Governor Kristi Noem has managed to sack one seemingly friendly Black Hills Republican legislator in a very public conflict-of-interest tar-and-feathering. Could District 31 Representative Mary Fitzgerald from Spearfish be the next?
Article 3 Section 12, the state constitutional provision of the month, says that no member of the Legislature “during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within one year thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.”
Representative Mary Fitzgerald’s husband John won, to the great relief of believers in competent adjudication, a judgeship in South Dakota’s Fourth Circuit last November. The state pays Judge John Fitzgerald $174,448.36 for his services. The Legislature, of which Representative Mary Fitzgerald is part, appropriates the funds that make Judge John Fitzgerald’s salary possible.
I find I’m pretty interested in the compensation my spouse receives from her contract. Mary probably has more than a passing interest in the compensation John gets for laying down the law. And to get technical the way we ought when talking about constitutional terminology, state law (SDCL 5-18A-17.1) defines direct benefit from a contract to include income that one’s spouse makes. An accompanying statute excludes legislators from that specific provision, but it’s not hard to find definitions of “indirect interest” that include spouses.
So do we consider Judge John Fitzgerald to have a contract with the state? Do we consider Representative Mary Fitzgerald to have an interest, direct or indirect, in her husband John’s contract with the state?
If so, the next nastygram Governor Noem sends out about a conflict of interest violating Article 3 Section 12 may be going to her own SDGOP vice-chair, Representative Mary Fitzgerald.
My layman’s take is that it doesn’t seem as egregious since her husband was elected, not appointed… try Duhammel next
If she recuses herself from discussions, deliberations, and votes concerning any judicial compensation, benefits, retirement – then it’s challenging to attribute a conflict to Rep Fitzgerald.
Perhaps she’ll contemplate the topic when she returns to Pierre after attending the Jason Aldean concert in Sioux Falls on Friday. Photos of the Noem clan with Aldean can be viewed on her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/kristiforgovernor. Her comment above the pictures: “When the left attacked Jason Aldean for “Try That in a Small Town,” we stood with him and invited him to play in South Dakota.
Last night, he packed out the arena in Sioux Falls!
South Dakotans support Jason’s stand for common-sense American values.”
“We” stood with him and invited him to play in South Dakota? Tickets for the Aldean concert went on sale Feb. 17 at 10 a.m.: https://www.dennysanfordpremiercenter.com/events/2023/jason-aldean
Liar!
Mrs. Noem has put blood in the water by leading the charge to put her appointee, a co-religious at that, in serious financial jeopardy. Now, sharks are in the water and no one’s safe from Noem’s purge. Before this blood letting continues, I suggest that the Legislature appoint a judge from the Ethics Committee, to review all suspect contracts with Legislators and other irregularities and take these matters out of AG Jackley’s hands. Plain fact is, as millions of dollars were being distributed throughout the state, no one in the Governor’s office or in DSS, raised their hand and said,”Isn’t Jennifer Castleberry, as a Legislator, ineligible for a state contract??” Obviously the root of this problem is that NO ONE was paying attention.
Legislator Randy Deibert has a contract with the lab in Lead and also sits on the Lawrence County Commission so how does he slide?
Tom Nelson and Jerry Apa were both mayors who funneled money into their own pockets by serving themselves in the legislature.
Tim Reed, too, right?
Munsterman?
Yes, people, the ‘list’ will grow and grow for sure. The GOP appears all about “originalism” (as meant by the signers at that time) in our state’s and national Constitutions when it comes to so-called ‘liberal’ judges Supreme Courts’ decisions but if it appears to be in their best interests, an “Oh, but the signers didn’t mean THAT THEN. Hypocrites all!
All Mammal; elected or appointed makes no difference. Seated as a senator or representative is all the same once that oath is taken to uphold our constitution. Picking and choosing situation ethics don’t cut it after being seated. I’m sure Mary Fitzgerald as a wife of a state judge enjoys some benefit from that $174,00 salary her hubby makes.
What’s new here? The South Dakota legislature has always been up to this kind of stuff and always will!
Lar, do you recall that night we were shooting pool at Jerry’s Star Bar and you were grumpy about the fried food being sticky?
Was that the night you brought your goat boyfriend and Apa convinced me not to call the cops?
No, different night, Lar. You called the cops the night I’m thinking of.
Of course you had no choice.
Arlo makes a good point: “Plain fact is, as millions of dollars were being distributed throughout the state, no one in the Governor’s office or in DSS, raised their hand and said,”Isn’t Jennifer Castleberry, as a Legislator, ineligible for a state contract??”
Isn’t the approval of a contract and distribution of funds to a legislator with a direct or indirect interest in that contract a violation of SD Constitution? Or is the only violation being a party to the contract – wait, the State is a party to the contract and the agents of the State, such as the Governor and/or members of the brabnch of government approving the contract are all parties to the contract, or agents of those parties, correct?
Taken to the extreme, the contractual interest provision applies to a LOT of people and too significantly dilutes the pool of people able to serve in our state legislature.
During a time of national emergency when the federal government was doling out money to anyone with a pulse, Castleberry lost out on half a million dollars in exchange for her $10,000 or so legislator salary when her influence and vote likely meant nothing to the actual appropriation of the money.
If we exclude basically anyone with any economic interest in state money, including immediate family members (e.g. spouses, children, or parents), then we eliminate all of the following people from serving in the legislature:
1) Anyone who takes state assistance – such as TANF, Medicaid, food stamps, or daycare assistance – or has a family member who does. (Such a restriction seems to me that it would violate the U.S. Constitution).
2) Anyone who works for the state, or has a family member who does.
3) Anyone who works for a county, or has a family member who does.
4) Anyone who works for a school district, or has a family member who does.
5) Anyone in the national guard, or who has a family member in the national guard.
6) All law enforcement and firefighters, plus their family members.
7) Any attorney who takes court appointments, plus their family members.
8) A large portion of people who work in construction, plus their family members.
9) Any daycare provider that takes state food assistance, plus their family members.
10) Any foster care providers, plus their family members.
11) Anyone who sells anything to the state, plus their family members.
The net is starting to get rather wide…
Exactly. The Lawrence County Republicans are exposing Randy Deibert as another freeloader.