time when the crime was committed, but does not meet the definition of "mentally retarded" now, is the state prohibited from executing that person?

                Conversely, if an offender was not mentally retarded at the time the crime was committed, but has become mentally retarded after the commission of the crime or after the sentencing or at any point before execution, is the state prohibited from executing that person?

                Some people will say that person is either mentally retarded or not. However, the broad definition of "mentally retarded" in the bill could cause an extremely wide range of interpretations, especially when those interpretations are made years apart by different people during a lengthy appeals process.

            5.    The use of the term "mentally retarded" may also be in conflict with United States Supreme Court decisions. For example, in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 US 302,106 L. Ed.

2d 256, 109 S. Ct. 2934 (1989), the United States Supreme Court was asked if the execution of mentally retarded persons could be prohibited. The answer was "no." However, the court also stated that mental retardation could be considered as a mitigating factor in determining whether or not the death penalty should be applied.

I don't think anyone realizes how complex or potentially confusing the application of the "mental retardation" claim could become. I also believe that it will be difficult to write a definition of "mentally retarded" that protects truly mentally retarded persons and also eliminates or minimizes the misuse of the definition in other cases, but it can be done.

I pledge to work with the sponsors of Senate Bill 188 between now and the Year 2000 legislative session to write a bill that accomplishes the goal of exempting the truly mentally retarded from the death penalty. I also make the commitment to you that no executions other than of prisoners currently on death row will happen in South Dakota between now and the next legislative session.

I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

March 19, 1999

The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070

Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:

I herewith return Senate Bill 190 and VETO the same.

Senate Bill 190 is entitled, "An Act to prohibit certain sexual acts between certain jail and juvenile correctional facility employees and prisoners and to provide a penalty therefor."

As drafted, Senate Bill 190 provides a means to minimize the seriousness of the offenses of sexual contact and rape of a child when the crime is committed by an adult correctional staff member and the victim is a juvenile offender housed in a juvenile correctional facility. I am confident this was not the intent of this bill.

Senate Bill 190 stipulates that it is a Class 6 felony for an employee of a jail or juvenile correctional facility to engage in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact with another person who is in custody. Although the intent of this bill may have been to criminalize this behavior when existing rape and sexual contact statutes don't apply, (e.g. where a child over age 16 consents to the sexual activity) this specific application is not referred to in Senate Bill 190,

and, as a result, Senate Bill 190 as passed may well be used as a tool to reduce the penalty for this incredibly offensive behavior.

Under existing state law, sexual contact with a child under 16 is a Class 3 felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to fifteen thousand dollars. Under Senate Bill 190, the same offensive behavior toward a child in a juvenile correctional facility is only a Class 6 felony, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison and a fine of two thousand dollars. Rape offenses are Class 1, 2, or 3 felonies depending upon the age of the victim and the use of force. Maximum penalties for rape range from 15 years to life in prison. Again, the same behavior charged under the provisions of Senate Bill 190 could result in a maximum prison term of two years.

This bill would create an unintended loophole in our laws that may allow an adult sex offender who preys on one of our most vulnerable children a way to lessen the consequences of his behavior. This is not acceptable, and I respectfully request that you concur with my action. To address these concerns, I am proposing a new bill for your consideration. I would ask that you concur with my veto of Senate Bill 190, vote to suspend the rules, and introduce this bill that would directly prohibit sexual contact or penetration with incarcerated persons, 16 years of age or older, in jails or juvenile corrections facilities.

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the executive appointment of Theodore J. Pins, Jr., of Lake County, Wentworth, South Dakota, to the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

    The question being "Does the Senate advise and consent to the executive appointment of Theodore J. Pins, Jr., pursuant to the executive message as found on page 816 of the Senate Journal?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the appointment confirmed.

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the executive reappointment of Ralph A. Kemnitz of Haakon County, Philip, South Dakota, to the South Dakota Lottery Commission.

    The question being "Does the Senate advise and consent to the executive reappointment of Ralph A. Kemnitz pursuant to the executive message as found on page 815 of the Senate Journal?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the appointment confirmed.

