South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

State Legislature

Daugaard State Funding State Legislature

Will Governor ‘Hoodwink’ ever tell us why he gave Jason Dilges the boot?

l3wis 11Comments

Oh, we all ‘KNOW’ why Jason got his walking papers from state government, heck, if you grabbed a phone book from Pierre, pealed it open, slapped your finger down on any random person in the book and called them, they would know to.

Yet NO one in the media is willing to put it out there, I’m even too chickenshit to actually say why.

The bigger question is why doesn’t the Governor tell us why a guy who prepared our state budget for close to 14 years is no longer working for us. Yeah, he got his son-in-law to blubber out some statement that it didn’t have to do with actual numbers and stuff, but that it is was ‘personnel’ reasons. While (sorta) true, it still isn’t the tip of the iceberg, and the Gov knows it.

So why have I chosen to rip on this issue without telling you the very juicy deets. To be honest with you, I’m more annoyed by the hypocrisy of Denny on this issue then what really happened.

He claims South Dakotans were ‘hoodwinked’ into voting for an anti-corruption measure (IM 22) because he can’t believe South Dakotans would actually believe there is corruption in our state, but he can’t even give us a straight answer about terminating a top ranking cabinet member.

So before the governor is so quick to assume that South Dakotans actually trust our government to do the right thing all I have to say is EB-5 and Gear Up. Some of these players still work for state government, because I guess there is some kind of reward for resisting suicide or really SCREWING up.

Dennis, let’s talk about who is really ‘Hoodwinking’ South Dakotans.

Daugaard State Legislature

Once again the Governor thumbs his nose at voters and calls them ignorant

l3wis 4Comments

Daugaard_D.jpg.w180h225

South Dakotans are idiots, and I’m their fearless leader

Funny, the same people have elected him twice and his one-party rule with a majority of legislators;

Daugaard said voters were sold on the idea that the law would prevent corruption in government, but didn’t realize the extent of the proposed reform. He said he didn’t believe that voters truly supported IM 22.

“I do not believe they do. I just refuse to believe it. Not South Dakota,” he said.

Daugaard said he wished he’d been more vocal in campaigning against the measure earlier this year. He said he’d focused his attention on a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at creating a non-partisan primary.

“Shame on me,” Daugaard said. “I just didn’t think it could pass. I didn’t think voters would support public funds for campaigns.”

Legislative leaders have said they plan to evaluate the law during the 2017 legislative session barring earlier court intervention.

So we are a bunch of dummies when we want relief from corruption, corruption under the Governor’s watch (EB-5, Gear Up, Dilges termination) but good South Dakotans when we elect these clowns. What a moron.

SF City Council Sioux Falls State Funding State Legislature

Further proof a ‘Sunset’ clause on taxes and fees never ‘sets’

l3wis 0Comments

While there is a lot of issues going on at the Sioux Falls City Council informational meeting on Tuesday, one of them is the Council’s legislative priorities. Like a summer in Alaska, the sun will never set on 911 surcharges.

theresnosunshine

Anytime politicians tell you there will be a ‘sunset’ on taxes or fees, I just laugh. It is nothing more then a LIE.

Marsy's Law South Dakotans State Legislature

Looks like our horrible open records rules is the issue with Marsy’s Law

l3wis 4Comments

Props to Kelli Volk at KELO-TV for doing research on our open records rules in our state and others. It seems Law Enforcement is reacting to our local laws when it comes to Marsy’s Law, more then the actual rules of Marsy’s Law.

open-law

Image: KELO-TV

In both California and Illinois, when the law took effect it was business as usual.  But both of those states have much different open records laws than in South Dakota.

California’s law says public information is a “fundamental and necessary right for every person in the State.”  The law in Illinois says “all persons are entitled to full and complete information.”

South Dakota’s open records law says records are public, “unless any other statute, ordinance or rule expressly provides that information or records may not be made public.”

And Marsy’s Law has one line that may do just that.  It gives victims the right to prevent some information from being made public if it could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family.

It seems the way to fix the transparency issue with reporting crimes comes down to changing our state’s open records laws not changing Marsy’s Law.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Uncategorized

It was only a matter of time

Uncategorized

Internal audit has a busy schedule

Uncategorized

Every Single South Dakota Democrat shows up to the convention

Cartoon Miranda Bayse SF City Council Sioux Falls

Beyond Help