The Executive Board of the South Dakota Legislature was supposed to discuss two things yesterday: a couple of appointments to interstate commissions and hiring a new director for the Legislative Research Council. After an executive session and a tight vote picking an old LRC hand who now works in Kansas to come back and run the show over the current deputy director, Senator Jim Bolin moved “the creation of an interim committee, the scope of which is to investigate the conduct of the Senate President Pro-Tem and the Senate Majority Leader during the 27th Legislative Day. This interim committee will consist of nine Senators, five from the majority party, including the chair, all chosen by the Senate Majority Caucus, and four from the minority party, including the vice-chair, all chosen by the Senate Minority Caucus. This interim committee is hereby granted the authority found in interim committee rules of procedure #20 and shall follow the processes and procedures found in Chapter 8 of the Senate rules from the 2020 Legislative Session and shall submit its report to the Senate.”
In the closing hour of Veto-Plus Day, sometime after 2 a.m. Tuesday, Senator Phil Jensen moved to create a disciplinary committee to investigate claims that Senate Majority Leader Kris Langer was drunk and tending to interrupt Legislative proceedings, in violation of SDCL 2-4-14(2). Bob Mercer reported that “several Republican and Democratic legislators” had told him to “check out Langer’s behavior,” and so checking, Mercer said Senator Langer was seen in the Capitol “barefoot” and that “her diction was loose, her walk unsteady.” In response to Senator Jensen’s motion, Senate President Pro-Tem Brock Greenfield rose to Senator Langer’s defense, saying he’d been with Senator Langer and that there had been a recess six and a half hours prior to that moment, but beyond that, “there’s been no tomfoolery” and “the Senator has been nothing but professional throughout the day.” Senate President Larry Rhoden dismissed Senator Jensen’s motion as out of order for not being in writing (even though he swiftly received a print-out of the motion from Senator Jensen, who was participating remotely, like the majority of the Legislature, in observance of coronavirus precautions), and the members voted 26–4 to uphold that ruling.
As chair of the Executive Board yesterday, Senate President Pro-Tem Brock Greenfield ruled the motion as stated out of order, since it was not on the agenda. Chairman Greenfield suggested Senator Bolin move to place a new item on the agenda, and Senator Bolin so moved, with House Majority Leader Lee Qualm’s second.
Senator Greenfield suggested the proposed action was an inappropriate action because “the Executive Board operates in the interim; the Senate and the House have control and dominion over their membership” but said he would defer to the Board’s wisdom. House Speaker Steven Haugaard called the situation “awkward” and “uncomfortable” but required “relatively swift attention.” Senators Langer, Greenfield, Jim Stalzer, and Jim White voted against placing the motion on the agenda; the other eleven members voted aye, giving the necessary two-thirds support to place an unscheduled item on the agenda.
Chairman Greenfield suggested that, as a personnel matter, the motion belonged in executive session. Senator Stalzer so moved, with Speaker Haugaard’s second, and all members agreed to close the door (figuratively, of course, since this meeting was online).
After that secret discussion, Speaker Haugaard assumed the chair. Senator Bolin moved to add a deadline of June 30 for the Senate investigative committee’s action. Representative Chris Johnson questioned whether the Senate has to be in Session for the members to caucus and choose members. Senator Troy Heinert explained that caucuses meet to choose leadership and carry out other functions outside of Session, so the selection of this investigative committee could also be handled extra-Sessionarily. Representative Johnson said he was satisfied with that explanation.
Senator Stalzer argued that the Executive Board could not investigate the charge of legislating under the influence because the complaint had not been submitted in writing, the alleged LUI happened during Session, and that Senate Rule 8-4 refers to “calling a special session for handling this.” Senator Stalzer may have a point: back in 2006 when Senators considered action against Senator Dan Sutton for misconduct with a page, Senators took the position that they had to convene in Special Session, and Governor Mike Rounds called for a Special Session at Senate leaders’ request. (Sutton won-reëlection, resigned his lame-duck seat to moot the special session, then assumed his District 8 seat for the term to which he was elected, survived an expulsion vote, and incurred mere censure during the 2007 Session.) But as Representative Sue Peterson explained, SDCL 2-9-4(6) empowers the Executive Board to create and empower a committee to investigate “appropriate subjects and projects of whatever character and nature the executive board deems advisable.”
Twelve members voted aye; Stalzer voted nay. Greenfield and Langer excused themselves from the vote.
Whatever committee convenes to investigate the alleged Krisfoolery and Brockfoolery will not have the power to punish any legislator (aside from having to listen to whatever subpoena’d testimony comes their way about Senators’ extracurricular activities). Discipline and expulsion are the exclusive purview of each chamber, which can only take up such punishment on the recommendation of a Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion, which the Executive Board did not create yesterday and cannot create. For that, we need to be in Session.
Senate Rule 8-1 requires that the chair and vice-chair of a Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion be chosen by the Senate President Pro-Tem. Senate Rule 8-2 requires that “All meetings of the Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion shall be held in the Capitol,” which means we can’t coronavirus-teleconference such meetings. That Select Committee would then make its recommendation to the full Senate, which wold have to muster a three-fifths vote to censure or discipline and a two-thirds vote to expel.