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the executive reappointment of Thomas J. Deadrick of Charles Mix County, Platte, South Dakota, to the Commission on Human Rights.

    The question being "Does the Senate advise and consent to the executive reappointment of Thomas J. Deadrick pursuant to the executive message as found on page 816 of the Senate Journal?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the appointment confirmed.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form of SB 221 as found on page 806 of the Senate 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 SB 221 be approved?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form approved.

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form of SB 164 as found on page 807 of the Senate 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 SB 164 be approved?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 16, Nays 18, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Bogue; Daugaard; Dennert; Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Flowers; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Moore; Olson; Reedy; Symens; Valandra

Nays were:
Albers; Benson; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Drake; Dunn (Jim); Everist; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Madden; Munson (David); Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

So the question not having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form not approved.

     The style and form recommendation of the Governor not having been approved, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of SB 164 as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

     The question being "Shall SB 164 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 33, Nays 1, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Staggers

Excused were:
Paisley

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 97 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 808 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 97 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 10, Nays 24, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Bogue; Daugaard; Dunn (Rebecca); Kleven; Lawler; Shoener; Staggers; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Benson; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kloucek; Lange; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Symens; Valandra

Excused were:
Paisley

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.

Sen. Rounds moved that consideration of the veto of SB 188 be immediately considered.

Which motion prevailed and SB 188 was up for immediate consideration.

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 188 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 812 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 188 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 5, Nays 29, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Dunn (Rebecca); Kloucek; Lange; Reedy; Staggers

Nays were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Rounds; Shoener; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

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.

Sen. Rounds moved that the Senate do now recess until 2:00 p.m., which motion prevailed and at 1:30 p.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS

MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1301 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.

We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the Governor as to style and form on HB 1301.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved SB 221 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 MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Hunt, Cutler, and Haley 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 Seventy-fourth Legislative Session.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Hunt, Smidt, and Lucas 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.

The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 99 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 809, as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

The question being "Shall SB 99 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 13, Nays 21, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Dennert; Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Flowers; Hutmacher; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Moore; Olson; Reedy; Symens; Valandra

Nays were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Everist; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Kleven; Madden; Munson (David); Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

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.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to Order of Business No. 8.

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

     Sen. Rounds moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with the referral to committee, and placing on today's calendar a bill relating to providing immunity from civil and criminal liability for the placement and use of automated external defibrillators and a bill relating to the special assessment authority to ambulance districts.

     The question being on Sen. Rounds' motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with the referral to committee, and placing on today's calendar a bill relating to providing immunity from civil and criminal liability for the placement and use of automated external defibrillators and a bill relating to the special assessment authority to ambulance districts.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 29, Nays 5, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Munson (David); Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Bogue; Kloucek; Moore; Olson; Staggers

Excused were:
Paisley

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the motion carried.

Sen. Rounds moved that the Senate proceed to First and Second Reading of Senate Bills and Joint Resolutions.

FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 128 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 810 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 128 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 1, Nays 33, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Duxbury

Nays were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

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.

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 138 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 811 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 138 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 0, Nays 34, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

Nays were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

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.

     The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 190 pursuant to the veto of the Governor and the veto message as found on page 814 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 190 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 0, Nays 33, Excused 2, Absent and Not Voting 0

Excused were:
Duxbury; Paisley

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.

     The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form of HB 1301 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 question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form of HB 1301 be approved?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 32, Nays 1, Excused 2, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Dunn (Rebecca)

Excused were:
Paisley; Valandra

So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, the President declared the question of the Governor as to change of style and form approved.

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

Sen. Rounds moved that a committee of three on the part of the Senate be appointed to meet with a like committee on the part of the House to fix the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-fourth Legislative Session.

Which motion prevailed and the President appointed as such committee Sens. Rounds, Halverson, and Hutmacher.

Sen. Rounds moved that a committee of three be appointed 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 and is ready to adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature.

