The House convened at 11:00 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, the Speaker presiding.
The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Pastor Jerry Oberg, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance led by House page JoLeah Booth.
Roll Call: All members present except Reps. Cerny, Crisp, Garnos, and Wudel who were
excused.
On page 885, delete lines 8 to 28, inclusive.
All other errors, typographical or otherwise, are duly marked in the temporary journal for
correction.
And we hereby move the adoption of the report.
The Speaker publicly read the title to
SB 208:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
appropriate money for the ordinary
expenses of the legislative, judicial, and executive departments of the state, the expenses of state
institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools.
And signed the same in the presence of the House.
February 25, 2000
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
Pursuant to SDCL 2-7-20.3, the Governor has deposited the veto messages and the original
vetoed bills with my office because the Legislature was in recess.
It is my duty to forward the original veto messages and the original bills to the house of origin
and copies to the other house of the Legislature. Therefore, I have attached to this
communication the original bills and veto messages for the following bills: HB 1053, HB 1057,
HB 1073, and HB 1244.
I have also attached to this communication the original bills and style and form messages for
the following bills: HB 1095 and HB 1308.
The Honorable Roger Hunt
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1095 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and
FORM.
House Bill 1095 is entitled, "An Act to authorize professional corporations, limited liability
companies, or limited liability partnerships owned by certain health care professionals of more
than one profession."
All changes are made to the Senate State Affairs Committee engrossed version of the bill.
In Section 16, page 5, line 18, the Act reads:
To the extent required by the licensing law governing any authorized licensee or
professional employee, . . . .
The malpractice insurance provisions for nurses are outlined in the corporation law for nurses
under SDCL 47-11E. Therefore, this sentence should be reworded to read as follows, "To the
extent required by the licensing or corporation law governing any authorized licensee or
professional employee . . . ."
I respectfully request you concur with my recommendations as to style and form.
The Honorable Roger Hunt
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1308 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and
FORM.
House Bill 1308 is, "An Act to prohibit the possession of certain forms of computer-related
child pornography."
The Act uses one of two terms incorrectly and in a manner that could defeat the purpose of the
bill. The underlined phrase in Section 1 of the engrossed and enrolled versions of House Bill
1308 is not consistent with the definition found in Section 3 of the Act. Section 1 reads as
follows:
Any person who knowingly possesses any depiction fixed in any tangible medium of
expression of a minor under the age of eighteen years engaging in a prohibited sexual act
or in the simulation of such act or whose knowing possession encourages, aids, abets, or
entices any person to commit a prohibited sexual act is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
However, Section 3 of the engrossed and enrolled Act uses the phrase "tangible media of
expression". Section 3 reads as follows:
The phrase in Section 3 should read "tangible medium of expression" for both consistency and
clarity.
I respectfully request you concur with my recommendations as to style and form.
The Honorable Roger Hunt
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1053 and VETO the same.
House Bill 1053 is entitled, "An Act to revise certain provisions relating to the practice of
optometry."
This bill would expand the ability of optometrists to prescribe and administer pharmaceutical
agents for the eye and its appendages by including prescriptive oral drugs.
Although this appears to be a small, incremental step to improve medical care for the eye and
treatment of potential diseases that affect the eye, it is something much larger than that. While
it is widely acknowledged that optometrists have progressed a great deal in using noninvasive
methods of diagnosing and refracting eye problems, the extent of their medical training is not
consistent with the training medical doctors receive prior to being able to write prescriptions.
In order to exercise full medical oral prescriptive authority (write prescriptions), a medical doctor receives at a minimum seven years of post-graduate training (four years of medical school plus three years of residency training). Then, and only then, does the South Dakota Board of Medical Examiners authorize unrestricted prescriptive authority of oral drugs. HB 1053 would allow treatment with oral antibiotics, oral steroids, and oral antiviral drugs with three to four years less post-graduate study than what is required of medical doctors to prescribe these same medications.
