On March 10, 2014, Governor Daugaard signed 24 more bills into law coming from the South Dakota 2014 legislature. Below is a list of the bills signed into law and any thoughts I have about them. There are a lot of bill that cleanup or repeal old code. But there are also a few others of note. In particular there is a Common Core bill (SB 64) and a greedy grab at future potential tax revenue (SB 93).
SB 5 – An Act to permit the court reciprocal discretion to hear certain petitions for protection orders due to domestic abuse and for protection orders due to stalking or physical injury.
This one makes sense. Basically if a protection order was incorrectly filled out for the wrong type of domestic protection it allows the Judge to accept the petition. The judge can then issue the correct protection order. It makes no sense to hold up a needed protection order because of an error in the petition.
SB 64 – An Act to require a waiting period prior to the adoption of new uniform content standards and to provide for an opportunity for public comment for all new content standards.
This is one of the few victories in the battle against Common Core. Unfortunately it is a hollow victory. SD Secretary of Education Schopp twisted history to make it look like this law codifies what Dept of Ed already does. It is good to see this in place for any expansion of Common Core, or any other centralized content standards. But it won’t do anything for the standards that have already been implemented.
SB 70 – An Act to codify legislation enacted in 2013.
This just updates the codified list of official codified law resources.
SB 71 – An Act to allow the contract for the publication of the codified laws to be extended for more than one year.
This one just allows the Code Commission to extend the contract with West (Thompson Reuters) if they think it is good to do so for the state.
SB 91 – An Act to revise certain licensure definitions and provide certain regulatory powers to municipalities.
This is a bad law. It allows local governments to add burdensome regulations to party buses and pedal bikes that serve alcohol. These are already licensed by the state and have plenty of regulation to comply with.
SB 93 – An Act to define liquid natural gas, to revise certain provisions regarding the collection of the motor fuel tax, and to apply motor fuel tax to all fuels used to propel a motor vehicle.
Another bad law. This bill tries to make sure that new fuel sources for motor vehicles get taxed. Apparently liquid natural gas is an up and coming fuel so we must make sure it gets taxed. The thought of missing even a little bit of tax revenue must have given bureaucrats and legislators in Pierre heartburn; this bill made it through both houses with very little resistance.
SB 100 – An Act to provide for the filling of a vacancy if no person is elected to succeed an elected official in municipalities.
Just a bill that points to other sections of law for clarity if there are unfilled vacancies.
SB 115 – An Act to provide for travel insurance and regulate travel insurance retailers.
I don’t really understand what this one is trying to fix, and don’t have enough interest in this one to listen to the testimony. It passed both houses with 0 resistance.
SB 150 – An Act to allow use of supraglottic airway devices by emergency medical technicians, and to declare an emergency.
It kind of annoys me this law was required. It shouldn’t be necessary to allow emergency medical technicians to use supraglottic airway device to save lives. It just shows that over-regulation, especially in life-saving industries, can be costly in more ways than one…
SB 151 – An Act to revise the appointment process for the State Veterans Home superintendent.
This just makes the appointment process for the State Veterans Home superintendent more streamlined. Seems like a good change.
SB 152 – An Act to make an appropriation to provide full funding of the cement plant retirement plan, to consolidate the cement plant retirement plan with the South Dakota Retirement System, and to declare an emergency.
This bill comes from the Governors budget proposal. Basically it makes sure the whole cement plant retirement fund is equalized, and then combined with the SDRS fund. Both retirement systems will receive the same benefits/payouts. I think this is a good action. SD needs to make sure our pension plan is fully funded and this seems to possibly remove some administrative overhead.
HB 1043 – An Act to revise and repeal certain provisions regarding the regulation of aeronautics.
This one removed or cleaned up a lot of old code. Nothing bad in it that I could see.
HB 1073 – An Act to provide for the cancellation of expired mechanic’s and materialman’s liens.
Basically this allows a lien to be cancelled if no action was taken in six years. The six-year limit already existed before, but this bill allows a process to actually cancel the lien by the property owner. Seems like a good clarification of existing code.
HB 1091 – An Act to allow municipalities and counties to adopt a property maintenance code.
This allows municipalities and counties to adopt code from the 2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code. They can also add/delete/modify any of the code. So basically they can enact as many burdensome regulations as they want. More regulation is not what is needed.
HB 1119 – An Act to revise certain provisions relating to preliminary hearings for persons charged with class 1 misdemeanors.
