500 E. Capitol Ave.

Pierre, SD 57501

(605) 773-3212

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Contact:  Mitch Krebs or Roxy Everson at 605-773-3212

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Honorable Thomas J. Deadrick

Speaker of House

State Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501

 

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

 

I herewith return House Bill 1131 and VETO the same.

 

House Bill 1131 is entitled, “An Act to increase the amount of funding for conservation and value-added agriculture purposes from certain unclaimed motor fuel tax refunds.”   

 

The bill proposes to change the formula for calculating the amount of unclaimed tax refunds from the sale of motor fuel tax for non-highway agricultural purposes. The result of the change would be to increase the amount of such unclaimed refunds, which amount would then be transferred from the state highway fund to the coordinated soil and water conservation program. 

 

The new calculation method provided by House Bill 1131 will result in much higher diversions from the state highway fund to the coordinated soil and water conservation program. Last year, under the calculation method set forth in present law, the coordinated soil and water conservation program received approximately $508,000 from the state highway fund. Current law caps annual diversions from the highway fund at one million five hundred thousand dollars. Under House Bill 1131, the new calculation method will likely yield an annual highway fund diversion that reaches the bill’s higher cap of two million five hundred thousand dollars. 

 

The state highway fund pays for construction, maintenance and supervision of highways and bridges in South Dakota. Building and maintaining safe highways and bridges is a key component to economic development in our state. I recognize that soil and water conservation is important, but money for those activities should not come from the state highway fund, which is presently experiencing a funding crisis. Unprecedented federal funding rescissions in fiscal year 2006 resulted in the loss of twenty-three million dollars to the state highway fund. Future federal funding is, at best, uncertain. Meanwhile, state tax revenue projections for our highway fund are declining, and there have been huge and unexpected increases in construction costs.  

 

In 2007 and 2008, planned highway projects totaling over one hundred million dollars will have to be deferred to a later date. The convergence of the reduction of federal and state revenues available and the rising cost of construction make it critical for us to protect and preserve the state highway fund.   

 

Recognizing the importance of the Coordinated Soil and Water Conservation program, I am committed to finding a source of one-time money for this fiscal year, and a funding solution long term to ensure the continued health of this important program, I simply cannot afford to divert the necessary resources from the highway fund during this critical time.

 

Due to the negative impact on funding for highway and bridge construction and maintenance, I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

M. Michael Rounds

Governor

March 20, 2007

 

The Honorable Dennis Daugaard

President of the Senate

State Capitol

500 East Capitol Avenue

Pierre, SD 57501-5070

 

Dear Mr. President and Members of the Senate:

 

I hereby return Senate Bill 95 and VETO the same. Senate Bill 95 creates a State Board of Technical Institutes and transfers oversight authority for postsecondary technical education from the Department of Education to the newly-created State Board of Technical Institutes. Senate Bill 95 suffers from several infirmities and places the future of our technical schools in serious jeopardy.

 

My first objection to Senate Bill 95 is that it creates a new and unnecessary layer of government.

Senate Bill 95 irreversibly alters a governance system that currently operates well and the way it was intended, with local control. Adding a new bureaucracy simply drains additional state resources and provides no benefit to the technical institutes. I do not support creation of this unneeded layer of government.   

 

My second objection is that Senate Bill 95 violates Article XIV, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution. That provision charges the South Dakota Board of Regents with governance of all postsecondary educational institutions in South Dakota. Although certain court cases recognize that the legislature may exercise control over operations of the Regents through budget and oversight, it may not change by statute the constitutional delegation of authority to the Regents to serve as the governing body for postsecondary education. Senate Bill 95 thus violates Article XIV, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution by charging an entity other than the Board of Regents with governance of these postsecondary educational institutions. While proponents of Senate Bill 95 have attempted to present complicated arguments that it does not violate the South Dakota Constitution, I think that this question simply requires us to read the words of this section which state that “...all other educational institutions that may be sustained either wholly or in part by the state shall be under the control of the Board of Regents”.

 

The Board of Regents has repeatedly and publicly stated that if Senate Bill 95 is passed they will immediately challenge it in court based on this constitutional violation. I will support that effort and believe the Regents will prevail. 

 

Finally, Senate Bill 95 contains an internal inconsistency that temporarily leaves technical institutes without authority to award degrees. Section 48 repeals SDCL §13-39-72 which allows technical institutes to award associate and applied science degrees. That provision would take effect on July 1^st. However, Section 31 of Senate Bill 95, which authorizes technical institutes to award associate and applied science degrees does not take effect until the date of the first annual meeting of the State Board of Technical Institutes as provided in Section 49 of the bill. There would, therefore, be a period of time from July 1, 2007, until the date of the first annual meeting of the newly created board during which technical institutes could not award degrees. This is a fatal flaw in Senate Bill 95 which cripples the technical institutes during the interim period. 

 

For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 95. I respectfully request that you concur with my action. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

M. Michael Rounds

Governor

March 20, 2007

 

The Honorable Dennis Daugaard

President of the Senate

State Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501-5070

 

Dear President Daugaard and Members of the Senate:

 

I herewith return Senate Bill 103 and VETO the same.

 

Senate Bill 103 is entitled, “An Act to provide for the appointment of members of the Brand Board by district.”

 

Senate Bill 103 would create three geographical districts from which the Governor must appoint members to the Brand Board. East River would comprise one district and West River would be divided into a northern and southern district. Four of the five Brand Board members would have to be appointed from West River- two from each district and one member would be appointed from the East River district. Current law requires that three of the five Brand Board members live in the brand inspection area (West River South Dakota). 

 

People should be appointed to state boards and commissions based on their qualifications and abilities, not where they live. The current make-up of the Brand Board was negotiated and agreed upon in 2004.

 

Senate Bill 103 sets bad precedence for board and commission appointments. The state has nearly 150 different boards and commissions. According to the logic of this legislation, all boards and commission appointments should be regionalized. Doing so would result in appointed members representing the special interests of their specific region rather than the best interests of the state as a whole. Senate Bill 103 creates over-representation for the proposed Northwestern district, which has the fewest number of people and cattle.

 

Furthermore, this legislation also discriminates against many of our East River ranchers by limiting their representation to no more than one person. There are numerous producers who live east of the Missouri River, but own or lease grazing land west of the river or sell their cattle west of the river. Although they live east of the river, these ranchers are subject to brand inspection. Any cattle that have been transported into the brand inspection area must be inspected when they are transported out of the inspection area, are sold in the inspection area, or are slaughtered in the inspection area.

 

For these reasons, I respectfully request that you concur with my veto of SB 103.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

M. Michael Rounds

Governor

 

-30-