Page 21 - 102717

Groton Daily Independent
Friday, Oct. 27, 2017 ~ Vol. 25 - No. 110 ~ 21 of 48
started by Gov. George T. Mickelson, who declared 1990 a “Year of Reconciliation” in a bid to improve relations between Natives and non-Natives in this state.
If the Daugaard administration abandons this program without giving Black Hills State University the op- portunity to make it meaningful and successful, it will be a step back from Mickelson’s goal while denying youth who did nothing wrong.
___
American News, Aberdeen, Oct. 26
Governor candidates support open records, but is there a catch?
We were thrilled earlier this month to hear two of our candidates for governor — Democrat Billie Sutton
and Republican Marty Jackley — say they would support more openness in South Dakota government. In fact, Sutton, as a state senator, is proposing draft legislation that would make public additional govern- ment records such as of cials’ correspondence, calendars and telephone call records. Jackley, in response, said, as governor, he would support such legislation if it passed through the Legislature. (Jackley’s GOP
primary foe, U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem, would not yet commit to supporting such legislation.)
Sutton is setting himself apart from the pack as an advocate against corruption and darkness in state
government.
Jackley is continuing his advocacy of open government; he has been instrumental in pushing for greater
transparency through the open government task force.
Making open correspondence, phone records and calendars would add an incredibly important layer of
transparency. Other states allow these open records, to the bene t of citizens.
We do not want to be discouraging, but other foibles in recent and not-so-recent memory show us the
pitfalls of sunshine in South Dakota.
If such legislation as Sutton is suggesting passed here:
How long would these records be open?
It would be great if they were open in perpetuity. Think of how handy that would have been in the
cases of EB-5 or GEAR UP, both of which only came to a head after years of apparent mismanagement or malfeasance.
South Dakota law establishes a board that authorizes destruction of government records. Reporter Bob Mercer earlier this year reported that state law says:
“No record may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of by any agency of the state unless it is deter- mined by majority vote of the board that the record has no further administrative, legal, scal, research, or historical value.”
And each state agency, Mercer wrote, recommends how long those records should be kept. Seems a lot of discretion given to the very agencies the “sunshine” would apply to.
What de nitions would eliminate openness?
Words are important.
We at the newspaper know this, but it became even more clear to us last week.
After a robbery was reported at a local business in the 600 block of Sixth Avenue Southeast, we asked Aberdeen police what business it was.
Citing Marsy’s Law, South Dakota’s victim’s rights regulations, police Capt. Eric Duven could not identify the business by name, as it is considered a “victim.”
In Marsy’s Law in the state constitution, the term “victim” means “a person who suffers direct or threat- ened physical, psychological, or nancial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act or against whom the crime or delinquent act is committed.”
A person.
However, Aberdeen City Attorney Ron Wager said that South Dakota Codi ed Law 22-1-1(31) gives the state’s de nition of “person”: “any natural person, unborn child, association, limited liability company, corporation, rm, organization, partnership, or society.”
What linguistic time bombs are hiding in our laws that would make any open-government legislation