ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/02/they-dont-have-funerals-for-bills-that.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/02/they-dont-have-funerals-for-bills-that.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.jcvx3¹[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈ€ … ÃcOKtext/htmlUTF-8gzipÀ¹àÃcÿÿÿÿJ}/yWed, 31 Dec 2008 16:29:58 GMT"4d8c4607-a120-4885-8cdf-a2a1484682ed"ÍPMozilla/4.5 (compatible; HTTrack 3.0x; Windows 98)en, en, *1¹[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿxsÃc Dakota Voice: They don't have funerals for bills that die in committee

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Monday, February 11, 2008

They don't have funerals for bills that die in committee

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: As far as my thesis goes, two legislative bills take center stage today. One has been moved to the 36th day in committee, thus killing it. The other, when last heard of, was in the Senate State Affairs Committee awaiting action, and more than likely it will be "killed in action," by a hail of bullets from both legislators and lobbyists. Some could say one or the other, or both, could be considered unimportant. But wait a gosh darn minute, neither has had a real autopsy to determine the causes of their demise.

SENATE BILL 120 is simple enough to understand. In fact, it makes a lot of sense ­ unless you are one of those who feel the state Legislature shouldn't meddle in the affairs of cities or counties, or, for that matter, school boards, except when it comes to sending them the ole "doe-ray-me."

Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepriem is the sponsor of this bill. Its title is simple enough, "Certain Bonds to be Competitive." What it would do would make it mandatory for cities, counties, school boards and the like in South Dakota to use competitive bidding when they sell bonds. The hang-up here is that today many of these local governments would rather negotiate what they may have to pay for interest. I'm told it's an easier process. My guess is the bonds people would prefer negotiation process as well.

SELLING BONDS IS a common and often very necessary for cities of all sizes, for instance, to finance large projects like constructing a swimming pool, or a school board to build a new building. By putting these bonds on the market, these local governments can thus choose where they will get the best deal. Simple enough, unless it has been done the other way, which seems to be pretty much the rule across the state.

But such negotiations generally cost taxpayers money. The Sioux Falls City Council found this out after a push was made to bid the bonds for a project instead of negotiating for their sale like they usually did. In that bit of business that city near Harrisburg saved several thousand dollars of its taxpayers' money. I should say here that bonding just doesn't affect large cities and schools, etc. It affects our communities of every size when they borrow money.

Should bidding on bonds in local governments become mandatory? Many say, "No!" because such a law would impugn on what they call local control and nothing is more important to them than local control. Even if it is costing taxpayers more money? That's the question. The answer is for the Legislature to "enable" this bill into law. Schools, counties and cities have to put out bids for their annual supplies, cars, etc. Why shouldn't they have to put out bids when they "rent" money, which is what bonding is all about?

THE OTHER BILL I mentioned is now dead for this legislative session unless someone substitutes its wording under the number of another bill. That is called hog housing, which is legal in South Dakota. Senate Bill 76 would have made an $50,000 appropriation to support the South Dakota Hall of Fame at Chamberlain. The bill was presented by Senator Cooper Garnos of Presho, my cousin's son. Jenna Friedrich of the Bureau of Finance and Management opposed the bill.

It was on its way until Senator Jean Hunhoff of Yankton made a substitute motion to defer the bill to the 36th legislative day. Senator Brock Greenfield of Clark seconded the motion and the second motion passed.

I guess the lack of money was one of the reasons for its defeat.

Another was, I suspect, the opponents' inability to understand the importance of getting more funding for one of the most important museums in South Dakota. I also suspect those opposing this funding motion probably have never set foot in the only facility of its kind in the nation or understand its function. It archives the very people who have either been born here and gone on to famous careers or who have helped make what our state is today.

Most museums house the relics of yesteryear. The South Dakota Hall of Fame tells the stories of those people who had a significant hand in developing our state and nation.

WHEN THE HALL was created, it was hoped that donations would keep the door open. But that isn't happening. Finances are tight there at the Hall, very tight. Since its inception more than 600 South Dakotans and former South Dakotans are on its register. They include people who are millionaires to a little old woman who saved lives with her nursing skills.

It would be most unfortunate if the Hall had to close its doors.

Financial help is needed. It is needed from the state coffers. It is needed from those who have been honored and it is needed from the public across the state. I was there when those doors were opened to record the successes of our famous people. I don't want to be there for its funeral, a death without an autopsy....


Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.


0 comments:

 
Clicky Web Analytics