The first meeting of the 1998 interim of the Legislative Procedure Committee was called to order by Co-Chair Senator Harold W. Halverson at 1:15 p.m. on Tuesday, October 6, 1998, in LCR 1 of the State Capitol in Pierre. (For a portion of its agenda, the committee met jointly with the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council.)

Staff members present included Terry C. Anderson, LRC Director, and Yolonda J. Soyer, Administrative Assistant.

(NOTE: For sake of continuity, the following minutes are not necessarily in chronological order. Also, all referenced documents are on file with the Master Minutes.)

Mr. Anderson explained the enhancements which have been made to the LRC Internet site. Bills with line numbers can now be printed from the Internet; hypertext is provided in the bill history which takes the user directly to the text of amendments; the Daily Reader will be compiled automatically and available at the Internet site approximately one hour after the close of session. Printed copies of the Reader will still be distributed to all legislators on a daily basis.

The Director then explained the problems with wiring the chambers, noting that the sound systems in both houses are quite old and in need of attention. Also, the House voting machine should be considered in any rewiring project. The question of purchasing versus leasing computers must also be addressed. He explained the current leasing arrangement for desktop computers.

Turning to the laptop computer survey results (Document #1), Mr. Anderson noted that seventy-two of the legislators responding indicated they would use a laptop computer. Thirty-eight legislators stated they would prefer a desktop computer to hard copies of documents. Addressing the cost issue (Document #2), he explained that the Board has explored the use of a mini-docking station. The LRC Internet site is updated every thirty minutes during the legislative session. Each mini-docking station would cost $200. It would cost $105,420 to lease laptop units for thirty legislators for the 1999 Legislative Session. Upon a query from Senator Symens, Mr. Anderson explained that the cost of the mini-docking station ($199 plus shipping and handling) is not included in the lease cost estimate.

Members were then directed to North Dakota?s policy on the use of personal computers (Document #3).

Representative Davis requested a total cost figure on wiring the chambers, and Mr. Anderson explained that the Bureau of Administration estimates it would cost $144,000 to $200,000 to wire both chambers for telephones and electricity. He clarified that there are alternatives to having the computers plugged in at the chamber desks. Computers could be plugged into outlets in Room 401 (the computer lab during the past session) for recharging and then used by legislators at committee meetings. The units could also be recharged at a legislator?s motel room.

Senator Shoener said that he supported providing twenty to thirty laptop computers to legislative leaders during the upcoming session and then scheduling the chamber rewiring and sound system upgrades at a later time. Senator Everist concurred but expressed concern that the survey indicated there were more than seventy legislators who positively responded to the survey but yet it is suggested that the laptops be limited to the legislative leaders. Chair Halverson clarified that the survey showed that thirty-eight of the respondents felt capable of using a laptop computer during the next session. Representative Madden suggested wiring the Senate for an electronic voting system if any large rewiring project is undertaken. Senator Paisley suggested wiring all the committee rooms, and Mr. Anderson responded that the committee rooms are wired for electricity; the computer wiring would need to be added. If a docking station is used with the laptop computer, then the computer would not have to be plugged in during the committee meeting. Legislative offices are already wired. The Director explained that leaders who currently are provided desktop computers could be provided laptop computers instead. In response to a question from Senator Paisley regarding disruption on the floor due to laptop computer use, Mr. Anderson responded that he was not aware of any problems. Most of the concern seems to be in regard to the use of the state equipment outside the Capitol.

Representative Diedrich explained that someone had expressed concern to him that perhaps the laptop model under consideration is a "Cadillac" and exceeds the needs of legislators. Mr. Dale Luckhurst, Bureau of Information and Technology (BIT), explained that the model being considered is the state standard and has a five-year life. Representative Diedrich stated his opinion that there should be a move to a paperless system when the Legislature is totally computerized; he suggested that perhaps a goal of two years would be realistic. Senator Brown stated: "I think we should move forward with at least thirty units at this time." Senator Symens agreed that the Legislature should proceed with this project. Representative Lucas suggested providing laptop computers to more than thirty legislators--perhaps a number somewhere between thirty and one hundred five. Senator Hutmacher suggested using the laptops to operate CD-ROMS of the South Dakota Codified Laws, for example. This would eliminate the need for legislators to have the book sets. Representative Hunt asked how much computer training would be necessary and stated that it would be helpful to have a type of electronic notebook--separate from the LawMaker™ system--to use in making comments and annotations on bills. Mr. Anderson explained that the laptop computers would come with the Microsoft Office Suite, which includes a word processing program. Training on using the Internet to access legislative information would be provided to legislators. He reported that the Governor?s office has offered its US WEST training teams for Internet training for legislators. Representative Gabriel suggested that new legislators and interns--possibly pages--be trained to use the laptop computers. He cautioned to proceed slowly with leasing, using a limited number of legislators, and providing adequate training.

