The minutes from the December 14 committee meeting did go out before the postponement, and last night at 10:50 p.m. CDT, committee member Senator Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) sent out this objection to that draft:
Sen. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton)
At our last meeting, a dissenting protest was officially and respectfully filed with our committee by a plurality of our members. We discussed it in detail and it was officially filed and acknowledged on the record. It is the right of each of us to have our objections noted in the minutes and they are required to be entered into the minutes absent a majority opposition to the language, no such objection or motion by a majority of the members occurred. It is the long standing practice of both chambers that such dissenting reports are filed with the body and are entered into the journals and minutes absent a majority opposition, as per our explicit rules to such. The omission of such a significant required annotation of the minutes would be troubling under normal circumstances, under these circumstances it is extremely so.
The minutes are incomplete and inaccurate as proposed [Sen. Stace Nelson, e-mail to committee, 2018.01.03].
Senator Nelson attached Joint Rule 1-10 on “Dissent Against an Act or Resolution” and Interim Rule 14 on majority and minority reports.
Committee chair Senator Troy Heinert (D-26/Mission) evidently didn’t want to go to bed stewing, so he stayed up until 1:03 a.m to get this seven-point response off his chest:
Sen. Troy Heinert (D-26/Mission)
Happy New Year to you all and I wish you and your family bountiful blessings!
Due to the unforeseen circumstances of some committee members inability to make it to the scheduled meeting on Jan. 4, 2018 I have decided to reschedule the meeting to Jan. 26, 2018 at the same place and time. After conversation with some committee members I cannot stress the importance of meeting at least once on one of the Reservations that share our borders. It is only an hour and a half drive from Pierre to Mission so if you need to drive down that morning there should be plenty of time. If you would like to stay closer, we do have a nice motel at the Rosebud Casino or, in our tradition, I offer my home to anyone that would like to stay.
As for the minutes that were sent out and that they are incomplete and inaccurate, I do not agree with that assessment for the following reasons:
First off, the letter was sent by email and not in paper form which is not a valid form of filing such a report at any level.
Second, a minority report would not be filed with the committee to be placed in the minutes, the minutes are not a journal like what we have during session.
Third, Joint Rule 1-10 is not controlling, this is a reference to a rule for the 2017 Legislative Session and thus this rule’s authority ended when the session ended.
Fourth, the Interim Rule 14 is for interim committee’s and is not controlling because the State/Tribal Committee is a statutory committee not an interim committee that received its charge from the Executive Board as CLEARLY defined by the Attorney Generals opinion that you all have received.
Fifth, Mason’s Manual of Procedure Section 674 is not controlling either. The joint rules from the session incorporate a reference to Mason’s for use if the Joint Rules don’t supply an answer. This incorporation by reference only applies to the session rules.
Sixth, there was not a motion made to accept the report as Senator Jensen called the question to accept the minutes before there was any motion to accept this report as part of the minutes. A minority or dissenting report can only be accepted by a committee if the committee through formal action of the committee votes to accept the report.
And finally, I would have ruled this report out of order as not decorous as the entire second paragraph is full on innuendo and falsehoods that have meet no legal or ethical standards and have been ruled out of order by the chairman and upheld by the vote of the committee during the Oct. 23, 2017 meeting in Vermillion. Neither a minority nor a plurality has the authority to compel the committee to act, only a majority of the committee has the authority to act or decide a question. The committee has the authority to accept or reject any report based on a proper motion and vote taken. Any report must be decorous in language and respectful to the committee.
Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts. According to the Attorney General and our own committee, I ruled on this motion correctly as we did not have the authority this motion was seeking. As for this continuous conflict of interest insinuation I have been completely transparent and honest with all of you. My mother DID NOT have any Gear Up contract with DOE or MCEC. She was hired by Per Group, after an open RFP that Per Group was awarded, to do classroom and curriculum evaluations for an hourly rate paid for by Per Group. She filed a report of her observations with Per Group who then submitted it to the DOE. It was not a favorable report and she is unaware of what the DOE did with it after submission but that is her extent of her involvement in Per Group. These constant insinuations are not only false and misleading they take away the focus from the actual participants in Gear UP.
