Also adding to the fog on the Anti-Corruption Act is Aberdeen city attorney Ron Wager, who suggests IM 22 could complicate his life:
Aberdeen City Attorney Ron Wager said the new law is complicated, and there’s potential for city officials to be affected.
“I don’t have a lot of information at this point,” he said. “I’m not sure what the impact will be.”
Wager said the South Dakota Municipal League is studying the measure and its impact on city elected officials and appointed board members [Elisa Sand, “Passage of IM 22 Halts Legislators’ Events,” Aberdeen American News, 2016.11.27].
Unlikely, Mr. Wager. The Anti-Corruption Act does not impose any new requirements on municipal officials. Its new campaign finance requirements apply only down to the county level. The $100 limit on gifts from lobbyists (Section 31) only apply to gifts to “an elected state officer, legislative official or staffperson, or executive department official or staffperson,” not municipal officials. IM 22’s extension of the “revolving door” ban from one year to two (Section 65) applies only to officials serving in state government. The only new item in IM 22 concerning city officials lies in Section 33, which forbids all elected or appointed officials “of the state or any of its political subdivisions” cannot serve on the state ethics commission (Section 33).
I welcome Mr. Wager and the Municipal League to parse the Anti-Corruption Act for municipal implications that I may have missed. But my reading says city officials will see no new work coming their way from the Anti-Corruption Act.