This one seems bad to me. It looks like some due process had been removed. How anyone can advocate the removal of due process is strange to me.
HB 1125 – An Act to repeal certain outdated and obsolete provisions regarding judicial remedies.
This one removes a lot of old code that apparently isn’t used anymore.
HB 1126 – An Act to revise the persons authorized to countersign school board payments.
Just some code cleanup. You can tell the code must be old because it assumed the president of a school board is a he.
HB 1151 – An Act to revise certain deadlines and offices regarding budgetary planning for municipalities.
Just more code cleanup.
HB 1152 – An Act to revise certain provisions concerning registration of limited partnerships.
Actually since I deal with these type of entities I think this small change is a good one. It allows limited partnerships to use L.P. or LP in their name instead of having to write the whole thing out.
HB 1156 – An Act to allow the transmission of electronic documents related to insurance policies.
As an advocate of paper reduction I think this is a good change to law.
HB 1178 – An Act to revise certain provisions relating to false statements pertaining to aircraft registration and associated penalties.
I don’t see any reason this has to be changed from a Class 6 to a Class 5 felony. That seems extreme overkill. This is one of a few cases of overkill I’ve seen on felony offenses this legislative session.
HB 1181 – An Act to allow for the requirement of a certification of health from an employee of a school.
I don’t see a problem with this one. If a school employee (especially teachers) seems very sick and likely contagious the school can require that employee to see a doctor at the schools expense. Things similar to this are actually done in many private companies.
HB 1198 – An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the administration of medical treatment for individuals with mental illness.
This one is strange. It appears to allow forced medical treatment being performed on someone with mental illness to go on much longer without permission. I’m not really sure this is a good change to code.
HB 1200 – An Act to revise certain bank franchise tax provisions regarding net income and net operating losses.
This one was sold by proponents as code clean-up. I’m not so sure. The removal of large sections will definitely change the franchise tax. Will it be a ‘wash’ as proponents said? Or will it be a tax raise or tax cut for banks? I’m not sure…
On Monday, March 10, the House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony and take action on SB 46. SB 46 has this stated purpose:
An Act to revise certain provisions regarding animal welfare and to provide a felony penalty for cruelty to animals.
I consider myself an advocate for the humane treatment of animals and believe truly malicious treatment of animals should be prosecuted very severely. Yet I am having a hard time supporting this bill. As is often the case, bills that are meant to be tough on a certain situation can be far too overreaching and cause a greater potential for unintended consequences. SB 46 may be one of those bills.
Back on Feb 11 the State Veterinarian, Dustin Oedekoven, gave the primary proponent testimony in the State Ag committee. He was speaking on behalf of the SD Animal Industry Board. His testimony is well worth listening to. And I do believe he tried to fix the many problems that existed in previous attempts at such legislation in the past. During testimony he offered an amendment that cleared up the bill a bit. But there are still some issues with the bill. I feel the opponent testimony in that hearing is just as important to listen to. It provided a lot of doubt as to the validity of this bill.
Here are two specific problems I have with this bill:
“Cruelty,” to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously inflict gross physical abuse on an animal that causes prolonged pain, that causes serious physical injury, or that results in the death of the animal;
The definition of ‘cruelty was added, it had previously not existed in SD code. By itself this definition seems good. But you have to look at how extremist animal rights advocates will use this definition. This definition can be used to attack farmers, ranchers, and hunters that activists wish to stop. Current codified law in South Dakota already makes it illegal to commit animal cruelty as generally understood (mistreatment, torture, neglect, abandonment, mutilation, inhumane slaughter, etc..). I don’t see anything wrong with the specific definitions in law that require a broad and open-to-interpretation definition of cruelty to be created. It appears the language in this definition was drafted broadly on purpose for use in the future by extreme animal right activists.
No person may subject an animal to cruelty. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony.
Here is where animal cruelty is changed to a Class 6 felony. Many of the proponents of this bill say this is important because “South Dakota is the only state that hasn’t made this a felony”. Well, just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t mean it is right. If the punishment was the older and more specific language it may have been OK to make this a felony offence. But to make this a felony offence with the overly broad definition from above is just asking for activists to harass farmers, ranchers, hunters, dog owners, and anyone else that comes near an animal. Felony offenses have dire consequences and can ruin many parts of a South Dakota citizens life. That is done on purpose to prevent felonies from every happening. If the definition of a crime is too broad it can take many rights away from innocent people who are targets of animal rights activists.
