Greetings from Pierre. We are at the midpoint of session. I will highlight some of the bills of interest and status. I will also share some information about the Democratic goals in “Opportunity Agenda for Working Families.”

As many of you are aware, HB 1069 passed and was signed by the Governor. This bill repeals IM-22. Currently, there are 25 other bills that deal with campaign finance, government accountability and ethics. There are 3 bills to focus your attention. HB 1073 will revise provisions to limit gifts from registered lobbyists. This bill limits gifts to a cumulative of $100 in any calendar year. This bill may be amended to include a provision for limits on meals. SB 54 is submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State for campaign finance reform. This bill is currently being rewritten and will be amended in committee on Monday. I will keep the readers updated on the campaign limits set in this bill. Finally HB 1076 establishes the government accountability board. This bill has bipartisan support and is supported by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General’s office.

A bill getting a lot of attention is SB 61. This bill will take licensure control for nurse practitioners away from doctors. Currently, a NP works under a collaborative agreement with a doctor. The cost of these licenses is extremely cost prohibitive to NPs that wish to work in rural areas.   The opposition will argue these agreements are essential for oversight. However, none of the states surrounding South Dakota require NPs to get their license from a doctor.   Nurse practitioners are individuals with Masters or Doctorate degrees and have many hours of experience. This bill will not prohibit collaboration between an NP and a doctor. In fact, our surrounding states have demonstrated, in many cases, collaboration improves. This bill will help our rural areas recruit more NPs and will work in conjunction with our tuition reimbursement program for rural medical professionals.

Democrats recently introduced the “Opportunity Agenda for Working Families.” This initiative consists of five goals to make South Dakota’s economy work for working families. These goals are guaranteed sick and family leave, a pre-K pilot program, restoring childcare assistance, a comprehensive affordable housing program and a fully funded needs-based scholarship program.

Unfortunately, this year, the sick leave and pre-K bills have failed in committee on party line votes. I don’t believe these are party issues and we can find common ground over the summer months. Efforts continue to enhance affordable housing and fund the needs based scholarship. Regardless of this year’s outcomes, we will continue to work on common-sense legislation to help working families.

Again, thank you for the calls and emails. Please stay involved in the legislative process. Your voice matters. You many call me at 940-3071 or email at danahlers1973@gmail.com

Greetings from Pierre. IM-22 was officially repealed last week. Although the measure is repealed, the fight for ethics reform continues. Appropriations held hearings with the Board of Regents. With revenues lower than expected, we are working to decide the best way to invest in our universities and keep student tuition low.

On Thursday, Governor Daugaard signed HB 1069 and officially repealed IM-22. The governor said during his press conference that the process is not important, only the end result. I disagree. In order to have government work for the people, we must respect the rules and process. When we think we are above the process and rules don’t apply, that is when we have corruption. It has become a political culture in Pierre. We have EB-5 and Gear UP scandals that cost taxpayers millions. We have a group of legislators that think they can make and bend rules to suit their agenda. Whether we are talking about video lottery, the cigarette tax, minimum wage or IM-22, we have a legislature that continues to ignore the people’s vote.

There is still an opportunity to get the reform voters wanted with IM-22. HB 1076 will create a government accountability board. This board will monitor all of state government. HB 1073 will limit gifts from lobbyists. Secretary of State Shantel Krebs has introduced SB 53 & 54 to reform campaign finance. If we can pass all four bills, we could end up with reform that’s better than what IM-22 offered. As voters, it is important that you read these bills, contact legislators and ask for their support. You may read these bills on sdlegislature.gov.

Appropriations met with the Board of Regents this week to discuss their 2018 budget. Over the past five years, tuition increases have remained low. In order for this trend to continue, the legislature will need to invest more in higher education. Achieving more funding is complicated by several outside factors. While graduation rates are at record levels, the number of new students is down. Tuition revenues are down due to duel credits in high school as well as an increase in online courses. The only institution with a real increase of on campus students is the School of Mines.

This reality is forcing the universities to reexamine their missions. DSU has done an excellent job of evolving with technology. DSU is retooling to become a leader in cyber security. Currently, the university is looking to contract with online retail giants and government contractors. The university will also tackle the next wave in communication, 5G technology security. USD has our states only law school. In recent years, the number of law school students failing the Bar Exam has increased to the point that the program is at risk for academic probation. USD President Jim Abbott would like to raise the test scores for admittance as well as limit the number of students accepted. This approach would require a 1.2 million dollar appropriation over a three-year period to sustain the law school.

With challenges and financial needs increasing for the Board of Regents, the Appropriations Committee is considering focusing our summer meetings on a review of our university missions, facilities, administrations and educational programs.

Remember, we need your involvement in the process. Please email at dan.ahlers@sdlegislature.gov or call 940-3071 with any questions. I appreciate all your comments. Thank you for allowing me to serve as your state representative.

Greetings from Pierre. As many predicted, IM-22 (the ethics reform measure) has dominated debate in the legislature. Three bills were introduced this week to change the initiated measure, referred law and amendment process as well as repeal IM-22.

