State Library cuts might be less than Noem wanted
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The South Dakota Legislature's panel that assembles state government's annual budgets has delayed until Thursday a decision on whether to reduce spending on the State Library — and if so, by how much.
DOC official: No contingency if new prison plan fails
The original recommendation from former Gov. Kristi Noem sought to reduce state general funds by $1.03 million, eliminate federal funding of $1.4 million, and eliminate 12.5 positions.
Last February, the Legislature appropriated $2,371,975 of state general funds and $1,399,443 of federal funding to the State Library, and assigned it 21.5 positions for the current year.
Noem's reductions would take those amounts down to $1,341,708 of general funds and zero federal funding, with a remaining staff of nine.
The State Library operates as part of the South Dakota Department of Education — the department is now housed in the MacKay Building in Pierre that formerly was dedicated to the State Library — and on Tuesday the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations considered the cuts proposed in House Bill 1041.
The legislation would repeal parts of state laws, such as the requirement that 'Library services suitable to support informed decisions by the Legislature and the personnel of government shall be provided by the State Library Agency.' State publications would be deposited with the South Dakota State Historical Society instead.
Last month the House Education Committee referred HB 1041 to the Joint Committee on Appropriations 13-0 with a recommendation that the legislation do-not pass. In turn, State Education Secretary Joseph Graves on Tuesday brought to the appropriators a modified recommendation.
'Another option would be to reduce the cut in state general funds by about $200,000, which would then allow us to leverage the $1.4 million of federal funds,' Graves told the panel.
The funding, according to Graves, would be used for space billing for the area that the State Library occupies in the MacKay Building, as well as a state information officer who would maintain the State Library website and communication with school libraries and public libraries.
But Graves said other services would still be reduced, including eliminating four data bases, the public library space in the MacKay Building, the State Library Board, and federal depository status of the materials at the State Library. He said there also would be 'a reduction but elimination' of education services.
'With these changes the total reduction of the State Library would be $830,000 in general funds and 3.5 FTEs,' Graves said. 'I do appreciate the committee's consideration of all options to balance our state budget. At DOE we believe we have left no stone unturned.'
Speaking against the legislation in person was Abby Edwardson, vice president of the South Dakota Library Association, as well as several people online, including the association's president, Elizabeth Fox, and past president Sarah Jones-Lutter.
The appropriators adopted a place-holder amendment to provide $100 to the State Library next year. Cody Stoeser, director of finance and management for DOE, said the department's proposed amendment would be brought on Thursday.
'We want to make sure everything is on the up and up on the other parts of the bill,' Stoeser said. 'We just want to make sure the whole bill is ready to go.'
The panel's chair, Republican Sen. Ernie Otten, said that the appropriators would make a decision then. 'Nothing up my sleeve,' Otten said, 'except my skin.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: We cannot allow a U.S. senator to be handcuffed for asking questions
To the editor: When is enough enough? I am in tears as a senator from my state is manhandled to the ground for asking questions ('California Sen. Alex Padilla forcibly removed, handcuffed during Kristi Noem press conference,' June 12). How could Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's "security" assault our senator for exercising his constitutional rights? Whether Sen. Alex Padilla was a government representative or not, this is all a part of our rights as citizens, as granted by the 1st Amendment. On top of all the affronts by President Trump's disregard of our laws, this is over the edge to dictatorship. All senators and representatives must stand up to this outrageous disregard of our laws. The Posse Comitatus Act is not a suggestion, nor is the Constitution. It is well past time for Republicans to stand up for our country. Do they really care to go down in history as seditious cowards? I am a 78-year-old Los Angeles native and have never been so angry at the behavior of government officials in my life. I've seen President Nixon lie and the Iran-Contra mess under President Reagan, in addition to many other incidents where officials broke the law. This is much worse. Our rights are on the line. If my mobility were not impaired, I would be protesting with my fellow Angelenos. Stand up for us! Leslie Forester Tillmann, Palm Desert .. To the editor: Noem can shoot defenseless animals, but is unable to answer questions from a United States senator. Is she really capable of ensuring our nation's domestic security? It doesn't look like it. Mary Griswold Gordon, Rancho Palos Verdes This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: We cannot allow a U.S. senator to be handcuffed for asking questions
To the editor: When is enough enough? I am in tears as a senator from my state is manhandled to the ground for asking questions ('California Sen. Alex Padilla forcibly removed, handcuffed during Kristi Noem press conference,' June 12). How could Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's 'security' assault our senator for exercising his constitutional rights? Whether Sen. Alex Padilla was a government representative or not, this is all a part of our rights as citizens, as granted by the 1st Amendment. On top of all the affronts by President Trump's disregard of our laws, this is over the edge to dictatorship. All senators and representatives must stand up to this outrageous disregard of our laws. The Posse Comitatus Act is not a suggestion, nor is the Constitution. It is well past time for Republicans to stand up for our country. Do they really care to go down in history as seditious cowards? I am a 78-year-old Los Angeles native and have never been so angry at the behavior of government officials in my life. I've seen President Nixon lie and the Iran-Contra mess under President Reagan, in addition to many other incidents where officials broke the law. This is much worse. Our rights are on the line. If my mobility were not impaired, I would be protesting with my fellow Angelenos. Stand up for us! Leslie Forester Tillmann, Palm Desert .. To the editor: Noem can shoot defenseless animals, but is unable to answer questions from a United States senator. Is she really capable of ensuring our nation's domestic security? It doesn't look like it. Mary Griswold Gordon, Rancho Palos Verdes