It is confounding the State Senate passed a bill that created an overly-broad definition of animal cruelty and increased the punishment to a felony. I wonder if any of those Senators actually read the bill and thought of the unintended consequences.
I do think there are some tweaks that need to be made to the animal cruelty laws in South Dakota. SB 46 has some areas that would be good starting point for legislation to that effect. I just hope the House Judiciary Committee looks at this bill more intently than the Senate. I don’t think there is enough time left in the session to ‘fix’ this bill. For that reason I hope the House Judiciary committee kills the bill. South Dakota will have to wait until 2015 for an animal cruelty bill that ensures those mistreating animals are properly dealt with; without providing an overly-broad definition that activists can use to wreak havoc upon their victims.
On March 7, 2014, Governor Daugaard signed 18 more bills into law coming from the South Dakota 2014 legislature. Below is a list of the bills signed into law and any thoughts I have about them. Most of this is standard code cleanup or clarifications of current laws. But there are a few back-door tax increases here…
SB 12 – An Act to update references to certain federal motor carrier regulations.
All this one did was change the federal regulations pointed to from 2013 to 2014.
SB 14 – An Act to revise certain provisions pertaining to the Board of Examiners of Counselors and Marriage and Family Therapists.
This removed some old code and revised what was left. I don’t have enough knowledge in this area to truly determine what was changed, it seems harmless.
SB 29 – An Act to revise certain provisions in statute and administrative rules regarding the regulation of campgrounds and the license fee for campgrounds and to repeal administrative rules regulating primitive campgrounds, full-service campgrounds, limited service campgrounds and temporary campgrounds.
Part of this appears good, it removes a lot of old code that regulates campgrounds. However at the same time it appears many primitive or temporary campgrounds may be in for a fee increase. This bill looks like a bit like a tax increase increased in disguised as a code cleanup bill.
SB 54 – An Act to revise the definition of a boat dealer, used vehicle dealer and dealer of mobile homes or manufactured homes, and to revise certain penalties for selling motor vehicles, snowmobiles, mobile homes, manufactured homes or boats without a license.
I don’t like this one. It expands the definition of ‘dealer’. It really looks like an attempt to expand regulatory authority. That is not what is needed in the current economy! Of course this expanded definition of dealer will help the Dept of Revenue collect more
taxes fees. (This bill was asked for by the Dept of Revenue)
SB 55 – An Act to repeal the contractor’s excise tax on certain new or expanded power production facilities.
Wow, a bill to actually repeal a tax? Well, yes, but that doesn’t mean the tax will go down… As I read this, it repeals the 1% excise tax on certain renewable energy power production facilities. With this special 1% excise tax repealed it will now go up to the general excise tax rate of 2%. A case could be made that this is being done to make the tax more ‘fair’ across industries; but the case cannot be made that this is a ‘tax cut’.
SB 59 – An Act to increase the penalty for the trafficking of vehicle license plates and decals, to prohibit and provide a penalty for the unauthorized transfer of a vehicle license plate or decal, and to impose a penalty for altering or forging certain vehicle registration cards.
Who knew it wasn’t illegal to create a counterfeit decal for the license plate. This basically cleaned up and clarified current code.
SB 89 – An Act to repeal certain outdated and obsolete provisions regarding the medical department of the National Guard.
A good code cleanup bill. It’s kind of silly to have a law relating to the medical department of the National Guard when that entity no longer exists.
HB 1012 – An Act to provide for free resident fishing licenses for certain entities teaching basic fishing skills.
This just added a few entities that can get free fishing licenses for teaching. Nothing earth-shattering here.
HB 1014 – An Act to increase the nonrefundable application fee for resident bighorn sheep, mountain goat and elk licenses.
I don’t see why this tax increase was needed. Doubling the application fee from $5 to $10 shouldn’t be necessary. Just another back-door tax increase from the legislature.
HB 1015 – An Act to create an equitable process to handle water right applications submitted for aquifers determined to be fully appropriated by the Water Management Board.
I wish I understood this bill better. And LRC website is having problems so I can’t hear the testimony on it right now. But it appears to actually be expanding the power of the Water Management Board, as opposed to just creating an ‘equitable process’. This one may have some big future unintended consequences.
HB 1028 – An Act to revise the amount counties may be reimbursed for the detainment of parole violators.