Have you watched the video? About 5 hr 40 min on Sen Greenfield couldn’t even talk! Sen Jensen was bombed too…
This explains some of the legislation this year, but most of the legislature had to have suffered substance impairment to go along with it.
DR, I did hear Greenfield earlier in that video sound somewhat slurred in his speech. What evidence do we have that Jensen was imbibing at his remote site?
I’ve always been bad at picking out who’s drunk and who’s not. I have perhaps failed to develop strong drunk radar due to my avoidance of gatherings of drunk people.
As your next Governor, I promise to remove the metal detectors at the Capitol and replace them with breathalyzer stations. I will order officers manning those blow-points to stop and check only legislators.
Are there even four members of the minority party to staff this committee?
I could not find the Jensen allegation and motion on the video supplied with Cory’s first mention of this story a couple days ago. It wasn’t at 3:22:50 as advertised. Nor could I find anything about the issue as I searched various points in the video.
The best possible outcome is that we decide all three were hammered, having imbibed in Jeff Monroe’s moonshine.
Here is their excuse, not the best, but it should work for them. An illegal smile, for sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmjnQjRvPUQ
In a previous story I pointed out that I had been unable to find any rule or statute prohibiting alcohol use or intoxication in the legislature, and that it seemed inappropriate to claim wrongdoing on that basis as a ground to sanction Lange. See this comment and two others comments following it addressing Cory’s responses:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2020/03/31/jensen-accuses-langer-of-drunkenness-during-session-rhoden-stonewalls/#comment-182689
Additional research indicates that up until December 5, 2016 ARSD Article 46:05 addressed “alcohol and drug abuse,” but was apparently repealed by 43 SDR 80.
https://sdlegislature.gov/Rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=46:05
Oddly, I did not find another section replacing this repealed article. Perhaps a better researcher than myself has found one? If not my earlier point stands: “. . . it seems extraordinarily unfair and likely unconstitutional to seek sanctions against an individual based on allegations of behavior not mentioned or implied by the statute.”
Your little tiff made Rawstory. …. https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/top-south-dakota-republicans-face-investigation-for-appearing-to-be-drunk-during-crucial-coronavirus-session/
Congratulations.
I bet they were doing it.
That is pretty neato, Mr. Mike. Is this Rawstory thing there in Iowa, with you? I have never heard of it, but hope it’s a pretty big deal so the drunken couple can get more famous. The story says they are a romantic couple, right?
Not likely, Beavis: Brock is happily engaged to be married July 18. Make up for your unsupportable accusation by buying Brock and Kelly something nice from their registry at Bed Bath & Beyond.
Bob, SDPB appears to have changed the video since my first publication. I’m having trouble getting SDPB videos to play tonight, but try 6:03:45 in this video for the beginning of the excitement with Jensen’s motion Tuesday morning.
Bear, I’m still not convinced the Legislature is bound to legal infractions as grounds for investigation of and punishment for improper conduct by legislators. But SDCL 2-4-9 provides pretty broad basis for prosecution of anyone who disturbs Legislative meetings:
“intentionally disturbs”—do we have some legal definitions for that? How about “tending to interrupt its proceedings”? Sounds like could be out in the hall getting excited and waving my arms in a hot conversation with Florence Thompson or David Owen, and if my hallway enthusiasm could be heard in a hearing room and distracted a committee chair, they could cuff me and stuff me. If I just popped my head in a committee room and shouted, “Peek-a-boo!” that would be grounds for a ticket as surely as making a ruckus in the Senate gallery.
And “impair the respect due its authority”? Wow—I’d love to go to court and offer arguments about just how much respect the Legislature is due. But having members legislating while intoxicated could undermine that statute… which could be all the more reason to bust legislators for breaking this law.
Hey who took my name? “T” guess I’ve been gone too long and replaced
Stay healthy CH
[Whoops! Sorry about that, T! Someone snuck through using your letter and a different e-mail address. I’ve deleted those anonymi.]
For what it’s worth, SDCL 2-4-13 says that legislators who violate § 2-4-9, in addition to incurring the Class 2 misdemeanor penalty, forfeit their office and disqualify themselves “from ever thereafter holding any public office under this state.”
SDCL 2-4-9 is one of three statutes cited as the basis for Chapter 1 of the Joint Rules of the Legislature. Chapter 1A discusses Decorum in the Legislature. Rule 1A-3 prohibits the storage or consumption of alcoholic beverages “in any area of the Capitol that is under the control of the Legislature.”
Chapter 1B, the Legislative Code of Conduct, starts with a rule demanding unfailing ethical behavior:
Rule 1B-1 makes clear that legislators cannot claim that any behavior not explicitly prohibited is permitted. Being drunk at work falls short of the highest ethical standards and does not assure trust, respect, or confidence.
Senator Phil Jensen gives the press this text he received from House Majority Leader Lee Qualm during the Monday–Tuesday midnight session:
Rep. Qualm’s text attests to drunkenness and disruption and delay of Legislative business. Either charge alone is enough to violate the rules; together, those charges, if proven, make a clear case for invoking SDCL 2-4-9 and booting both Senators from public office.