SB 59 is a measure that would delay the effective date for initiated measures and referred laws. This bill is reasonable and worthy of consideration. This bill would change the effective date to July 1^st of the following year. It is the same effective date for laws passed during legislative session without an emergency clause. This bill would allow time for the legislature to review a law that may need corrections or address sections that may have constitutional issues.

SB 67 is aimed at changing the number of signatures required for initiated measures. This bill will increase the number of signatures required to get a measure on the ballot. The proponents of this bill say it will make it more difficult for out-of-state interests to get initiated measures on the ballot. In reality, it will make it more difficult for South Dakotans to get measures on the ballot. Outside groups have the money and organization to meet the required number of signatures on a petition. Many of our ballot measures are introduced by local individuals and groups with limited resources. South Dakota was the first state to adopt the ballot initiative back in 1908. It is part our independent spirit and rich South Dakota history. To diminish our ability to exercise this right is a mistake.

Finally, HB 1069 has been introduced to repeal IM-22. Although this argument has broken down mainly along party lines, it is not a partisan issue. Most Republican and Democratic legislators recognize IM-22 has flaws. The distinction between parties comes with how these changes are addressed. Republicans are set on a full repeal without consideration of amending IM-22 to make it work or receiving input from the public. Leadership has tried to fast-track this bill through the process with changes in procedure. On Monday, it was announced on the House floor there would be a Joint State Affairs Committee to hear arguments on HB 1069. First, by rules, no such committee exists and would require a rules change to conduct business. When the committee chair was questioned on procedure, he cited other joint committees. All of these committees are defined in rules.

When the Senate State Affairs Chairman was asked how the Senate committee vote would proceed, he did not have an answer. As legislators, we have the ability to change rules and there is a process for that, but we cannot make it up as we go. The purpose of the joint hearing was to limit the amount of testimony for the opposition. The minimum amount of notification, 2 days, was given prior to the committee hearing. The limited number of days makes it difficult for the average citizen to take time from work to testify. Typically, legislation with this level of significance would receive more consideration for people wanting to testify, as well as the amount time given for committee hearings in both House and Senate. This bill also includes an emergency clause which does not allow the public to refer this bill to a vote.

Legislators should recognize that IM-22 is a reflection of how the voters feel about their government. The efforts of legislators to repeal IM-22 only perpetuates the distrust of government. The real issue in this debate is not about the ballot measure process or IM-22. The issue is whether the legislature respects the voters of South Dakota. SB 67 seeks to limit your voice and HB 1069 ignores it. The emergency clause attached to HB 1069 seeks to silence it.

Greetings from Pierre. Because this program affects so many South Dakotans, I would like to focus on the proposed changes to the South Dakota Retirement System. Due to economic factors, SDRS is recommending changes to protect the longevity of the fund as well as member benefits.

The South Dakota Retirement System was created to provide members and their families the opportunity to achieve financial security due to retirement, disability or death. The goal of the plan is to implement, manage and efficiently administer a sustainable retirement program.

The South Dakota Retirement System has a membership of more than 84,000 people. SDRS pays benefits in excess of $500 million each year. The majority of money paid each year goes to individuals that still live in South Dakota.

In the last 26 years, SDRS has been over 100% in actuarial valuations 21 times. SDRS’s fund ratio remains nearly 30% greater than the national average. Most states would love to have a retirement system funded as well as ours. However, due to lower than assumed investment performance the fund is 97% of its Fair Value Fund Ratio. In order to avoid the catastrophic situations of other state retirement funds, the Board of Trustees has a 100% funded objective. To maintain this objective SDRS is introducing 3 bills to ensure its longevity and commitment to its members.

HB 1016 will revise the methodology for calculating the annual cost of living adjustment or (COLA). If the fair value funded ratio is 100% or greater the COLA payable is equal to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage earners or (CPI-W). It will have a maximum increase of 3.5% and a minimum increase of .5%. If the fair value funded ratio is less than 100%, a maximum COLA is calculated that results in SDRS being fully funded and a minimum of .5%. It is important to note that this change will not cut benefits. The change only impacts the amount of increased benefits.

HB 1017 revises the definition of compensation of SDRS and establishes a penalty for false reporting. Compensation is defined as wages earned for services rendered during a specific time frame. Employer funded benefits, allowances or reimbursements for expenses are excluded. Payments in lieu of insurance, temporary pay for additional duties or incentivize retirements are also excluded. An example would be a teacher that would take an additional $1000 cash instead of opting into a group insurance plan. The $1000 payout would not be considered compensation.

HB 1018 revises the computation for benefit compensation. The reason for this change pertains to large, late-career increases in compensation. These incidents create inequities that result in a significantly higher benefit and liability. These benefits and liabilities exceed the amount the contribution and investment income can fund. This bill will phase in a longer averaging period of 5 years for people hired on or after July 1, 2021. Compensation for each year considered is limited to 105% of the highest compensation in any of the final 10 years of employment. This bill will prevent losses from large increases just prior to retirement and keep ongoing cost benefits in balance with contributions.

All 3 bills passed the House Retirement Laws Committee and are headed to the House floor. If you missed last week’s article, it should still be available on Big Sioux Media. If you would like to contact me, you may email me at dan.ahlers@sdlegislature.gov or call 940-3071. I would be happy to answer any questions.