I don’t have a problem with the slight increase in amount of money being reimbursed to counties. But… A better solution would be to stop prosecuting and jailing people for victim-less crimes. That would make bills like this one less necessary.
HB 1029 – An Act to revise certain requirements regarding the Richard Hagen- Minerva Harvey memorial scholarship program.
Just minor corrections to current code. Nothing nefarious seems to be here.
HB 1042 – An Act to revise the penalty for late payment of the additional original registration tax on aircraft.
If I remember the testimony on this one correctly, it brings this penalty more in-line with other vehicle types. I don’t see anything wrong with this bill.
HB 1051 – An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the regulation of captive insurance companies.
This one cleans up current code pretty good. Even though the changes are small, it took away a lot of ambiguities.
HB 1061 – An Act to include limited liability companies in certain provisions regarding the licensing of boats and motor vehicles and certain provisions regarding the dealers and manufacturers of certain vehicles, manufactured homes and mobile homes.
This one added LLC’s to parts of current code. It was an oversight when the original code was enacted.
HB 1079 – An Act to authorize certain lighting on vehicles operated by ambulance service personnel.
This clarifies and slightly expands who can use a blue emergency blue light. Seems to be a good change.
HB 1090 – An Act to repeal certain outdated and obsolete provisions regarding county highways.
This one removed a lot of old and unnecessary code. That’s a good thing.
HB 1108 – An Act to repeal certain outdated and obsolete provisions regarding employment strikes and lockouts.
This bit of code has been overwritten by federal statute back in the 1930′s. This code cleanup did have quite a bit of resistance from legislators who seemed to think it was an attack on unions. I don’t think it was. Either way I think it was good code cleanup to get rid of these unnecessary pieces of law.
About a month ago I blogged about SD SB 126. This bill was brought forth to undo rules put forth by the SD Department of Ag last fall in order to
regulate kill the raw milk industry in South Dakota. That bill was tabled in committee on Feb 21 due to a deal being worked out between Lucas Lentsch (Secretary of Agriculture) and proponents of raw milk. I was not happy with this move when it happened, and I am still unhappy a couple of weeks later.
Going back, testimony was heard for SB126 on February 7 before the Senate Health and Human Services committee. Testimony was long, for both proponents and opponents of raw milk. Personally I think the proponents did a great job of showing the value of raw milk and how the regulations passed last fall were killing the small raw milk industry. It was quite clear from much of the opponent testimony that ‘reasonable regulations’ were never a goal. I actually sat in the middle of the opponents to SB128 in the committee room. From the whispers I overheard and body language it was quite clear that most of the opponents of SB126 believe raw milk is bad in all circumstances and should be illegal. Action was deferred at the end of the hearing.
On Feb 21 the committee took action on the bill. Before action one opponent and one proponent were allowed to speak about the bill.
Secretary Lentsch was allowed to speak first. He had worked out a deal with proponents of SB126 in order to get the bill killed. Secretary Lentsch said he would lead a one year workgroup looking into regulations for raw milk. Updates from this workgroup will be provided upon request to the Government Operations Accountability Committee (GOAC). The members of this committee would include representatives from:
- the dairy sector
- current & previously permitted bottled raw milk producers
- SD Dairy Producers Association
- SD Department of Ag
Lentsch did add that the membership may grow. He also said the current raw milk rules laid out in 12:81 will be done with “secretarial discretion”. So, the current rules are going to be kept, but we have to trust that he will do the right thing…
Sabrina King, lobbyist for Dakota Rural Action, was then allowed to give some remarks. King spoke in favor of the workgroup, and actually mentioned this is something raw milk advocates had asked for last year during the hearings. She also said there would need to be some rebuilding of relationships and trust between the advocates of raw milk and regulators. After trying to kill the raw milk industry, I believe the regulators at the Dept of Ag have a lot of work to do in order to rebuild any trust.
King also stated she understood that any issues with the current rules would be quickly addressed by the workgroup. This is in contrast to the “secretarial discretion” mentioned by Lentsch. The workgroup hasn’t even’t started and both sides appear to have different views of how things will proceed. That is not a good sign.
After Lentsch and King spoke it was moved to table the bill, thereby killing any real attempts to undo the industry-killing regulations put forth by the Dept of Ag last year. The tabling passed with only one Nay vote (I think Sen Bradford was confused about what was actually happening, thus his no vote).
Apparently a letter of intent will be presented to the GOAC after the legislative session. GOAC will then proceed to ensure the worgroup is created and begins it work.
