Governor Kristi Noem offers this comment on today’s agenda in the Capitol as the Legislature conducts its final business of the 2019 Session:
Governor Noem appears to be giving us taxpayers a heads-up that the Executive Committee itself is not. The Executive Committee agenda for today’s meeting (1:30 p.m. Central or 15 minutes after Session, Capitol Room 413) and the associated posted documents say nothing about the legal bills Speaker and bar-certified lawyer Steven Haugaard (R-10/Sioux Falls) incurred in his petulant ban of lobbyist Yvonne Taylor from the House floor for her then eight-month-old critique of certain ideologically “wacky” legislators. In restraining that unconstitutional ban, Judge Roberto Lange ruled that Haugaard did not appear to be acting in any Legislative fashion that would allow him to invoke legislative immunity. Following the ruling, Taylor said Haugaard had agreed to pay the fees of her attorney, former Republican legislator David Lust, who said he exerted himself on behalf of Taylor and the First Amendment to the tune of $12,000.
None of the respondents in Noem’s Twitter thread express a desire to subsidize Haugaard’s abuse of power. A few take gratuitous potshots at Noem, but let’s stay focused: the miscreant in this case is Haugaard. He should not get to play tyrant and then suffer no direct consequences.
But we may want to take note of Governor Noem’s daring sally into the Twittersphere into Legislative territory. The Executive Board’s decisions are not subject to gubernatorial veto. The decision on Haugaard’s financial liability is purely Legislative. By lifting a finger and landing it on Tweet, the Governor is stating with Trumplike public clarity that she doesn’t mind intruding her Executive authority on the Legislative management and that she agrees with Senator Lee Schoenbeck’s (R-5/Lake Kampeska—keep sandbagging, Lee!) assessment that Speaker Haugaard is a goofus.
Then again, maybe Governor Noem is simply giving Speaker Haugaard a public poke for supporting his House’s override of her hemp veto. Remember, Kristi Noem has a whole lot of wacky Haugaardian arrogance of her own.
Personally? I think every member of the house should have to pay an equal share of the expenses. It was their responsibility to counterman him, And they did not.
Technically though? I think by statute he, Like the governor, are covered in the state is responsible for their legal expenses in cases involving their official actions. Absent official disciplinary actions by the House, which has not happened, there are no official grounds to deny him statutory coverage.
Haugaard should tweet: “Nepotism: Yes or No? Should taxpayers subsidize Noem’s family for $105,000 a year? Both her daughter and son in law are just out of college and make more than the average teacher, police officer and firefighter. They moved to Pierre and received lucrative jobs after their mother and in-law to be was sworn in as governor.”
I’m kind of tired of her acting like she has the moral high-ground. She got 51% of the vote.
I agree with Nelson on both fronts, with nuance. The Governor and Senator are making a great point: People can’t have it both ways and/or try to sweep it under a rug.
If the members of the House think he acted within proper authority AND knew his settlement included paying her legal bills (esp. in light of their new transparancy bill)*, they should stand up and authorize taxpayer funds for a proper action of the Speaker. It is bad policy to expose people to personal liability when performing their authorized responsibilities as they think proper even when it might be a mistake (you don’t need indeminity if one is perfect and makes perfect decisions) or unpopular because you’ll end up with only mediocre public servants.
If the members of the House think he acted properly but didn’t know his settlement included paying her legal bills (transparency, trasparency), they should deny his request from taxpayer funds but should individually make donations and/or encourage him to form a legal defense fund.
If the members of the House do not think he acted properly, they should deny the request AND officially express disapproval.
*It seems to be an oxymoron/contradiction though to stay he acted properly and yet settled but I can see how you get there if it was deemed a mistake. If it was a mistake, I’d presume there would be a public admission and apology (which I don’t recall seeing) prior to authorization of public funds.
Does the State carry liability insurance to protect taxpayers from court orders requiring payment of attorney fees of those who prevail in lawsuits establishing that in acting for the State an official’s behavior violated someone’s civil rights?
Senator Nelson offers a pleasantly nuanced and thoughtful reading of the situation. House members could have revoked Haugaard’s abuse; they did not. They bear some responsibility for that abuse. If their absence of reprimand leaves us with no grounds on which to demand that he pay for his abuse of power, then the House members also bear responsibility for foisting those costs on us.
