We don’t have bills yet, but we have a rough outline of three proposals for the September 12 Special Session and the procedure by which the Legislature will consider those proposals from the Governor.
Bob Mercer reports that Legislative Research Concil deputy director Sue Cichos told the Executive Board yesterday that Governor Dennis Daugaard has not yet delivered bills but that legislators will see two separate proposals pertaining to the Supreme Court-approved remote-vendor sales tax the Governor wants to kick into gear:
One Daugaard bill would dissolve the state circuit court’s injunction in the case. That would let state government collect from most businesses covered by the 2016 law.
…The second measure would force intermediary marketplaces such as Amazon and EBay to collect sales and use taxes from third-party sellers who use their sites [Bob Mercer, “Lawmakers Prep for Special Session on Online Sales Tax,” Rapid City Journal, 2018.08.28].
Legislators will also deal with the entirely unrelated issue of fixing a glitch in the gubernatorial inauguration date to allow the next governor to enjoy the traditional Saturday ball.
Mercer further reports the process that will take place. Speaker G. Mark Mickelson (R-13/Sioux Falls) says the Joint Appropriations Committee will meet on September 11 to take testimony and make recommendations. Then on September 12, the Legislature will break from standard procedure and convene all 105 members as a committee of the whole to take testimony on the tax proposals. That committee of the whole will be one of the rare occasions when non-legislators are allowed to speak from the floor of the House; I’ll be very curious to see if the committee of the whole permits testimony from lobbyists and other interested citizens, as do normal, smaller standing committees.
According to Mercer, after the committee of the whole takes testimony, Senators will skedaddle back to their chamber, and the House and the Senate will debate and vote separately on Daugaard’s bills.
Schools, plan your field trips and grab your gallery seats—the Special Session is a great chance to head to Pierre in something other than the dead of winter and see the Legislature in action!
They don’t do a committee of the whole to take public testimony very often. I remember the Legislature used this procedure during the Supercollider effort in the Mickelson years. The public spoke from the House podium, which can be a bit intimidating. It’s a way to scare off citizen participation, as much as it is an effort to be more efficient.
It took more than that to scare me off, though. I provided some testimony on the potential environmental impacts, having gone through the voluminous, puffed up study done by RESPEC. They were going to stick this project in Hanson County, if I’m remembering this correctly. It was kind of a futile effort to oppose this project in the Legislature, but some local folks were skeptical and I’m a sucker for lost causes. At any rate, the thing passed the Legislature and got sent off to DC bureaucrats. South Dakota’s proposal didn’t get selected, and Congress later decided there were better projects to fund.
Revenue Opportunity – There are three Buffalo Wild Wings locations in the state. The company is developing and tweeking the process to allow “during the game” sports betting within their restaurants. South Dakota should be ready on day one.
I recall you standing there in 1987, Mr. Pay, and from the back of the room one could barely notice your upper lip twitching or the sweat on your brow. You were, indeed, not scared away, however. My recollection is your public testimony went from the lower clerk station and not from the Speaker’s Podium, but my mind is old and gray.
If the Committee of the Whole really gets rolling we could be in for a real treat, with many Points of Order bellowed from the crowd.
Yes, Grudz, I do believe you are correct, sir. It still seemed rather strange to be addressing the whole Legislature from there.
Speaking from the podium—that’s pretty cool, Donald! And interesting to hear RESPEC was involved with the Super Collider, as it was was the Deep Borehole proposal.
If we had won the Super Collider, and if it had been built, scientists would have overrun Hanson County… and Stace Nelson might not be the famous legislator that he is today.
But back to this universe: is the committee of the whole required to take public testimony?
They are not required to, Mr. H. Unless one evokes the public comment nonsense and then the galleries will be filled with shouting buffoons.
It’s possible I am wrong. If your legal team determines they must, and Speaker Mickelson agrees, I suggest you and I sit on opposite sides of the gallery about 1/3 back from the Speaker Podium where the testifiers can see both of our arduous arm waving, and we yell at the crowd in an uncontrolled manner. May the best man win.
Oh, Grudz, ye of little faith in the public.
The Legislator Reference Book (p.14) says “The requirement of notices of meetings and the listing of bills and resolutions to be considered is designed to provide an opportunity for the citizens of the state to voice their opinions on any bill or resolution before a committee.”
The Legislature also passed 2018 HB 1172, which added this clause to SDCL 1-25-1: “The chair of the public body shall reserve at every official meeting by the public body a period for public comment, limited at the chair’s discretion, but not so limited as to provide for no public comment.”
That tells me the committee of the whole must take public testimony. Civil, of course, not shouting from the galleries, but open to the public.
They’ll take public testimony at the committee of the whole if they haven’t done so in any other committee(s) prior to that. Cory points out some of the legal issues involved. There could be others depending on what passes . Taxing these businesses, which are all lawyered up waiting for some procedural mistake, is much, much more complicated than the Supercollider. Legislators had better hear this testimony and pay attention.
Cory, the Supercollider was not, as Grudz might say, #4Science. It was the worst example of what is called “Big Science,” where big expensive engineering projects displace lab top and field research. Sure, some interesting research would have been done by the Supercollider, but what grants at South Dakota universities would not have been funded as the result of the Supercollider sucking up all the money? Congress sliced the funding after cost estimates escalated.