…Would Trump Survive This Rule?
In other action today, the Joint Legislative Procedure Committee amended its “Professional Conduct and Civility” rule (Joint Rule 1B-3) to include a cyberbullying provision. The new rule will read as follows, with the new online conduct policy underlined:
1B-3. Professional conduct and civility. The South Dakota Legislature will strengthen and sustain an atmosphere of professional conduct and civility among its members and with all staff and will not tolerate harassment or offensive behavior based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, or disability. Harassing or offensive behavior may include the use of electronic communications through social media or otherwise, whether actual or attempted. Legislators must refrain from any and all such harassment or offensive conduct. This prohibition against harassment also encompasses sexual harassment including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal, or physical conduct of a sexually harassing nature, when: (1) submission to the harassment is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment or other employment determinations, or (2) the harassment has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment [Joint Legislative Procedure Committee, proposed amendment to Joint Rule 1B-3, approved 2018.03.08].
As a conservative policymaker, I would contend the inserted language is redundant. The preceding sentence says the Legislature “will not tolerate harassment or offensive behavior based on race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, or disability,” with no qualification of where, when, or by what medium such offensive behavior takes place. The subsequent sentence says members “must refrain from any and all such harassment or offensive conduct.” “Any and all” encompasses online harassment. If the Legislature is serious about cracking down on legislators who make unprofessional, uncivil, or discriminatory comments online, Joint Rule 1B-3 already offered all the language the Legislature needs to act.
The cyber clause is also poorly written. Given that the prior language already covered “any and all” harassment or offense, adding “may include the use of electronic communication” seems to add some wiggle room, not simply affirming permission that the Legislature already had but also opening the possibility that the Legislature may not act against naughty e-notes. Are legislators not sure they want to include electronic communications in their professional conduct policy? May is permissive; shall is mandatory.
It is interesting to see the Legislature consider an online conduct policy under which the majority’s party leader, Donald Trump, would be censured on a weekly basis, if not expelled. (This rule comes from a Legislature that just got done passing a resolution praising The Donald for Making America Great Again™.) But from a purely technical perspective, the language Joint Legislative Procedure added to Joint Rule 1B-3 is redundant, sloppy, and unnecessary to promote real professional and civil behavior by our legislators.
This is going to toss a wrench in the bloggings of both Mr. Novstrup, the elder, and Mr. Nelson.
Incorrect, Grudz: Senator Novstrup does no bloggings… which is one more reason he’s inadequate to the job of representing the people in 21st-century America.
Don’t you think this was aimed directly at Di Santo and Tapio? Di Santo never received any public consequences for her hateful racist Facebook post (besides losing her day job). Tapio spends his entire legislative session each year bellowing whacked out conspiracy theories about Islam and immigrants.
Ms. Kate, I think this was aimed at somebody but probably not those two glory hounds.
I’d like to sock my legislator, of choice (right in the kisser), while they are spewing BS from any podium – but laws only allow me to talk sh!t (in legal and socially acceptable ways), not act upon [much of] the sh!t talk.
However, if a private individual wishes to express their desire to physically challenge any other individual, I encourage society to allow law enforcement to have good knowledge of that – in order to head off violent acts.
We should allow bullying; and also allow law enforcement to document it.
Kate, I wish the policy were aimed directly at DiSanto, Tapio, and other Republicans who lob thinly (if at all) veiled racist taunts at the public. However, I suspect the Republican caucus that proposed these rules had no such thing in mind. I suspect they are only creating one more rule they can use against any incautious member who challenges the power and integrity of the caucus. There’s no social justice in this new, redundant rule, only some passive-aggressive threats to boat-rockers.