These false attacks have turned into racially motivated comments made in the media and to me by some truly unscrupulous individuals that have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about and this is unacceptable. There is no place in public service for absolute lies to be perpetrated for purely political intentions.
With all of that said, there are many issues that we need to focus our time on and work together for the betterment of arguably the most underserved population in our state. I look forward to seeing you all in a few days and I’m sure we will be able find common ground on quite a number of topics! [links added; Sen. Troy Heinert, e-mail to committee, 2018.01.04]
Stay tuned for the January 26 meeting… on Senator Heinert’s home turf.
When a majority was for the dissenting opinion, it should be in the minutes. Then no one can come back later and say, you should have said that earlier. To try to find miniscule points in the rules, that they themselves might be misread, to try to stop what is right is not a good position for Heinert to take. Since Nelson has a history of seeing the corruption and not being to intimidated by the party of power to give his opinion, I would like to know what his opinion was.
There is developing a mountain of evidence that their needs to be a seriously extensive swamp draining in South Dakota politics.
Stace Nelson
2018-01-04 17:18
Here is the dissenting protest filed and discussed during the last meeting. As reported here, I have filed them repeatedly over the years. They are filed when they are delivered to the members and do not require motions to enter them. It is protected speech that every member is entitled to exercise as per their Constitutional authority to represent. It is the right of the minority to stand apart from practices and file a dissenting protest. In this case, it is a plurality.
Interesting argument claiming that the rules dont apply to the committee; however, the opinion of the AG claiming the committee is controlled by things not in writing do..
Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, Legislative Interim Rule 14, and Masons Manual of Legislative Procedures Section 674, we, the undersigned, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the October rulings of the Chairman of the Joint Tribal Relations Committee, Senator Troy Heinert, in ruling against Senator Nelson’s point of order that Senator Heinert be excused & recuse himself from voting on Senator Jensen’s motion to summons and subpoena witnesses in the GEAR UP corruption due to Senator Heinert’s conflict of interest of voting on an issue in which his mother has been identified as being potentially involved; and, we do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against the plurality’s defeat of Senator Jensen’s motion to summons and subpoena said GEAR UP witnesses on claims the committee does not have the authority to do so on claims the statutory interim Tribal Relations Committee, which meets during the interim of the legislature, and is recognized in reports to and by the Legislative Research Council as an interim committee, is not an “interim committee” and is solely controlled and empowered by “best practices” exhibited within the Joint Tribal Relations historic committee minutes.
Senator Heinert’s refusal to recuse himself from his personal conflict of interest on a motion potentially affecting his mother, and from reviewing his own conflict of interest in the request to recuse himself, in our opinion, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, weakens the rule of law, besmirches the reputation and integrity of the South Dakota Legislature, and violates legislative rules against such practice: Masons Manual for Legislative Procedures Sec 522 “It is a general rule that no members can vote on a question in which they have a direct personal or pecuniary interest.”
The interim rules of the South Dakota Legislature are clear and explicit that committees operating during the interim of the regular session of the legislature posses the Constitutional authority to summons and subpoena: Interim Rule 15 “..committee may administer oaths, require reports, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses, and the production of any papers, books, accounts, documents, and testimony, and to cause the depositions of witnesses, either residing within or without the state, to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for taking depositions in civil actions in the circuit court.” The gold standard of “best practices” adopted by the SD Legislature, and recognized authority on parliamentary law in all 50 states, Mason’s Manual for Legislative Procedures explicitly cites in Sec 802 that committees in fact have long-standing Constitutional authority to summons and subpoena. Additionally, South Dakota’s own Supreme Court states the legislature is only limited if it has done so on itself explicitly in statute (See ¶ 22 Bob GRAY, President Pro Tempore of the South Dakota State Senate and Members of the South Dakota State Senate, Applicants, v. David R. GIENAPP, Circuit Judge, Respondent, Daniel Sutton, Intervenor and Respondent, No. 24407, January 18, 2007). No such limitations in statute exist which precludes the Tribal Relations Committee’s legislative authority to summons and subpoena.