Upon a question from Representative Diedrich, Mr. Anderson explained that the chambers will not be wired in time for the upcoming legislative session. The laptops with docking stations can be used, however. Legislators can use the docking stations in their motel rooms and in the legislative computer lab to recharge the computers. Senator Rounds questioned the accessibility of printers for the laptop users. The Director explained that the current proposal does not contemplate printers. Legislators could use the printer in the computer lab or provide their own printers. Senator Rounds stated his opinion that providing the legislators with computers will not result in a paperless Legislature. He also felt that the move to computers should be slow and that great cost savings in printing should not be anticipated. Chair Halverson echoed Senator Rounds? comments. Senator Rounds asked if there is funding in the current legislative budget, and Mr. Anderson responded that the FY 1999 budget does contain funding that could be used for leasing thirty laptop computers.

Discussion followed on allowing the proposed units to be used by legislators for the term of the lease. Senator Symens asked if there is a maintenance agreement, noting discussion at the last meeting regarding the device fee. Mr. Anderson stated that the device fee has yet to be addressed with BIT. Representative Madden suggested wiring the chambers and allowing legislators to provide their own laptop computers. Representative Diedrich questioned why the Legislature wants to lease computers when it could purchase them at a lower cost. Mr. Anderson explained that he would have to determine if adequate funding was available in the FY 99 budget to purchase laptop computers.

SENATOR SYMENS? MOTION PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WITH 12 AYES, 1 NAY, AND 2 EXCUSED. Voting AYE: Brown, Everist, Flowers, Johnson, Shoener, Symens, Davis, Diedrich, Duxbury, McNenny, Pederson, and Halverson. Voting NAY: Madden. EXCUSED: De Hueck and Hagg.

(A copy of a proposed rule was included in the meeting packet as Document #5).

Mr. Anderson introduced Mr. Larry Rohrer, South Dakota Public Broadcasting (SDPB), who explained the proposal (Document #4) that Real Audio software be used to transmit the floor proceedings live at the Legislature?s Internet site. There could be 100 simultaneous users; the true value, however, is in the archival process, which has unlimited users. Upon a query from Representative Gabriel, Mr. Rohrer explained that there would not be a cost to the Legislature for this service; this service would fall within the current mission of SDPB.

Committee discussion ensued. Representative Gabriel voiced his opposition to placing such a policy in legislative rule. He asked what would happen if the sound system was not operating when the Legislature had mandated, by rule, that its floor proceedings be simulcast. Senator Everist thanked Mr. Rohrer and South Dakota Public Broadcasting for offering this service and further stated her opinion that the Legislature would be remiss if it did not avail itself of this opportunity. Senator Rounds commented: "I think it?s a very good idea." He expressed concern about the limit of 100 simultaneous users. Representative Gabriel cautioned that the bodies will have to discipline themselves on time allotments for speaking on issues; he further stated his belief that there will be a tendency for members to "play to the camera." Representative Cutler stated his opinion that the floor proceedings should not be broadcast on the Internet. He warned that debate will be extended. The recorded proceedings will be used extensively in campaigns. He said: "I would hesitate to do this. . . . I think there are more negatives than positives." Senator Hutmacher expressed support for the project; Senator Brown opined that standing committee hearings would be more beneficial and interesting to the public than floor sessions.

SENATOR EVERIST MOVED, SECONDED BY REPRESENTATIVE DIEDRICH, THAT THE EXECUTIVE BOARD ACCEPT SOUTH DAKOTA PUBLIC BROADCASTING?S OFFER TO PROVIDE LIVE AUDIO OF THE FLOOR SESSIONS AT THE LEGISLATURE?S INTERNET SITE. MOTION FAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS WITH 6 AYES, 7 NAYS, AND 2 EXCUSED. Voting AYE: Everist, Flowers, Johnson, Symens, Diedrich, and Duxbury. Voting NAY: Brown, Shoener, Davis, Madden, McNenny, Pederson, and Halverson. EXCUSED: De Hueck and Hagg.

Mr. Anderson reported that the Bureau of Finance and Management has indicated that the Governor probably will give his budget address on December 8. He suggested that the new member orientation could be held December 7 and 8. The Gaming Study Report could be presented on December 8. The last few years the Executive Board has paid legislators to attend the Governor?s budget message when it was coupled with another legislative offering, such as an issue forum.

Representative McNenny suggested that the gaming report be made the evening before the budget address and that time be scheduled to allow legislators to question the consultants on the report. Chair Halverson suggested receiving the gaming study report in the morning and then having a question-and-answer period following the budget message.

MOTION PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WITH 13 AYES AND 2 EXCUSED. Voting AYE: Brown, Everist, Flowers, Johnson, Shoener, Symens, Davis, Diedrich, Duxbury, Madden, McNenny, Pederson, and Halverson. EXCUSED: De Hueck and Hagg.

Senator Rounds spoke in support of the calendar proposed by Representative Burdette Solum (Document #7), noting that the proposal included only one Saturday session and that two days would be reserved for consideration of gubernatorial vetoes. Representative Gabriel voiced his position that only one day should be held for veto considerations.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY REPRESENTATIVE LUCAS, SECONDED BY SENATOR HUTMACHER, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE SESSION CALENDAR PREVIOUSLY SENT TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS (Document #6). SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE WITH 5 AYES, 5 NAYS, AND 4 EXCUSED. Voting AYE: Hutmacher, Paisley, Gabriel, Haley, and Lucas. Voting NAY: Rounds, Cutler, Hunt, Richter, and Halverson. EXCUSED: Dunn (Rebecca), Hunhoff, Whiting, and Hagg.