Corticosteroids, if not prescribed properly, can cause diabetic coma, gastric ulcers, osteoporosis,
hypertension, a weakening of the immune system, and a host of other very critical problems.
Steroids, if prescribed improperly, will even stunt the growth of children. To quote a pharmacist
I consulted with about this bill, "steroids are potent, potent drugs that can have tons of very
serious side-effects."
The pharmacist went on to say that beyond the obvious potential allergic reactions,
over-prescribing antibiotics is also becoming a danger. If antibiotics are prescribed when they
are unnecessary, the body may begin to build a resistance to the treatment by antibiotics to
certain modern day maladies like flesh eating bacteria.
The intensive classroom training that a medical student receives, as well as the hands-on
requirement to participate in a three-year residency program, provide that student with a myriad
of experiences in dealing with all types of medications, their affects upon the human body, and
the dangers to the human body of mixing those medications. The three-year residency also
requires oversight by medical doctors who have spent years treating patients and prescribing
medications. An optometrist just does not receive this invaluable hands-on learning education
in prescribing medications that can have very serious affects on the patient.
Although this bill would give the privilege of prescribing or administering prescriptive drugs,
it does not provide any authority for the Board of Examiners in Optometry to require additional
special training. Neither does it provide or mandate any special or additional training for
optometrists in this state.
If the Legislature desires to set forth the ability for an administrative agency to authorize certain
actions or practices, the Legislature must provide the standards within which the agency makes
its decisions. This has not been done in this case. The Legislature has not provided for any
additional pharmacological training for optometrists, nor has it set forth any standards within
which there is a "delegation of the Legislative power" to provide for such training. Without such
Legislative direction, it would be improper for the Board to require any additional training prior
to allowing optometrists to administer or dispense non-analgesic oral prescription drugs.
I cannot in good conscience sign a bill that allows someone to prescribe oral drugs, when that
person has had neither the intensive training nor the vast experience in dispensing drugs that
could cause serious injury if not prescribed properly.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Roger Hunt
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1057 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to create the South Dakota
education savings plan." It was passed in response to a new federal law that allows income tax
reductions for contributors to state-approved educational savings plans.
However, the bill instructs a state agency to do work it cannot do, it violates the South Dakota
Constitution, it attempts to limit liability contrary to recent Supreme Court decisions, and it
excludes a large number of students who are supposed to benefit from it.
First, the Department of Education and Cultural Affairs (DECA) is ordered to design and
implement this program to serve thousands of investors and beneficiaries over long periods of
time, perhaps decades. But, DECA is not given any staff or funds to do it.
Second, the bill mandates that DECA "shall" implement the program through contracts and
"shall" select from among bidding financial institutions. But, this mandate to use outside agents
violates Article IV, Section 1 of the South Dakota Constitution, which states, "The executive
power of the state is vested in the Governor."
If this command to delegate executive power elsewhere was constitutional, then it would also
be possible for the Legislature to mandate the delegation of its own powers to a private agency
or the judiciary's powers to a private agency. Clearly, all three actions would be wrong.
In addition, the mandate to DECA also eliminates the discretion of the executive branch to take
actions when faced with unforeseen circumstances. If none of the bidders is commercially or
reasonably acceptable, the bill mandates the selection of one or more of those bidders anyhow.
Third, Sections 22, 23, and 24 try to limit the obvious potential liabilities of holding and
investing other people's money for long periods of time. But, the South Dakota Supreme Court
has repeatedly ruled that the Legislature cannot abrogate a citizen's right to sue the state for
negligence when state employees are performing ministerial duties, See, Kyllo v. Panzer, 535
N.W.2d 896 (SD 1995).
Therefore, if the "savings" plan does not yield the promised results, the state could be sued and
future tax dollars could be ordered by the courts to compensate the "savings" plan participants
who sue. The liability limitations in the bill are not valid.