I do not think this was a good solution. I understand why Dakota Rural Action took this deal. It allows them to work with the Department of Ag on creating realistic regulations that can both protect the public and allow the raw milk industry to survive. But I cannot forget the outright anti-raw-milk attitude I was sensing from the regulators as I sat through the testimony on Feb 7. Everyone I’ve spoken to about Secretary Lentsch says he is a fair and honest person. Yet nothing about his, or his staffs, demeanor portrayed any wish to be fair when dealing with raw milk. Going forward Lentsch’s “secretarial discretion” will have to closely watched.
Since the proposed makeup of the workgroup is composed mostly of groups that spoke against raw milk, I don’t believe this workgroup will in fact be worried about what is fair. Instead I fear the workgroup will find ways to show the current industry-killing regulations didn’t go far enough. In that case I believe SB126 will be resurrected in the 2015 legislative session. Hopefully there will be a raw milk industry left to protect by that time….
For next few days attorney Richard Frey will be traveling through the great state of South Dakota speaking against an Article V convention (I briefly mentioned this a couple of weeks ago). I explained before than an Article V convention is NOT the way to fix the many problems that exist in DC; and that an Article V convention may actually make matters worse!. So far in the 2014 legislative session there have been 3 attempts in the South Dakota legislature to apply or set conditions for an Article V convention. Luckily each of these attempts was stopped:
- HJR1004 - Purpose: Making formal application to Congress to call an Article V convention of the states for the sole purpose of proposing a federal balanced budget amendment.
This particular application for an Article V convention was doubly bad. Not only was it asking for a convention, it was asking for a balanced budget amendment. Personally I would love a federal balanced budget amendment! But any such amendment would by necessity have to exempt ‘defense’ spending. All the federal government would need to do in getting around such an amendment is use creative accounting and classify more areas of spending as ‘defense’. I am glad to say this resolution failed on the House floor 28-42.
- HJR1005 - Purpose: to apply for a Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
This one died in the House State Affairs committee the same day they passed HJR1004. I think the committee realized that the subject of an Article V convention doesn’t really matter, because it has no impact upon what actually happens at the convention.
- HB1136 - Purpose: limit the authority of delegates to a limited Article V convention to vote for unauthorized amendments contrary to legislative instructions and to provide a civil fine for the violation thereof.
This was a close one. It failed with a vote of 33-37 on the House floor. The next day a vote to reconsider was defeated narrowly with a vote of 35-35. This particular bill would not have actually petitioned for an Article V convention. Instead it would have tried controlling the actions of any delegates sent from South Dakota to a convention. Such a move would be both unwise and potentially unconstitutional.
Now just because the above three bills were defeated it doesn’t mean there is nothing more to fear in this legislative session. There are tricks that can be used to resurrect an attempt to push an Article V convention through. Hopefully those attempts can be stopped before they actually start.
But in the meantime I would urge everyone to meet with Mr Fry on the Defend Not Amend South Dakota tour!
Last week Rep Nelson brought a resolution before the House commending, honoring, and thanking former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul (HCR1027, original version here). As I reported last week, the bill was hijacked by Rep Rounds as a political statement. The hijacked bill passed the floor vote and went on to the Senate. Today the Senate State Affairs committee held its hearing on the hijacked version of HCR1027. Going into the committee meeting today I thought it would be passed on as hijacked; or as a long-shot the committee would hoghouse it back to its original form. But, just like with the hijacking, the bill was in for more political tricks …
The hearing started simple enough. Senator Begalka said he would like the bill to be passed through as-is or with the amendment Rep Nelson would be bringing forth. Both are good resolutions, so he didn’t really take a stand with it. The hijacked resolution is one commemorating all federal Congressmen that have served in DC from South Dakota. Actually it wouldn’t be a bad resolution if it wasn’t created to make a political statement by hijacking the original resolution.
It is worth noting at this point that Rep Rounds choose not to testify on behalf of the bill he hijacked. He had apparently made his political statement on the House floor and chose not to testify on behalf of the bill he helped to shape before the Senate State Affairs committee.
Rep Nelson then came forward with an amendment to restore the resolution back to its original text commemorating Dr Ron Paul. Nelson mentioned constituents wanted this to be done as a commemoration. The LRC had told Nelson this could not be done as a commemoration but should be done as a concurrent resolution, and that is how the LRC drafted it.
This is where I expected the committee would vote down the amendment and keep the bill hijacked. But no, that isn’t what happened.
