2021 S.D. Legislature: Appropriations Committee begins task of sorting out federal pandemic dollars
Last week, our Appropriations Committee received reports from several agencies in regard to a variety of issues including their use of allocated funds from both the regular budget as well as funds from the ‘pandemic dollars’.
We heard from the Board of Regents in regard to the issues being addressed in SB 55 from 2020. That was a Bill which created a ‘task force’ to examine: “1.) The possible combining of administration at all levels of operation within an institution; 2.) The possible combining of operations and functions across multiple institutions; 3.) The possible combining of the administration of programs across multiple institutions; 4.) A review of the duplication of program offerings; 5.) A review of the academic majors with low enrollments and low numbers of graduates; 6.) A review of functions outside the core missions of teaching, learning, and research; 7.) A review of the operations and functions provided as an efficiency through the central office of the Board of Regents; 8.) A review of the viability of the university centers; and 9.) Any other possible cost-effective measures the task force determines are worthy of examination.”
The SB55 Task Force is to complete their review and report back to the Joint Committee on Appropriations as well as the Governor by November of this year. South Dakota, like many states, has created a collection of universities which might have been geographically helpful in the past, but is no longer necessary. Many of the fields of study are being duplicated and there is a tremendous cost in duplication of administrative duties. Tightening this belt has happened in the past at Springfield when that campus was transformed into a state prison. Change is usually hard but is oftentimes necessary. Currently, there is at least a need for the sharing of administrative duties and costs to at least rein in those expenses.
The Board of Regents Executive Director, Dr. Brian Maher, also responded to continuing concerns about the use of funds in the university “diversity” offices. The universities continue to present something of a mixed message as to their purpose and goals. These discussions seem to overlap the concerns about the teaching of ‘critical race theory’. Sadly, the effort to revise the American culture has been underway for many decades and has become embedded into many curriculums and into the teaching styles of many of our state’s professors as well as within the K-12 system. It appears that Dr. Maher is trying to make the necessary changes within the state’s universities, but it will be a long-term goal Last week, our Appropriations Committee received reports from several agencies in regard to a variety of issues including their use of allocated funds from both the regular budget as well as funds from the ‘pandemic dollars’.
We heard from the Board of Regents in regard to the issues being addressed in SB 55 from 2020. That was a Bill which created a ‘task force’ to examine: “1.) The possible combining of administration at all levels of operation within an institution; 2.) The possible combining of operations and functions across multiple institutions; 3.) The possible combining of the administration of programs across multiple institutions; 4.) A review of the duplication of program offerings; 5.) A review of the academic majors with low enrollments and low numbers of graduates; 6.) A review of functions outside the core missions of teaching, learning, and research; 7.) A review of the operations and functions provided as an efficiency through the central office of the Board of Regents; 8.) A review of the viability of the university centers; and 9.) Any other possible cost-effective measures the task force determines are worthy of examination.”
The SB55 Task Force is to complete their review and report back to the Joint Committee on Appropriations as well as the Governor by November of this year. South Dakota, like many states, has created a collection of universities which might have been geographically helpful in the past, but is no longer necessary. Many of the fields of study are being duplicated and there is a tremendous cost in duplication of administrative duties. Tightening this belt has happened in the past at Springfield when that campus was transformed into a state prison. Change is usually hard but is oftentimes necessary. Currently, there is at least a need for the sharing of administrative duties and costs to at least rein in those expenses.
The Board of Regents Executive Director, Dr. Brian Maher, also responded to continuing concerns about the use of funds in the university “diversity” offices. The universities continue to present something of a mixed message as to their purpose and goals. These discussions seem to overlap the concerns about the teaching of ‘critical race theory’. Sadly, the effort to revise the American culture has been underway for many decades and has become embedded into many curriculums and into the teaching styles of many of our state’s professors as well as within the K-12 system. It appears that Dr. Maher is trying to make the necessary changes within the state’s universities, but it will be a long-term goal and will require ongoing vigilance. The regental administrator for academic policy and planning explained what the Board of Regents will be considering in the coming years, but even those comments did not seem to be responsive to the underlying concerns. I think the upcoming November report will be more telling as to the actual progress within the universities.
We also heard from the Secretary of Education as to the development of the civics and history program. That discussion led into a brief discussion about the revision of the “Education Standards” that shape the content of our K-12 curriculum. As those Standards are being developed there has been an effort to expand the exploration of the many cultures that now make up our state and nation. That is likely an appropriate goal but there is still a need to keep our focus on South Dakota and its own rich heritage. The Governor’s Secretary of Education, Tiffany Sanderson, announced that her department had chosen to remove specific references to the South Dakota tribal culture and asserted that they did so to have a broader reference to many cultures. Unfortunately, whether intended or not, that carried the appearance of yet again demeaning the South Dakota native culture. (The nine tribes of South Dakota constitute anywhere from 10 to 15 percent of the state’s population. An ongoing appearance of disrespect has not been helpful.)
Discussions were also had in regard to deployment of our South Dakota National Guard, both with private/state funds and then a separate deployment with federal funds. The receipt of a ‘gift’ to support the first deployment created some very muddy waters and drew into question the motivation for that deployment. General Marlette was not privy to information about the private donation. Our South Dakota National Guard mission is to serve as support for the Border Patrol and that mission looks more like a social services effort.
The southern border has become a pipeline for cartel driven crime. That includes the drug trade, labor trafficking, sex trafficking, immigration trafficking, and probably a conduit for terrorism. It appears that Mexico has no capacity to control the activities of the Cartels which dominate Mexico, Central America, and parts of South America. The military effort in conjunction with the Border Patrol should be a primary national concern, but it appears to be a band-aid approach without a stated objective.
The Appropriations Committee also heard some explanations about the prisons and the temporary funding to enhance salaries. As I previously mentioned, there is nothing new about the underfunding of our state prisons, probation and parole services, or our mental health services. Sadly, this is a problem that is ignored until it hits the news as an ‘emergency’. There was not an emergency, just neglect in properly funding services that are a primary responsibility of the state. In the case of the prisons there certainly could have been closer attention paid over the past decades to ensure that the funding requests coming from the Warden and the Secretary of Corrections were given due consideration. This perceived crisis of funding should have been anticipated not reacted to.
We were also advised of ongoing funding concerns for the Human Services Center as well as the South Dakota Developmental Center. Again, these are not surprises, but are examples of the neglect of funding for state responsibilities when special interest groups representing private industry are given greater attention and receive state dollars instead.
You can hear more about many of these issues if you listen to the Government Operations and Audit Committee starting at 8 a.m. on Thursday. They will hear presentations from Corrections, Revenue, GF&P, Tribal Relations, and the South Dakota High School Activities Association.
Please stay involved and I again encourage everyone to inform yourself as to what is happening in state government by going to www.sdlegislature.gov.