SENATOR ROUNDS? ORIGINAL MOTION FAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE WITH 2 AYES, 8 NAYS, AND 4 EXCUSED. Voting AYE: Rounds and Cutler. Voting NAY: Hutmacher, Paisley, Gabriel, Haley, Hunt, Lucas, Richter, and Halverson. EXCUSED: Dunn (Rebecca), Hunhoff, Whiting, and Hagg.

REPRESENTATIVE CUTLER MOVED, SECONDED BY SENATOR ROUNDS, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE ADOPT THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE FOR THE 1999 LEGISLATURE: January 12-16; January 19-22; January 25-29; February 1-5; February 8-12; February 16-19; February 22-26; March 1-6; March 23. MOTION PREVAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE WITH 6 AYES, 4 NAYS, AND 4 EXCUSED. Voting AYE: Paisley, Rounds, Cutler, Gabriel, Hunt, and Halverson. Voting NAY: Hutmacher, Haley, Lucas, and Richter. EXCUSED: Dunn (Rebecca), Hunhoff, Whiting, and Hagg.

(A copy of the calendar is attached to these minutes.)

The committee recessed at 3:10 p.m. for a reception honoring Thomas R. Vickerman on his retiring after twenty-five years of service. The committee reconvened at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. Mark Zickrick, Principal Fiscal Analyst, presented a review of the appropriations process in the light of the recent Council on Higher Education (COHE) lawsuit. He stressed that the South Dakota Supreme Court did not strike down any provisions of the General Appropriations Act that dealt with process and the Court did not comment on the Legislature?s process in regard to the Appropriations Committee?s methods of dispensing with legislation. He then turned to proposed changes in rules dealing with the general appropriations bill.

6D-1.  Referral of bills and resolutions to standing committees. Unless otherwise ordered, all bills and joint resolutions, except the general appropriations bill, shall be referred to a standing committee after their first reading. The presiding officer may waive the referral to standing committee of concurrent and simple resolutions. Copies of all concurrent and simple resolutions shall be distributed to each member before being acted upon. This rule applies to a bill or resolution in either chamber.

6F-1.  No second reading until engrossment. No bill or resolution amended after introduction may be read the second time until it is correctly engrossed. This rule does not apply to the general appropriations bill.

6F-2.  Second reading at least one day after committee report. No bill or joint resolution may have its second reading or receive final passage until at least one legislative day after it has been reported to the house by the committee to which the same has been referred and such report has been read to the house. However, second reading of the general appropriations bill is in order at any time.

6F-3.  Action on committee reports. No report of any standing committee or select committee may be acted upon until at least one legislative day after it has been read to the body, except the report of the committee on legislative procedure, or the reports of standing committees requesting referral to another standing committee of a bill or resolution which may be acted upon immediately. However, during the last three days of the session, reports of conference committees may be acted upon the same day as reported. However, the committee report on the general appropriations bill may be acted upon at any time.

6F-4.  Placement of unamended bills and resolutions on calendar. If any committee makes a report that a bill or resolution "Do Pass" without proposing any amendment thereto, the bill or resolution shall be placed upon the calendar for second reading on the next legislative day. However, the general appropriations bill may be placed on the calendar for second reading at any time.

6F-5.  Placement of amended bills and resolutions on calendar. If any standing committee returns a bill or resolution to the house with the recommendation that the bill or resolution do pass with proposed amendments, the report shall be received, read and entered upon the journal. The committee report shall be placed on the calendar for adoption the following legislative day and the bill shall be placed on the calendar for floor action on the legislative day following the adoption of the committee report. On the final day for the committee to act upon a bill, the report may be placed directly on the calendar for floor action. A report recommending the passage of a bill or resolution with proposed amendments is not subject to change or amendment. This rule does not apply to the general appropriations bill.

Lengthy discussion was held on the proposed new rule. Representative Gabriel stated that he did not support a broad rule that applies to all standing committees. Upon a query from Senator Rounds, Mr. Anderson responded that there is no consistency in the way committees handle posting bills "below the line" on agendas. Representative Cutler stated his opinion that there is not a need to place in rule the requirement that bills which have been heard but not acted on must be placed below the line on the agenda before a vote can be taken.

It was agreed that members would review the joint rules on fiscal notes and actuarial statements and discuss these rules at the next meeting.

Representative Lucas referenced HB 1097 from the 1998 Legislative Session, which was hoghoused in conference committee, and raised the issue of a conference committee report not being germane to the title of the bill as submitted to the conference committee. He did not feel that there was ample opportunity to challenge the germaneness issue.

The committee took no action on this issue.

The next meeting of the Legislative Procedure Committee is scheduled for December 16, 1998.

The committee adjourned at 4:50 p.m.