Senator Brown (one of the members of the Senate State Affairs committee) came prepared with his own political trickery to completely kill the bill. Sen Brown said the rules would not allow either version of the bill. This is per Joint Rule 6A-1(2):
6A-1. Legislative documents. Only bills and the following may be introduced in the Legislature:
(2) A concurrent resolution, which shall express opinions and principles of the Legislature not having the force of law. A concurrent resolution may be used to authorize interim studies, joint rules, sessions or committees, to memorialize or instruct a department of state government, or to petition federal agencies;
According to Sen Brown 6A-1(2) does not permit either version of the bill to be passed as a concurrent resolution. Instead it should have been done as a legislative commemoration per 6A-1(5):
(5) A legislative commemoration, which shall express recognition of service or achievements of national or statewide importance or express sorrow over death or loss.
Ironically this is what Rep Nelson originally wanted. Also noteworthy is the fact that concurrent resolutions have been used often in the past in this exact manner, yet it was not an issue any of those times. It is only this time with Nelson trying to restore his hijacked resolution that it became an issue.
Here are a three past examples of concurrent resolutions that have been used to commemorate individuals.
2013 Session, HCR1010: Purpose: Recognizing the achievements of President Gerald Ford.
Does this mean we didn’t honor Ford? I hope so, this was a bad resolution.
2009 Session, HCR 1002: Purpose: To honor and congratulate Barack Obama, the forty-fourth President of the United States of America.
Does this mean South Dakota didn’t unanimously honor President Obama?
2005 Session, HCR1003: Purpose: Expressing the gratitude of South Dakota to Thomas A. Daschle for his distinguished service to state and nation.
He also happens to be in the hijacked version of the Nelson resolution.
I brought the three above resolutions up for a few reasons. First, they all happen to be about people whose politics I disagree with. But even if I disagree with their politics it doesn’t mean I think the resolutions are bad. No matter what I say about the above people politically it doesn’t change the fact they have done some commendable things and are worthy of being recognized.
The second reason I brought up the above list is because two of them did NOT serve on behalf of South Dakota. That was a big reason put forth by opponents of the resolution honoring Dr Ron Paul. Apparently it is OK to honor out-of-state politicians only if they live in the White House?
A third reason I bring up the above list is because all of the Senate State Affairs committee members present in today’s testimony that were around for the above bills voted Aye to each of them. In fact Senator Brown was a co-sponsor of the resolution honoring President Obama; and it was him bringing forth this new interpretation of Rule 6A-1 today.
To me it looks like the Senate State Affairs committee decided to join Rep Rounds in the political attack against Rep Nelsons resolution honoring Dr Ron Paul. Another coincidence to consider is that the Senate State Affairs committee happens to be chaired by Senator Rhoden; who also happens to be in the US Senate race. Now I don’t think Rhoden is playing political games like Rep Rounds was, but Rhoden sure seemed to jump at the chance to table the bill. And yes, the bill was tabled by the Senate State Affairs committee unanimously.
PS. One last point to make. After killing this resolution the Senate State Affairs committee passed SCR6:
Purpose: Expressing the Legislature’s support for citizens and communities in eastern South Dakota impacted by severe high water conditions over the last two decades.
It is quite obvious it falls under the same realm of commemoration as Nelson’s bill… Yet that one passed with no problems…
On March 3, 2014, Governor Daugaard signed more bills into law coming from the South Dakota 2014 legislature. Below is a list of the bills signed into law and any thoughts I have about them. None of these bills are anything to worry about (or even care about). These are mostly cleanup bills. Pretty soon Gov Daugaard will run out of these cleanup bills and have to decide whether he is going to sign any legislation with real meat in it.
HB 1095 – An Act to revise and clarify certain provisions relating to municipal officers.
This bill cleaned up a lot of language regarding municipal officers.
HB 1105 – An Act to repeal certain outdated and obsolete provisions regarding the compilation and publication of certain local government annual fiscal reports.
This removed an old bit of code that isn’t needed.
HB 1135 – An Act to revise certain exceptions to special assessments levied upon real property.
More code cleanup.
SB 50 – An Act to authorize rule-making authority to establish record-keeping requirements for insurers and producers.
This authorizes the Division of Insurance to make rules in regards to record-keeping for insurers and producers.
SB 52 – An Act to authorize the informal settlement of insurance examinations.
This bill codifies a process done by the Division of Insurance for a long time.