Finally, in Section 1, the program is defined as a "college" savings program. The reference is repeated again in Section 2 and Section 25. But, the term "college" significantly narrows the number of institutions and students who can participate. The bill excludes our four technical institutions-Lake Area Technical Institute in Watertown, Southeast Technical Institute in Sioux
Falls, Mitchell Technical Institute in Mitchell, and Western Dakota Technical Institute in Rapid
City.
It is wrong to give special benefits only to people saving for "college" expenses and deny those
same special benefits to people saving for the other post-secondary technical educational
institutions.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Roger Hunt
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1073 and VETO the same. House Bill 1073 is, "An Act to permit
assessments based on benefits."
This bill in its present form increases the potential for raising assessments for property owners.
It is an effort by municipalities to find a new revenue source for street improvements. After six
sessions of successful effort to reduce property taxes, I cannot stand by and let this effort to
increase costs to our taxpayers go unchallenged.
Special assessments for street improvements are currently based on the amount of frontage feet
of lots abutting or within 300 feet of the improvement. If House Bill 1073 becomes law,
properties will be assessed based upon benefits accruing to a property owner as determined by
the local governing body. The 300-foot rule will no longer apply.
Additionally, House Bill 1073 extends the assessment of costs for street improvements to
property that is currently exempt such as churches, fraternal associations, schools, governmental
entities, etc.
We have a huge population of elderly pensioners on Social Security. We have a large population
of single parents with children at home. We have a significant population of young couples with
children. Under this Act, each of these groups of taxpayers is faced with increased assessments
for street projects in their communities.
This bill also allows each local governing body unlimited power to assess these landowners based on benefit criteria established by the governing body. If House Bill 1073 becomes law, each local governing body will be allowed to establish its own criteria for determining benefits. The bill includes no standards for determining benefits. This could result in 350 different sets of criteria for determining benefits for each municipality in South Dakota. There is every
possibility that certain types of property will be found to receive a greater benefit than other
property and thus pay a greater portion of the assessment. This clearly violates two provisions
of our state Constitution. Article VI, §17 provides:
No tax or duty shall be imposed without the consent of the people or their representatives
in the Legislature, and all taxation shall be equal and uniform. (Underlining added for
emphasis)
Further, Article IX, § 2, regarding classification of property for taxation, provides, in part:
Taxes shall be uniform on all property of the same class, and shall be levied and collected
for public purposes only.
(See footnote 1)
(Underlining added for emphasis)
If this bill passes, a property owner who owns a house in a development may find himself with
a special assessment for a street improvement two blocks away. The municipality may contend
that the landowner has no other way to access his development than to use this arterial street,
thus he receives a benefit from the street improvement.
A municipal government could determine that a church with a membership of 250 would
receive a substantial benefit in comparison to other property owners utilizing that same street
because the parishioners contribute substantially to the local traffic count. Thus, the church may
pay a higher portion of the improvement based on benefit as determined by the local governing
board.
Determining these benefits is very subjective and allows the governing body entirely too much
discretion in determining the level of assessment on each property. There is great potential for
harm to individual property owners with this bill.
The Legislature already allows for the municipality to share the cost of the arterial street
improvement with the landowner located two blocks away. The municipality is allowed to use
both municipal property taxes and sales tax to offset the cost of the street improvements that
could be assessed to adjacent and abutting property owners and all nonassessable property.
We have all promised the property taxpayers of this State that we would stand by them, help
them, and do everything we could do to reduce their property taxes. We have provided the
largest tax relief in the history of this state.
For the past five years, the Legislature has been committed to property tax reduction and we
have reduced property taxes more than any other state. House Bill 1073 is a backdoor way to
extract arbitrary and substantial assessments from property owners.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
March 11, 2000
The Honorable Roger Hunt
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1244 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to authorize the Board
of Regents to provide a tuition reduction for children of nonresident alumni."
