For those of you worried that the amendment Senate Joint Resolution 502 would put to the voters, a plan to let counties invest a fifth of their reserves with the South Dakota Investment Council, would give state government another slush fund with which to play, some House Republicans (and one Democratic cosponsor!) have an answer. House Joint Resolution 5003 would place on our ballots a constitutional amendment that would prevent the general appropriation bill from reappropriating or transferring funds from any special fund established by law.
At first glance, that sounds like a slam dunk. If we’ve established funds for special purposes, we shouldn’t raid them for other purposes. If HJR 5003 is that simple, hand say that line to the voters, and 80%-plus say “You bet!”
But HJR 5003 defines “special fund” as anything other than the general fund. Anything. The budget reserve fund is something other than the general fund. Governor Kristi Noem wants to transfer $16.8 million from the budget reserve fund to the general fund this year to make up for slow Trumponomics and her own lack of vision. As written HJR 5003 appears to lock the budget reserve in the treasurer’s closet… or at least require some special legislation other than the general appropriations bill and amendments thereto to spend.
HJR 5003 also proposes an unusual surrender of Legislative authority to Executive flunkies. The resolutions second new sentence says, “…if an administrator of any special fund determines that the purpose of the special fund has been accomplished, the administrator may suspend the imposition of or reduce any fee, tax, or other source of funds for the special fund.” Really, Legislature? You want to pass a fee, tax, or other revenue-collecting plan, and then you want one bureaucrat to decide whether or not that plan has achieved its goal and unilaterally end that plan without Legislative input? What do you think you’re doing, building a CAFO? Determining policy outcomes and cutting off a funding source should involve a little more public discussion and deliberation than one guy hanging a “Gone Fishing” sign on the office door. Ending a state program and changing tax rates should happen by vote, not by one person’s whim.
I would also entertain an Amendment Z single-subject argument against HJR 5003. Yes, yes, the amendment speaks to special funds. But the first sentence deals with Legislative appropriations. The second sentence deals with collecting taxes and determining policy outcomes. Those are different functions in different branches of state government. Those sound like multiple subjects, and Amendment Z, which we voters passed in 2018, says you can’t tackle multiple subjects in a single amendment. Seven of the sponsors of HJR 5003 also sponsored the resolution that put Amendment Z on the ballot, so you’d think they’d recognize that problem and write separate amendments. But there I go expecting attention and consistency from our legislators again.
HJR 5003 awaits the green-eye-shaded attention of House Appropriations.
Concentrating more power in the executive. I don’t like it.
…And putting that concentration of power in the hands of an elected appointees. That’s really problematic. I’m not sure why the legislature would want to surrender this particular power.
It’s kind of strange: the two parts of this proposal don’t depend on each other to achieve their goals. We could establish the lockbox provision, saying the Legislature can’t raid special funds to boost the general fund, without the provision about suspending the special funds and the revenue streams themselves, and vice versa.
I suppose the two provisions are related in that they both check the power of a money hungry Legislature. The administrative suspension provision perhaps recognizes that the Legislature isn’t going to give up a slush fund easily, and thus creates another avenue through which a program that has achieved its goals can be ended and does take away a slush fund that the Legislature wouldn’t otherwise repeal. But I think I’d rather have those fiscal decisions made out in the open, in committee hearings in floor debates where we citizens can see what’s happening and call the legislature out if they are playing fiscal games rather than moving that check to a much more hard to observe bureaucratic process.