As the year dwindles down, so does the time before South Dakota’s 101st Legislative Session begins in January. That means state lawmakers are looking at tweaks they can make to create an impact.
Legislators on the Interim Rules Review Committee looked ahead to next session by discussing five changes they want the committee to support in Pierre.
One requires agencies to provide more transparency. Vice Chair of the Committee, Republican Sen. Taffy Howard, brought the draft.
"So, draft 107 is pretty straightforward, but basically if an agency is required to fill out a form this would require that they post it on the website. So, it’s all about transparency,” Howard said. “Because I can’t remember what we had earlier this interim, but there was at least a couple of times where agencies did fill out the forms, we had the forms, but the just didn’t post them online. So, this would correct that.”
Howard brought another draft requiring agencies to submit financial resource information paperwork 20 days before final rulemaking packet submissions. That moves the deadline up. Howard said it gives legislators and staff more time to fully review the information. The committee adopted both drafts as committee bills.
Democratic Rep. Erik Muckey brought a draft bill to allow interpreter and translator services to be provided in contested case proceedings. He said the bill comes from a real-world case in western South Dakota regarding a contested uranium mining case.
“The individual has been working with community members that are Lakota elders representing themselves as individuals, not as tribal nations, that are elderly. They are fully fluent in Lakota, but they are illiterate in all languages. So, I don’t know that you’re going to see a ton of this, but it’s something to keep in mind for the potential for interpretive services,” Muckey said. “In that particular instance, working with that individual and working with the agency in that contested hearing, the Department of Ag and Natural Resources, we had sought to find some resources that would provide some interpretive services in the process, but that being said, under current statute we do not have that.”
Lawmakers failed to bring it as a committee bill in a 2-3 vote. Opponents said they didn’t support the bill because statue allows individuals to hire and provide an interpreter themselves right now. Other concerns were raised on the financial impact.
The committee took no action on two other drafts, saying they wanted additional information to decide one way or the other.