Incredibly, this special tuition reduction would be given ONLY to the children of nonresident
alumni.
Many South Dakota parents work extra jobs, mortgage their homes, or borrow money so their
children can attend college, but their children would NOT receive this special tuition reduction.
Many South Dakota college students work 20, 30, 40, or more hours each week in order to pay
for their tuition, but they would NOT receive this special tuition reduction.
Many South Dakota college students also wipe out their savings and borrow money to pay for
their tuition, but they would NOT receive this special tuition reduction.
These hardworking South Dakota resident students would not only receive NO special tuition
reduction, they would ALSO be forced to pay higher tuition or receive less educational
opportunities because there is no funding in the bill to pay for the special tuition reduction for
ONLY children of nonresident alumni. South Dakota's taxpaying parents and their children will
be paying for nonresident tuition reductions!
When we extract money from taxpayers to fund education, we should spend those tax dollars
meeting the needs of South Dakotans first. If money is available for special circumstances, then
special treatment should be a reward for high achievements or special talents, not a birthright.
If we are going to offer special discounts and advantages at the taxpayers' and resident students'
expense, why don't we target the best and brightest from South Dakota AND out-of-state, not
just members of the "lucky gene pool" club?
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Speaker appointed Rep. Wilson to replace Rep. Cerny on the Conference Committee
on SB 28.
Rep. Cutler moved that the House do now recess until 1:00 p.m., which motion prevailed,
and at 11:53 a.m. the House recessed.
Nays were:
Burg; Chicoine; Davis; Fischer-Clemens; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Kazmerzak; Koehn; Koetzle;
Lockner; McIntyre; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Patterson; Sutton (Daniel); Volesky; Wilson
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
Absent and Not Voting were:
Lucas; Putnam; Waltman
So the motion not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the Speaker declared the motion lost.
Rep. Richter announced his intention to reconsider the vote by which the Conference
Committee Report on SB 41 lost.
"
operations and audit committee of
six
ten
, consisting of
three
five
members of the Senate
appointed by the president pro tempore of the Senate
, one of whom shall be a member of the
Judiciary Committee,
and
three
five
members of the house appointed by the speaker of the
house,
one of whom shall be a member of the Judiciary Committee,
for the purpose of inquiry
and review of any phase of the operations and
"
"Section 12. That
§
2-6-4
be amended to read as follows:
2-6-4.
The government operations and audit committee may examine all records and
vouchers, summon witnesses, and thoroughly examine all expenditures and the general
management of each department.
No review or action may be taken by the government
operations and audit committee until the committee is directed by the executive board of the
legislative research council.
"
Nays were:
Burg; Davis; Earley; Fischer-Clemens; Hagen; Haley; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Kooistra; Lockner;
McIntyre; Napoli; Patterson; Waltman; Wilson; Young
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the motion carried and the report of the Conference Committee on SB 141 was
adopted.
Rep. Richter moved that the House do now reconsider vote by which the report of the
Conference Committee on SB 41 was lost.