In light of the catastrophic human and financial costs of the widely publicized and acknowledged corruption in the GEAR UP grant program, important tasks specific to the statutory obligations of the State Tribal Relations committee remain negligently undone. Nevertheless, a plurality of the State Tribal Relations Committee members opposed our committee from exercising its statutory authority to summons witnesses and subpoena records of this infamous corruption that has robbed countless Native American youth of opportunities which have and will negatively affect their lives and economic conditions in our Native American communities for generations to come.
For these reasons, we, a plurality of the Joint State Tribal Relations Committee, respectfully submit this dissent and protest to be entered into the minutes.
Senator Stace Nelson Senator Lance Russell Senator Phil Jensen
Representative Elizabeth May Representative Steve Livermont
Rorschach
2018-01-04 18:43
Troy Heinert 1. Stace Nelson 0.
Spike
2018-01-04 21:57
It would be nice to know the agenda for the 26th meeting. I wouldn’t want this to distract from the opportunity the committee has to talk with the community. Keep this fight in Pierre, there are issues much larger that this who’s right argument. Please
grudznick
2018-01-04 22:21
Clearly Mr. Heinert got some good advice from the normally partisan Council of Legislature Research and guided him in slapping down Mr. Nelson’s insaner ideas and claims. This will probably enrage Mr. Nelson, that the Council is helping Mr. Heinert more than they are helping Mr. Nelson.
Good for the Council.
Mr. Rorshach, I think it’s actually Mr. Heinert 24 or 6 to 4.
Jenny
2018-01-04 22:26
Oh dear.
grudznick
2018-01-04 22:26
I recounted. It’s 25 or 6 to 4.
tara volesky
2018-01-05 10:33
I am glad that Senator Nelson is fighting for Indian students and the taxpayers. I guess some people just don’t want corruption exposed. Could this be another under the table?
Spike! According to the January 4 agenda, the committee was to tour Todd County Middle School in the morning, then take public testimony and discuss possible legislation in the afternoon.
When a majority was for the dissenting opinion, it should be in the minutes. Then no one can come back later and say, you should have said that earlier. To try to find miniscule points in the rules, that they themselves might be misread, to try to stop what is right is not a good position for Heinert to take. Since Nelson has a history of seeing the corruption and not being to intimidated by the party of power to give his opinion, I would like to know what his opinion was.
There is developing a mountain of evidence that their needs to be a seriously extensive swamp draining in South Dakota politics.
Here is the dissenting protest filed and discussed during the last meeting. As reported here, I have filed them repeatedly over the years. They are filed when they are delivered to the members and do not require motions to enter them. It is protected speech that every member is entitled to exercise as per their Constitutional authority to represent. It is the right of the minority to stand apart from practices and file a dissenting protest. In this case, it is a plurality.
Interesting argument claiming that the rules dont apply to the committee; however, the opinion of the AG claiming the committee is controlled by things not in writing do..
You be the judge:
From: Stace.Nelson@sdlegislature.gov
Date: December 14, 2017 at 11:07:24 CST
To: Troy.Heinert@sdlegislature.gov, Shawn.Bordeaux@sdlegislature.gov, Steve.Livermont@sdlegislature.gov, Oren.Lesmeister@sdlegislature.gov, Jessica.LaMie@sdlegislature.gov, Phil.Jensen@sdlegislature.gov, Lance.Russell@sdlegislature.gov, John.Lake@sdlegislature.gov, Kevin.Killer@sdlegislature.gov, Elizabeth.May@sdlegislature.gov
Subject: Dissent and protest for today’s minutes
Dissent & Protest Plurality (Minority) Report
Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, Legislative Interim Rule 14, and Masons Manual of Legislative Procedures Section 674, we, the undersigned, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the October rulings of the Chairman of the Joint Tribal Relations Committee, Senator Troy Heinert, in ruling against Senator Nelson’s point of order that Senator Heinert be excused & recuse himself from voting on Senator Jensen’s motion to summons and subpoena witnesses in the GEAR UP corruption due to Senator Heinert’s conflict of interest of voting on an issue in which his mother has been identified as being potentially involved; and, we do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against the plurality’s defeat of Senator Jensen’s motion to summons and subpoena said GEAR UP witnesses on claims the committee does not have the authority to do so on claims the statutory interim Tribal Relations Committee, which meets during the interim of the legislature, and is recognized in reports to and by the Legislative Research Council as an interim committee, is not an “interim committee” and is solely controlled and empowered by “best practices” exhibited within the Joint Tribal Relations historic committee minutes.