Jonathan Ellis’s February report said the state’s Public Liability Pool could cover the costs, but no claim had been filed as of that report.
I appreciate Troy’s point as well. Haugaard’s action sure looks like an abuse of power, not something that should be cloaked by any legislative immunity or paid for by taxpayers… but how do we distinguish Haugaard’s rank abuse from charges partisans might lodge against any legislator’s action with which they disagree? Make legislators financially responsible for every bad vote, and no one will run for Legislature.
But maybe we have unique criteria to distinguish Haugaard’s action from other innocuous dutiful actions. The judicial branch determined Haugaard had no authority to take the action he did. The judicial branch reached in and reversed a purely Legislative action, something done not even by law but within a perception of the in-Capitol authority of the Speaker. Is that judicially reversed action different from other situations where we would want to shield conscientious legislators (or even meatheads who don’t know the Constitution and vote for bad laws) from financial retribution?
It was a malicious act…. why should the principle (taxpayer) pay for the torts of one of it’s agents?
JW, while regular torts, such as negligence, are normally covered by insurance, courts have generally ruled that public policy prohibits insurance policies from covering intentional torts. See e.g.,
http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/cases/insurance/0408_insurance_01.html
A malicious act would typically qualify as an intentional tort. The articulated public policy is that no one should provide financial encouragement or protection for those who commit intentional torts.
Since public policy prohibits insurance coverage for intentional torts, then it would seem that public policy also would preclude using tax dollars to pay for the cost of such intentional actions. If Haugaard’s actions were were found to be malicious in fact, rather than than merely a negligent exercise of his power, then I would think any SD taxpayer would have standing to challenge the state use of taxpayer dollars to pay the harmed party’s damages or attorney’s fees.
It seems unfair to require taxpayers to cover Haugard’s foolery, but who ever said politics is fair?
I disagreed vehemently with Representative Haugaard at the time and I officially relayed as such to him.
In fairness to him, while he made the initial decision, it was the entire House that adopted his ruling without contesting it. When the entire House acquiesced and accepted it? It became the official position of the South Dakota House of Representatives.
Any two house members could’ve challenged his ruling and demanded a vote of the body. Any two members could’ve moved for a disciplinary action against him.
So if you are angry at Representitive Haugaard, you should be equally so of every member of the house who are equally to blame.
I am especially disappointed at Mses. Howard and Mueller, who not only flouted Mr. Haugaard’s mandatory dress codes but also did not challenge the illegal banning and demand a vote and discipline His Insannerness. It is especially saddening they are all from Rapid City, normally a bastion of reasonableness.
grudznick agrees with Mr. Nelson.
I just “love it” when republicans get stuck with legal fees and then stick the public with the charges, despite republicans’ relatively new strategy of using litigation as a strategy to beat down dems, environmentalists, poor people (state is now a collection agency) with unconstitutional and other bullying legislation.
Do we really want our Governor having to travel back and forth from the farm to handle this kind of work?
It is unfair for the taxpayers to have to pay for Haugaard’s abuse of power but not unfair for his fellow House legislators to have to pay for it. I agree with Stace on this one and I really like that progressive equality thinking He has going on there. :)
(Not don’t worry Stace, I know you are a conservative and Iwon’t try to change that)
Executive Board met yesterday but has not posted minutes yet. SDPB has the audio, which I’ve just started listening to. Of significant note, Speaker Haugaard gavels the meeting to order and announces that contrary to what may have been heard elsewhere, the agenda is complete and does not omit anything intended to be covered. Hmmm… did Governor Noem get the discussion flat wrong?
Mr. H, does that mean that Mr. Haugaard is going to slip another big poop burrito into the taxpayer’s lunch bag again? This fellow spent hundreds of thousands remodeling his private bathrooms and is now going to stick us taxpayers with footing the bill for his buffonism. He is, truly, insaner than most.
Woe be unto us all, with Mr. Haugaard as the buffoon Speaker, and let us all rue the missing Mr. Mickelson who was head and shoulders above the little overgodder.
6 page complaint. $12 Grand. Any wonder worker bees like Frankenstein Esq chase red state government clients? Maybe smart alec lee schoenbeck could become ombudsperson for SD GOP/Exec and the Legislature so citizens wouldn’t have to sue for continual Republican abuses of power. He hasn’t insulted Kristi or Jason yet :)