The question being on Rep. Richter's motion that the House do now reconsider the vote
by which the report of the Conference Committee on SB 41 was lost.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 61, Nays 5, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Apa; Broderick; Brooks; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Chicoine; Clark; Cutler; Davis;
Derby; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Duniphan; Earley; Eccarius; Engbrecht;
Fiegen; Fischer-Clemens; Fitzgerald; Fryslie; Haley; Hanson; Heineman; Hennies; Jaspers;
Juhnke; Kazmerzak; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Lintz; Lockner; Lucas; McCoy; McIntyre;
McNenny; Michels; Monroe; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Napoli; Patterson; Peterson;
Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Sebert; Slaughter; Smidt; Solum; Sutton (Daniel); Sutton
(Duane); Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Wilson; Young; Speaker Hunt
Nays were:
Burg; Hagen; Klaudt; Koehn; Koetzle
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
Rep. Richter moved that the House do not adopt the report of the Conference Committee
on SB 41 and that a new committee of three on the part of the House be appointed to meet with
a like committee on the part of the Senate to adjust the differences between the two houses.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Derby,
Richter, and Burg.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of HB 1095 as found on pages 896 and 897 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 1095 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 62, Nays 4, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Broderick; Brooks; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Chicoine; Clark; Cutler; Davis;
Derby; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Duniphan; Earley; Engbrecht; Fischer-
Clemens; Fitzgerald; Fryslie; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Heineman; Hennies; Jaspers; Juhnke;
Kazmerzak; Klaudt; Koehn; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Lintz; Lockner; Lucas; McCoy;
McIntyre; McNenny; Michels; Monroe; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Napoli; Patterson;
Peterson; Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Sebert; Slaughter; Smidt; Solum; Sutton (Daniel);
Sutton (Duane); Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Wilson; Young; Speaker Hunt
Nays were:
Apa; Eccarius; Fiegen; Koskan
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
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 1308 as found on pages 897 and 898 of the House Journal, as provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Nays were:
Napoli
Excused were:
Brown (Jarvis); Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
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 reconsideration of HB 1053 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on pages 898 and 899 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 1053 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 39, Nays 27, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Apa; Broderick; Brown (Jarvis); Burg; Chicoine; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer);
Duenwald; Engbrecht; Fischer-Clemens; Fryslie; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Hennies; Juhnke;
Kazmerzak; Klaudt; Koehn; Koetzle; Koskan; Lintz; Lockner; Lucas; McCoy; McIntyre;
Monroe; Nachtigal; Patterson; Pummel; Putnam; Sebert; Smidt; Sutton (Daniel); Sutton
(Duane); Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz
Nays were:
Brooks; Brown (Richard); Clark; Cutler; Davis; Derby; Duniphan; Earley; Eccarius; Fiegen;
Fitzgerald; Heineman; Jaspers; Konold; Kooistra; McNenny; Michels; Munson (Donald);
Napoli; Peterson; Richter; Roe; Slaughter; Solum; Wilson; Young; Speaker Hunt
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1057 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on pages 900 and 901 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 1057 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 40, Nays 25, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 1
Yeas were:
Brooks; Brown (Richard); Burg; Chicoine; Clark; Davis; Derby; Diedrich (Larry); Duniphan;
Fiegen; Fitzgerald; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Heineman; Hennies; Juhnke; Koehn; Koetzle;
Kooistra; Lockner; Lucas; McCoy; McIntyre; Michels; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Patterson;
Peterson; Pummel; Richter; Roe; Smidt; Sutton (Daniel); Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz;
Wilson; Speaker Hunt
Nays were:
Apa; Broderick; Brown (Jarvis); Cutler; Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Earley; Eccarius;
Engbrecht; Fischer-Clemens; Fryslie; Jaspers; Kazmerzak; Konold; Koskan; Lintz; McNenny;
Monroe; Napoli; Putnam; Sebert; Slaughter; Solum; Sutton (Duane); Young
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
Absent and Not Voting were:
Klaudt
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 1073 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on pages 901 to 903 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 1073 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Nays were:
Broderick; Brooks; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Clark; Cutler; Davis; Derby;
Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Duniphan; Earley; Engbrecht; Fiegen; Fischer-
Clemens; Fitzgerald; Fryslie; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Heineman; Jaspers; Juhnke; Kazmerzak;
Koehn; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Lintz; Lucas; McCoy; McNenny; Michels;
Monroe; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Napoli; Peterson; Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe;
Sebert; Slaughter; Smidt; Solum; Sutton (Daniel); Sutton (Duane); Volesky; Weber; Wetz;
Wilson; Speaker Hunt
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
Absent and Not Voting were:
Klaudt
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 1244 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on pages 903 and 904 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 1244 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 31, Nays 34, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 1
Yeas were:
Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Chicoine; Clark; Davis; Derby; Diedrich (Larry);
Eccarius; Engbrecht; Fischer-Clemens; Fitzgerald; Haley; Hennies; Juhnke; Koehn; Kooistra;
Lockner; Lucas; McIntyre; Michels; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Patterson; Pummel; Roe;
Smidt; Sutton (Daniel); Waltman; Weber; Wilson
Nays were:
Apa; Broderick; Brooks; Cutler; Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Duniphan; Earley; Fiegen;
Fryslie; Hagen; Hanson; Heineman; Jaspers; Kazmerzak; Koetzle; Konold; Koskan; Lintz;
McCoy; McNenny; Monroe; Napoli; Peterson; Putnam; Richter; Sebert; Slaughter; Solum;
Sutton (Duane); Volesky; Wetz; Young; Speaker Hunt
Absent and Not Voting were:
Klaudt
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.
