By Denise Ross

When Gov. Mike Rounds issued a line item veto on Senate Bill 203, South Dakota’s general appropriations bill for FY2009, did he contradict his plea in the school lawsuit that he does not control what goes on with the state’s K-12 funding? (More here.)

“Whether or not the governor believes a school district needs more money is irrelevant to whether the Legislature has acted constitutionally,” (Attorney General Larry) Long said.

More to the point, it seems that Rounds is intent on retaining direct control over how South Dakota spends on K-12 despite the Legislature’s attempt to exert control over that portion of the budget. This from his veto letter:

I hereby exercise the line item veto and delete …

Section 38. No money appropriated for state aid to education in subdivision (2) of section 11 of this Act may be expended for any other purpose without specific legislative authorization. …

S.D. Const. Art. XII, § 2 allows the General Appropriations Bill to “embrace nothing but appropriations.” The South Dakota Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to prohibit including substantive legislation in the appropriations bill in this manner attempted in Senate Bill 203.

Maybe it’s me, but what’s he talking about? How is Section 38 anything but an appropriation? How is it some other substantive legislation? It’s a stretch for me, a non-lawyer, but maybe he’s talking about this other part of his letter, although he himself does not make this direct connection.

(I)f these two sections were to become law, they would conflict with existing law.

SDCL 4-8A-8 reads:

Moneys appropriated on a program basis by the General Appropriation Act may be transferred between program accounts within or between programs within departments and bureaus …only at the written request of a governing body, department secretary, or bureau commissioner, or designee, in accordance with procedures established by the Bureau of Finance and Management and only upon written approval of the Bureau of Finance and Management..

Therefore, if SDCL 4-8A-8 allows moneys to be transferred in the general appropriations act, but Sections 38 and 39 prohibit it, which law should be followed, the codified law or the new directions in Senate Bill 203?

Oh, what a conundrum. Wait - (lawyers, help me out here) isn’t it accepted legal practice that the more specific law is followed over a broad, general law? (And is Rounds saying that the Legislature can’t legally take more control of the state’s spending on K-12? To do so would violate existing law?)

Also take note that all of the parties involved in the money transfers in SDCL 4-8A-8 serve at the pleasure of the governor, so one word from him, and the money is transferred. All that statutory protocol is mere window dressing. Which brings us back to the original question.

Does Rounds’ line-item veto of SB203 stand in contradition to his claim in the school lawsuit?

While I’m at it, let’s look at a really petty section of the gov’s veto letter. He didn’t just veto Section 38. Section 39, as mentioned above, is in there, too.

Section 39. No money appropriated for state aid to special education in subdivision (3) of section 11 of this Act may be expended for any purpose without specific legislative authorization. …

Section 39 omitted the word “other” and now says the dollars for special education “may not be spent for any purpose without legislative authorization.” Therefore, unless my veto is sustained, we will have a shortfall of $45,127,372 in the State Aid to Special Education budget …

This kind of oversight is exactly why South Dakota has a style and form veto, which is routinely done, almost always as a request from the gov to improve a bill’s grammar and punctuation.

In the case of both Section 38 and Section 39, the bottom line is that if Gov. Rounds had wanted to relinquish some control over South Dakota’s spending on K-12 to that other branch of government, he could have done it passively. Instead, he took a defensive posture and fought to retain his control.

Spread the word

Hide Sites