No worries CH
It’s all good!
Who paid for the alcohol they consumed? Just wondering………..double whammy
Well, I guess I have “assumed” wrongly once again. I have always assumed that there was at LEAST an unspoken rule that our legislators had to be sober while legislating. How silly of me. Who, other than Cory, can keep up these days? Guess alcohol doesn’t kill the virus unless it kills the legislator first.
Mr. T, I bet you it was those heinous lobbists. That’s who always buys the alcohol.
Thanks grudznick u prob correct
“Couldn’t hardly walk getting off elevator”
Security cameras would tell the story then……
It seems that anecdotal evidence is building. SD, is this what you want when Your Legislators are supposed to be working out how to protect you in a deadly pandemic? Regardless of the results of the investigation, you voters in their districts ought to FIRE THEM!!!
I am puzzled and alarmed that Stephen Groves of AP, in a report on multiple channels and recited on SDPB, puts Langer in his lead sentence but not Greenfield:
Groves notes later than Senator Jensen saw signs that both Langer and Greenfield were impaired (and the text from Qualm above makes clear that both showed signs of schnockerdom) but raised his complaint only about Langer.
Cory’s identification of Rule 1A(3) seems closer as it explicitly prohibits consumption of alcohol on legislative premises. I note that it does not distinguish between someone who drinks a single sip of wine and someone who consumes enough to become falling down drunk, which seems to make the being “drunk” allegation rather superfluous. To the extent that being “drunk” is evidence of consuming alcohol perhaps it coud be needed to create the inference that the alcohol was consumed on legislative property, absent any direct evidence.
Qualm’s statement, however, describes conduct that may have been upsetting or disruptive to some, and may have delayed proceedings, but the conduct he describes does not seem to meet the requirements of SDCL 2-4-9.
As pointed out in prior comments SDCL 2-4-9 prohibits two types of conduct: “intentionally disturb[ances]” and “disorderly conduct” that causes certain results. I saw nothing in Qualm’s allegation of being drunk to indicate that the legislators got drunk with the “intent” to “disturb” anyone, in contrast,for example, to a protester intending to disturb or disrupt proceedings.
And since “disorderly conduct” is a predicate to the second means of violating SDCL 2-4-9 one must look to the South Dakota definition of “disorderly conduct.” Many states define “disorderly conduct” to include “public drunkenness,” but not South Dakota. Instead, SDCL 22-18-35 lists four types of prohibited conduct, none relating to alcohol, but one that might be applicable: “disturbing any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority,” which again raises Cory’s concens about whether a “hot conversation” or “getting excited” constitutes a possible unlawful disturbances.
The law says nothing about coming to work snockered, only of consuming liquor on legislative premises. Is this an oversight or did I miss something?
There was a small problem with boozing on the legislative job in the 1970s and 1980s, as I recall. There was a refrigerator with beer and probably other booze stashed in one of the offices used by chairman of a committee. It was just a small number of legislators who partook. No one got obviously sloshed. It was more of a boys will be boys (it was mostly boys back then) kind of thing after the daily recess. But news of it got out and they had to deal with it, and so no booze on the premises was the solution. I think that meant all the space used by the Legislature, especially that in the Capitol Building. Whether the executive offices have a booze bar, I’m not sure. I do know that Legislators often lunched across the street to the west, where alcohol was available. But that was public, so they probably drank moderately, if they imbibed at all.
Thanks, Donald Pay. I learn stuff everyday here.
During my first years in South Dakota, 1980s, I had an AP reporter speak to journalism classes about covering state government. He said covering Pierre was like trying to cover “Animal House.”
Here’s how remote legislating worked in Pennsylvania.
Congress Has Resisted Remote Voting, But Some State Legislatures Are Making It Work
https://flip.it/rYaDQu
I see where “mom” calls it jealousy on Aberdeen a news article
Comment section,,,,, does “jealousy” make you slur? The comment says accuser was 3 hours away in living room….
One of the problems with assessing Greenfield’s sobriety is that, at his best, he acts and speaks as though he’s impaired.
Because of gerrymandering, Greenfield is my senator and also the farthest thing from anyone I would pick to be my legislator. I knew he would in no way represent my thoughts in the legislature, but I really didn’t expect anything so disgusting as this. Portly republicans were never held very high in my views, but they have, as a group lost any respect I might have had for them with this kind of bogus behavior. At the very least, they could know enough to stay sober while legislating and considering the needs of SD citizens. Boot them both (and probably some others, too, perhaps known to insiders).
I also am a victim of gerrymandering, like Robin Friday. Greenfield is the only option on my ballot. Either vote for him – or don’t. I don’t, but what does it matter? The man is unqualified in my opinion, but faces no opposition. I guess we all know all you need is an (R) by your name in South Dakota, not much else required.
OK, maybe I’ll admit that “portly” is a cheap shot. But in my experience, portly young male Republican legislators tend to turn, over time, into portly white-haired “good ole’ boy” legislators.