Excerpts from recent South Dakota editorials | Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Rapid City Journal, Rapid City, Jan. 4

County correct to restore security funding

It is a sad state of affairs when front-line Pennington County employees are concerned about safety at the workplace. Yet, apparently that is the case at the county's administration building on Kansas City Street.

The Treasurer's Office, the Auditor's Office, the Register of Deeds, the Equalization Department and other offices where emotions can run high are in the building that has a sheriff's deputy stationed near the front desk to respond quickly to calls for service and send a message to those with an attitude.

That sense of security, however, was threatened by budget cuts and county employees responded by pleading with the County Commission to restore the funding.

Their concerns and the abusive behavior of some local residents came to light after the commission approved cutting the $72,869 from Sheriff Thom's 2018 budget, which would have removed security beginning Jan. 1 from the building where property taxes and vehicle license fees and excise taxes are paid and other transactions occur daily.

According to employees who made arguments to the County Commission, they have been sworn at, received obscene gestures and even witnessed fights among people standing in line.

Their only line of defense has been a sheriff's deputy whose presence greets all who enter the building. "They get upset with us and get angry," said Register of Deeds Donna Mayer. "All we have to do is look at the officer that's over there at the desk."

What is happening to civility here? Why does anyone believe it is OK to threaten county employees who are just doing their jobs? And people getting in fights while standing in line? That's not even acceptable in our schools where students are learning to be adults.

At the same time, the lack of decency exhibited at the county administration building seems to be a symptom of what is happening across the country.

The political parties, their loyal partisans and special interest groups skirmish daily in a war of words that stokes emotions and lowers the bar. President Trump fuels the fire with tweets that criticize people across the spectrum and personally insults his many targets. On Tuesday, he kicked off the new year by launching 17 tweets, including his already infamous my nuclear button is bigger than your button barb aimed at North Korea's Kim Jong Un, a dictator who threatens this country with nuclear war. Social media is frequently anything but social having become a haven for angry Americans.

Whether it is national discord or more personal reasons that sow discontent here, it can't be tolerated at the county administration building. The County Commission listened to its employees and restored the security funding, which needed to be done for the employees and those who conduct business there.

___

American News, Aberdeen, Jan. 3

When convenience fees are anything but

Many of us choose not to use ATMs that charge service fees. Why pay when you have the option of using one for free?

Unfortunately, parents who want to make online payments for lunch in the Aberdeen School District don't have an option. MySchoolBucks, the online and smartphone app service the district uses, charges a "convenience fee" of $2.49 each time parents add money to their kids' lunch accounts.

Granted, parents can also send a check with kids or stop by the District Service Center to replenish accounts for no additional charge. But school business hours often conflict with parents' work schedules. And for many (most?), online payments are an expected service, not an add-on convenience.

At first glance the fee might not seem like a big deal. It might not hurt families that are financially able to add money each month. At the end of the school year, those 35 or so bucks probably aren't a huge deal.

But let's think about who it adversely affects.

For those who can't make up-front payments that far in advance, the fee can add up. For a family with two kids in elementary school and another in middle school, the cost of lunch would average about $180 a month. People who live paycheck to paycheck probably find it easier to budget $45 a week to cover those meals. Those are the families apt to pay more when using MySchoolBucks online or via app.

If a family had to reload a lunch account 30 times a year, for instance, that's $135. It all adds up.

On average, it costs about $400 for a student to get lunches through the course of a school year. That's evidence that Aberdeen public schools have done an excellent job of keeping costs for lunch low. But there should thought given to the families that could pay an extra third to MySchoolBucks.

Our public schools most often do a great job of being aware of and advocating policy that keeps costs down for all families, especially those who might be struggling financially. We ask only that if those who can afford it least are paying the most in "convenience fees," officials keep as many options as possible in play.

___

Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Yankton, Jan. 2

Ethics Measures: Public Vs. Pierre?

South Dakotans may have the chance to repeat history this November.

And so, too, may South Dakota legislators.

On Friday, the secretary of state's office certified a new initiative targeting government corruption. The initiative will appear as Amendment W on this November's ballot ...

Well, maybe. The approval of the initiative for the ballot could still be challenged. The deadline for that is Jan. 29.

Who would challenge it?

A reasonable guess might be the same people who scuttled Initiated Measure 22 (IM 22) after it was passed by voters in 2016. As you recall, several state lawmakers opposed the measure — which placed restrictions of lobbyists, limits on donations and created an ethics commission — and took it to court on the grounds that portions of it were unconstitutional. Lawmakers then scrapped the measure during last winter's legislative session. While some ethics measures were subsequently passed as a means of at least trying to honor the spirit of IM 22, the overall outcome still irritated a lot of voters. And that opened the door for Amendment W.

The image of lawmakers repealing a publicly approved measure to limit government corruption was not a good or encouraging one. Neither are some legislative stirrings since then to make it tougher for citizens to place measures on the ballot. One proposal making the rounds would bar out-of-state money to be used in initiative campaigns, while another proposal would make it more difficult to enact constitutional changes through public votes. Both ideas would need to be approved by voters in order to be enacted.

Frankly, it's little wonder that such efforts by lawmakers are criticized as the "political establishment's ongoing effort to undermine and disrespect South Dakota voters," according to Doug Kronaizl of the group Represent South Dakota.

Thus, Amendment W seems like the latest prodigious yank in a tug of war between voters and lawmakers, which may be an unfair way to characterize it, but the perception does exist. While the voters have voiced their support for ethics reform — albeit with just 51 percent support for IM 22, which is still a majority — several lawmakers have continually worked to resist the measures. Some of the reasons for this may be sound, but the spirit of what voters want should not be dismissed.

The best guess at this point (and this could change) is that Amendment W stands a good chance of passage this November, and this time, probably with more than 51 percent of the vote. The fate of IM 22 will haunt the ethics debate in this state for some time to come.

If some lawmakers decide to challenge Amendment W's existence, and/or proceed with passing measures that make it tougher for voters to generate change via the ballot box, the public's displeasure will mushroom.

So, the tug of war continues as we move from 2017 into 2018. And right now, there's no end in sight.