Which motion prevailed and the President appointed as such committee Sens. Rounds, Everist, and Hutmacher.

SCR 16 Introduced by: Senators Frederick, Drake, and Hutmacher and Representatives Putnam, Brown (Jarvis), Cerny, Duenwald, Haley, Konold, Richter, Slaughter, and Volesky

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Declaring August 31 - September 6, 1999, as South Dakota Reunion Week.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges the citizens of South Dakota to schedule reunions, special occasions, and social events for families, friends, and neighbors to enjoy during that week at the South Dakota State Fair.

Was read the first time and the President waived the committee referral.

     SCR 16: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Declaring August 31 - September 6, 1999, as South Dakota Reunion Week.

    Was read the second time.

    Sen. Frederick moved that SCR 16 be adopted.

     The question being on Sen. Frederick's motion that SCR 16 be adopted.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 27, Nays 4, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Frederick; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Madden; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Dennert; Hainje; Halverson; Moore

Excused were:
Flowers; Lawler; Paisley; Valandra

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried and SCR 16 was adopted.

Sen. Rounds moved that the Senate do now recess until 3:50 p.m., which motion prevailed and at 3:20 p.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS

MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has passed SB 164, the Governor's veto notwithstanding. We return herewith the enrolled copy of the bill.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to return herewith SCR 16 in which the House has concurred.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has failed to suspend the rules to consider SB 250 and 251.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has adopted the report of the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of waiting 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.

Also MADAM PRESIDENT:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has adopted the report of the Joint-Select Committee pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-fourth Legislative Session.

MADAM PRESIDENT:

Your Joint-Select Committee appointed 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 communications to make to the Legislature, respectfully reports that it has performed the duty assigned to it and has been informed by his Excellency, the Governor, that he will not appear for the closing of the Seventy-fourth Legislative Session.

Respectfully submitted,    Respectfully submitted,
ROGER W. HUNT    M. MICHAEL ROUNDS
ORVILLE SMIDT    BARBARA EVERIST
LARRY LUCAS    JIM HUTMACHER
House Committee    Senate Committee

     Sen. Rounds moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to informing the Governor that the Legislature is ready to adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature be adopted.

     The question being on Sen. Rounds' motion that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to informing the Governor that the Legislature is ready to adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature be adopted.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 34, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Moore; Munson (David); Olson; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Excused were:
Paisley

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried and the report was adopted.

Sen. Rounds moved that the Senate do now recess until 4:50 p.m., which motion prevailed and at 4:30 p.m., the Senate recessed.

RECESS

The Senate reconvened at 4:50 p.m., President Hillard presiding.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to Order of Business No. 8.

Sen. Everist moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with the referral to committee, and placing on today's calendar a bill relating to authorization for the Board of Regents to lease a site for delivery of public higher education in Sioux Falls and the use of funds from the higher education facilities fund for lease payments therefor.

The question being on Sen. Everist's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of introducing, giving first reading to, dispensing with the referral to committee, and placing on today's calendar a bill relating to authorization for the Board of Regents to lease a

site for delivery of public higher education in Sioux Falls and the use of funds from the higher education facilities fund for lease payments therefor.

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 27, Nays 4, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Munson (David); Reedy; Rounds; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Bogue; Flowers; Olson; Shoener

Excused were:
Kloucek; Moore; Paisley; Staggers

So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members- elect, the President declared the motion carried.

FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

SB 252: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize the Board of Regents to lease a site for delivery of public higher education in Sioux Falls and to use money appropriated by the Legislature from the higher education facilities fund to make lease payments therefor.

Was read the second time.

Sen. Daugaard moved the previous question.

Which motion prevailed.

     The question being "Shall SB 252 pass?"

     And the roll being called:

     Yeas 27, Nays 4, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0

     Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Duxbury; Everist; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Lange; Lawler; Madden; Munson (David); Reedy; Rounds; Symens; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting

Nays were:
Bogue; Flowers; Olson; Shoener

Excused were:
Kloucek; Moore; Paisley; Staggers

So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES