1st Amendment

I wonder if ‘1984’ is required reading for SF school district students?

It seems administrators have read the classic many times, and are using it for a policy handbook;

The local teachers union opposes a proposed policy that would allow Sioux Falls School District administrators to search employees’ private cell phones, purses and vehicles for suspected violations of district policy.

A school law expert from Ohio said the policy “certainly breaks new ground” and could open the district up to a lawsuit.

COULD?! This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

But if challenged in court, a judge considering whether the search was appropriate would balance the employee’s Fourth Amendment rights against those of the district.

And don’t forget about the 1st and 5th amendments. I can’t believe the district is even considering this policy, oh, that’s right, administrators and board members allow lawyers to make all their decisions for them, very ignorant lawyers.

These things happen when one party controls Pierre

Bernie Hunhoff writes a great letter about how GOP lawmakers in Pierre are all about talking about transparency, but when it comes to action, they scurry like freaking rats;

My second concern is that we don’t have enough transparency in government to determine whether any of our existing economic development funds are being spent wisely. I introduced legislation this year to require that the state provide an economic database to report information and results on loans, grants and tax rebates for economic development, but it was opposed by the administration and died on a party-line vote.

Democrats also offered a bill to prevent campaign contributions from companies that receive no-bid contracts from state government. That also was opposed by the administration and killed.

South Dakota has no restrictions on so-called pay-to-play as other states have. You could write campaign checks to South Dakota politicians who ultimately control the purse strings on economic development programs. In fact, this year, a bill was passed over my objections to allow corporations to write checks of up to $10,000 to PACs that can give money to politicians. Surely, there’s no quid pro quo in South Dakota, but we should have laws prohibiting such conduct.

But representative Johnston just tells us to get on the inter-webs and we can download and print out all the info we want;

I am committed to openness and transparency in all aspects of government operations. At the state level, our government has taken many steps to provide online resources for virtually all government records through www.Open.SD.gov. I encourage everyone to visit the site to experience all the information available with the click of a mouse.

Wow! Who knew it was so easy to uncover the state’s secrets? I feel like a total ass that I didn’t know about this website sooner. 🙁

Dan Scott libel case ‘Dismissed’ becuz it was ‘Settled’

Of course the Argus Endorser’s headline is backwards;

Scott suit against Argus settled, dismissed

Good stuff, and it gets better;

Dan Scott, the former director of the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, had claimed that a satirical column in 2007 by then-Executive Editor Randell Beck had damaged his reputation.

Last week, Circuit Judge Bradley Zell signed an order dismissing the case. Lawyers for both sides signed a stipulation stating that the case had been settled “without costs to any party.”

Yeah, sure, you betcha! As I understand it, there can be all kinds of settlements outside the courtroom. My guess is that Gannett wrote Mr. Scott a big fat check and said, STFU. And that was passed to the judge who said, “They kissed and made up.”

Sources tell me that Scott got more then a parting gift. But, like licking to the center of a Tootsie-Pop “The World may never know.”

Legislators want constituents to be charged with a crime for saying naughty things to them? (H/T – Duke Jr.)

I’m pretty sure this legislation has to do with ACTUAL THREATS but there is already laws that protect them (and us) against those things. The First Amendment is pretty clear, if I am not threatening you, I can pretty much say whatever I want to, to you.

Get over yourselves.

You are legislators in a state that is ranked last in almost every category. Not only do we not want to do you physical harm, we don’t want to even think about you or know you. You are embarrassing.

Funny how Dems and Repugs support this together. Just shows that both parties don’t have a clue about 1st Amendment rights.

Should we call this the SD Legislature Bullying law?