Senator Heinert’s refusal to recuse himself from his personal conflict of interest on a motion potentially affecting his mother, and from reviewing his own conflict of interest in the request to recuse himself, in our opinion, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, weakens the rule of law, besmirches the reputation and integrity of the South Dakota Legislature, and violates legislative rules against such practice: Masons Manual for Legislative Procedures Sec 522 “It is a general rule that no members can vote on a question in which they have a direct personal or pecuniary interest.”
The interim rules of the South Dakota Legislature are clear and explicit that committees operating during the interim of the regular session of the legislature posses the Constitutional authority to summons and subpoena: Interim Rule 15 “..committee may administer oaths, require reports, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses, and the production of any papers, books, accounts, documents, and testimony, and to cause the depositions of witnesses, either residing within or without the state, to be taken in the manner prescribed by law for taking depositions in civil actions in the circuit court.” The gold standard of “best practices” adopted by the SD Legislature, and recognized authority on parliamentary law in all 50 states, Mason’s Manual for Legislative Procedures explicitly cites in Sec 802 that committees in fact have long-standing Constitutional authority to summons and subpoena. Additionally, South Dakota’s own Supreme Court states the legislature is only limited if it has done so on itself explicitly in statute (See ¶ 22 Bob GRAY, President Pro Tempore of the South Dakota State Senate and Members of the South Dakota State Senate, Applicants, v. David R. GIENAPP, Circuit Judge, Respondent, Daniel Sutton, Intervenor and Respondent, No. 24407, January 18, 2007). No such limitations in statute exist which precludes the Tribal Relations Committee’s legislative authority to summons and subpoena.
In light of the catastrophic human and financial costs of the widely publicized and acknowledged corruption in the GEAR UP grant program, important tasks specific to the statutory obligations of the State Tribal Relations committee remain negligently undone. Nevertheless, a plurality of the State Tribal Relations Committee members opposed our committee from exercising its statutory authority to summons witnesses and subpoena records of this infamous corruption that has robbed countless Native American youth of opportunities which have and will negatively affect their lives and economic conditions in our Native American communities for generations to come.
For these reasons, we, a plurality of the Joint State Tribal Relations Committee, respectfully submit this dissent and protest to be entered into the minutes.
Senator Stace Nelson Senator Lance Russell Senator Phil Jensen
Representative Elizabeth May Representative Steve Livermont
Troy Heinert 1. Stace Nelson 0.
It would be nice to know the agenda for the 26th meeting. I wouldn’t want this to distract from the opportunity the committee has to talk with the community. Keep this fight in Pierre, there are issues much larger that this who’s right argument. Please
Clearly Mr. Heinert got some good advice from the normally partisan Council of Legislature Research and guided him in slapping down Mr. Nelson’s insaner ideas and claims. This will probably enrage Mr. Nelson, that the Council is helping Mr. Heinert more than they are helping Mr. Nelson.
Good for the Council.
Mr. Rorshach, I think it’s actually Mr. Heinert 24 or 6 to 4.
Oh dear.
I recounted. It’s 25 or 6 to 4.
I am glad that Senator Nelson is fighting for Indian students and the taxpayers. I guess some people just don’t want corruption exposed. Could this be another under the table?
Spike! According to the January 4 agenda, the committee was to tour Todd County Middle School in the morning, then take public testimony and discuss possible legislation in the afternoon.