Speaker Hunt now presiding.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has failed to adopt the
report of the Conference Committee on SB 41 and has reappointed Sens. Frederick, Drake, and
Moore as a new committee of three on the part of the Senate to meet with a like committee on
the part of the House to adjust the differences between the two houses.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has appointed Sens.
Rounds, Halverson, and Hutmacher 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-fifth legislative session.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has appointed Sens.
Rounds, Halverson, and Hutmacher 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. 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 fix the time of adjournment sine die for the
Seventy-fifth legislative session.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Hunt, Cutler,
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 communications to make to the Legislature.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Hunt, Smidt,
and Lucas.
Rep. Cutler moved that the House do now recess until 4:15 p.m., which motion prevailed
and at 3:05 p.m., the House recessed.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the House and Senate
have, pursuant to the recommendation of the Governor as to corrections in style and form of HB
1095 and 1308, approved the recommendations and that the Office of Enrolling and Engrossing
has engrossed the changes and has returned the same to his Excellency, the Governor at
4:37 p.m., March 14, 2000.
The Speaker publicly read the title to
SB 141:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
establish a monitor within the juvenile
corrections system and to provide for certain legislative review and study of the state's
correctional system.
And signed the same in the presence of the House.
"
Section 1. That chapter 13-16 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as
follows:
recommends that the Senate do not concur with the House amendments to SB 185 and that no
new committee be appointed.
Rep. Cutler moved that the report of the Conference Committee on SB 28 as found on page
914 of the House Journal be adopted.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 8-1, Section 771, paragraph 2, and Section 297 of Mason's Manual,
Rep. Wilson rose to a point of order that the conference committee had not confined itself to
differences of opinion between the two houses.
The Speaker ruled the report of the conference committee in order, noting that the chair of the conference committee had ruled that an identical objection made at the time of the action taken by the conference committee was improper and not in order.
Nays were:
Brown (Richard); Burg; Chicoine; Clark; Davis; Engbrecht; Fischer-Clemens; Hagen; Haley;
Hanson; Hennies; Kazmerzak; Koehn; Koetzle; Kooistra; Koskan; Lockner; Lucas; McIntyre;
Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Patterson; Roe; Sebert; Slaughter; Sutton (Daniel); Volesky;
Waltman; Weber; Wilson
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the motion carried and the report of the Conference Committee on SB 28 was
adopted.
Rep. Eccarius moved that the report of the Conference Committee on SB 185 as found on
pages 914 and 915 of the House Journal be adopted.
The question being on Rep. Eccarius' motion that the report of the Conference Committee
on SB 185 be adopted.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 63, Nays 3, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Apa; Broderick; Brooks; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Chicoine; Clark; Cutler;
Davis; Derby; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Duniphan; Earley; Eccarius;
Engbrecht; Fiegen; Fischer-Clemens; Fryslie; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Heineman; Hennies;
Jaspers; Juhnke; Kazmerzak; Klaudt; Koehn; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan; Lintz;
Lockner; McCoy; McIntyre; McNenny; Michels; Monroe; Munson (Donald); Nachtigal; Napoli;
Patterson; Peterson; Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Sebert; Smidt; Solum; Sutton (Daniel);
Sutton (Duane); Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Wilson; Young; Speaker Hunt
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the motion carried and the report of the Conference Committee on SB 185 was
adopted.
