Custer County Chronicle

We’ve spent the last two weeks praising potential legislation coming out of Pierre during this year’s legislative session, so it was probably only a matter of time before we saw one that caught our eye in the other direction. In other words, one that says, “what is this dumb idea?”

There are a few different tactics for passing legislation. One is to pick a change in the law that’s not likely to draw too many detractors. Another is to take a big swing at a change in the law that’s certain to be opposed and will likely need to be offered to legislators during a few sessions so they can learn more about the issue.
With open meetings laws, South Dakota attorney general Marty Jackley has chosen the first course of action. He has offered three bills that will make slight, but needed, changes.

As we enter February and begin our fourth week of session in Pierre, it’s remarkable how quickly the first three weeks have passed. This year has brought an overwhelming number of bills, and each time I review one, I start with a few basic questions: Is this bill addressing a real problem? Will it actually solve that problem? What unintended consequences might follow? And could this be handled locally instead of through state law? Call me old fashioned, but I thought we believed in less government, not more.

We’ve all heard the stories about students in public schools who are nothing but trouble. They are aggressive, they don’t stay on task, and in some cases, they are violent. Most every teacher has a story about such a student, how big of a pain they are, and how they are disruptive to every other student in class. They may not say it publicly, but you can be sure they do privately—they wish the kid was gone.