Search

Top News

One open-records bill fails, another passes

State legislative committee rejects "presumption of openness"

Previous Next
Previous Page
Share
Print
Email

PIERRE – A legislative committee killed a bill Wednesday that would have changed state law to make all government records open unless specifically closed.

Committee Chairman Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, voting with the 7 to 6 majority, said constituents he's talked to agreed that SB189 went too far.

Rhoden cited the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, which collected the names of South Dakotans who had concealed weapons permits just before a new state law went into effect making those records private.

“That created a great deal of heartburn with me,” Rhoden said.

Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry, D-Watertown, the main sponsor of the bill, argued that the measure would only bring South Dakota in line with the 49 states that have similar laws. South Dakota law says records are open only if state law requires they be kept. “It’s an unusual and irrational hurdle,” Turbak Berry said.

Turbak Berry also said two sections of the bill would prevent the “unwarranted release” of personal or proprietary information or information that might endanger the public or cause “irreparable harm” to individuals.

Gov. Mike Rounds also opposes the bill, and Turbak Berry said opponents had distributed a “scare sheet” claiming personal privacy would be at risk. “That’s not true,” she said. “Individual privacy is still protected under state statutes and regulations.”

State Bureau of Administration Commissioner Jeff Bloomberg, representing the Rounds administration, said the bill opened records for any “public entity,” which he said might include any organization or even a business that had contracts with the state. “Someone said publishing minutes from a meeting was a governmental function and therefore newspapers would be a public entity,” he said.

The Senate earlier this month had passed the measure, but this morning's committee vote sends it to the 36th legislative day, which in this year's 35-day session in effect kills it.

Gov. Mike Rounds opposed the legislation.

The committee did, however, pass SB186, which establishes a quick, inexpensive civil procedure for appealing the decision of a government official to withhold a government record. The Board of Hearing Examiners would hear the appeals.

SB186 goes to the House floor with a unanimous "do pass" recommendation.

Contact Bill Harlan at 394-8424 or at bill.harlan@rapidcityjournal.com

Rapid Reply

Send us your Rapid Reply

(optional)
   
The preceeding are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.

The opinions above are from readers of rapidcityjournal.com and in no way represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.

Rapidcityjournal.com provides this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If you don't see your comment, perhaps...

  • you called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).
  • you rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
  • YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.
  • you named a business or identified a business in a way good or bad. Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns or your praise – they’ll likely appreciate your feedback.
  • you believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write Jerry Steinley at jerry.steinley@rapidcityjournal.com or call him at 394-8427. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.
  • you included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
  • you accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
  • your comment is in really poor taste.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Top Jobs

Featured Dealers

Newspaper Ads

RCJ Extras

Advertisement