Rep. Richter moved that the report of the Conference Committee on SB 41 as found on
page 915 of the House Journal be adopted.
The question being on Rep. Richter's motion that the report of the Conference Committee
on SB 41 be adopted.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 66, Nays 0, Excused 4, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Apa; Broderick; Brooks; Brown (Jarvis); Brown (Richard); Burg; Chicoine; Clark; Cutler;
Davis; Derby; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duenwald; Duniphan; Earley; Eccarius;
Engbrecht; Fiegen; Fischer-Clemens; Fitzgerald; Fryslie; Hagen; Haley; Hanson; Heineman;
Hennies; Jaspers; Juhnke; Kazmerzak; Klaudt; Koehn; Koetzle; Konold; Kooistra; Koskan;
Lintz; Lockner; Lucas; McCoy; McIntyre; McNenny; Michels; Monroe; Munson (Donald);
Nachtigal; Napoli; Patterson; Peterson; Pummel; Putnam; Richter; Roe; Sebert; Slaughter;
Smidt; Solum; Sutton (Daniel); Sutton (Duane); Volesky; Waltman; Weber; Wetz; Wilson;
Young; Speaker Hunt
Excused were:
Cerny; Crisp; Garnos; Wudel
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 report of the Conference Committee on
SB 41 was adopted.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 6.
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-fifth Legislative Session.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Roger W. Hunt M. Michael Rounds
Orville Smidt Harold W. Halverson
Larry Lucas Jim Hutmacher
House Committee Senate Committee
Rep. Cutler moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to informing the
Governor that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to ascertain if he has any
further communication to make to the Legislature be adopted.
Which motion prevailed and the Joint-Select Committee Report was adopted.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
Your Joint-Select Committee appointed to consider the matter of adjournment sine die of
the Seventy-fifth Legislative Session respectfully reports that the Senate and House of
Representatives adjourn sine die at the hour of 1:58 a.m., March 15, 2000.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Roger Hunt M. Michael Rounds
Steve Cutler Harold W. Halverson
Pat Haley Jim Hutmacher
House Committee Senate Committee
Rep. Cutler moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to fixing the time
to adjourn sine die be adopted.
Which motion prevailed and the Joint-Select Committee Report was adopted.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1095 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 1308 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 adopted the reports of
the Conference Committees on SB 141 and 185.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of
the Conference Committee on SB 41.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of
the Conference Committee on SB 28.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate 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 communications to make to the Legislature.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of
the Joint-Select Committee relative to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-
fifth Legislative Session.
The report of the conference committee on SB 28 was outside the scope of the subject of
the disagreement between the Houses, in violation of Joint Rule 8-1 and Section 771, paragraph
2, of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure; and further that the report of the committee was
not germane to the title of SB 28, in violation of Joint Rule 8-2.
Pat Haley Mike Wilson
The Speaker publicly read the title to
SB 28:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
restrict certain school district transfers.
SB 41:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
authorize expenditures out of the water and
environment fund, to amend the state water plan, and to declare an emergency.
And signed the same in the presence of the House.
The following closing prayer was offered by Pastor Jerry Oberg:
Our Heavenly Father, we ask You to bless us as we leave this place.
We pray that what we have done here assists in the prosperity and advancement of this
great state. We thank You for the friendships we have made and ask a special blessing on those
who will not be returning next year. To You be the glory, honor, and power. Amen.
Rep. Brooks moved that the House do now adjourn sine die, which motion prevailed, and
at 1:58 a.m., March 15, 2000, the House adjourned.