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The veto governor: Paid leave, IVF bills fall as Lombardo crushes his own record
Gov. Joe Lombardo. (Photo: Jennifer Solis/Nevada Current) Gov. Joe Lombardo in 2023 smashed the record for most vetoes during a single legislative sesseion, rejecting 75 bills. This year, he beat his own record, vetoing 87 bills as of Thursday evening. Lombardo himself was not on the ballot last year, but he and his affiliated political action committee campaigned hard — and successfully — on the importance of getting enough Republicans elected to make sure Democrats would not have veto-proof majorities in the Legislature. Lombardo vetoed legislation sponsored by Attorney General Aaron Ford to rein in price fixing earlier this week, as well as a pair of trans protections bills last week. Other notable vetos as of Thursday included: Assembly Bill 388, sponsored by Democratic Assemblymember Selena La Rue Hatch, would have required private employers with more than 50 workers, as well as all public employers, to provide paid family and medical leave. The bill, which was opposed by chambers of commerce, was amended to push the requirement to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2028. La Rue Hatch's bill expanded legislative efforts in 2023, when lawmakers approved PFML for state employees. In his veto letter, Lombardo said the measure had 'broad, burdensome mandates' that would contradict the state's 'business-friendly environment' Senate Bill 217 (Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, D) would establish the right to assisted reproduction treatment, including in vitro fertilization. The bill was a focus of Cannizzaro. Assembly Bill 112 (Assemblymember Duy Nguyen, D) would have allowed workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to use their accrued leave to care for family members. After passing the Legislature with some bipartisan support, Lombardo vetoed the bill, writing in his veto letter that it represented 'yet another effort to mandate benefits for unionized employees outside the negotiation of their collective bargaining agreements, thereby undermining the integrity of those agreements.' In a policy hearing for the bill, union members said it is already common practice for members to use accrued leave to take care of their family but that they face potential discipline for doing so. With the veto, that will remain the status quo. Assembly Bill 597 (Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, D) would have established semi-open primary elections allowing nonpartisan voters to request a Republican or Democratic ballot. The bill passed on the Assembly on party lines, with all Republicans opposing. In his veto letter, Lombardo said the legislation 'would undermine the will of Nevada's voters,' who last year rejected an initiative to establish truly open primaries. Assembly Bill 185 (Assemblymember Natha Anderson, D) would have barred most HOAs from prohibiting licensed home-based childcare operations within their communities. The bill received some bipartisan support. In his veto letter, Lombardo wrote 'expanding access to child care is an important goal' but that the bill would 'erode the integrity of HOA governance.' Senate Bill 121 (State Sen. Dina Neal, D) would have made changes to what homeowners' associations are allowed to require of new residents. The bill received some bipartisan support. Similar to his veto related to home-based childcare providers, Lombardo in his veto letter cited the importance of maintaining HOA autonomy. Assembly Bill 209 (Assemblymember David Orentlicher, D) would have granted sex workers immunity from criminal liability from prostitution-related offenses when they call 911 seeking medical assistance. In his veto letter, Lombardo said the bill 'codifies a lack of trust in law enforcement by assuming that sex workers fear prosecution more than they trust officers to prioritize their safety and the investigation of violent crimes.' An overwhelming lack of trust in law enforcement by sex workers who don't believe law enforcement prioritizes their safety or humanity was the impetus for sponsoring the bill in the first place. Senate Bill 350 (State Sen. James Ohrenschall, D) would have extended the time period the state has for carrying out an execution of someone on death row. Lombardo in his veto letter said the bill would 'result in justice becoming even more elusive for victims and their families,' though he acknowledged it is currently virtually impossible for the state to execute anyone on death row. Assembly Bill 411 (Assemblymember Sandra Jauregui, D) would have allowed prescriptions for drugs used for medical abortions and miscarriage management to list the name of the prescribing health care practice, rather than the name of the specific individual providing the prescription. In his veto letter, Lombardo wrote that the bill may reduce transparency in clinical follow-up situations where identifying the prescribing providers quickly is crucial. Assembly Bill 320 (Assemblymember Jovan Jackson, D) sought to stop judges from using dress codes to turn away defendants. In his veto letter, Lombardo said if enacted the bill 'may infringe on the separation of powers by legislatively encroaching on the courts' inherent authority to manage their proceedings.' Assembly Bill 204 (Assemblymember Max Carter, D) would prevent collection agencies from threatening to arrest people for medical debt, obtain a lien against a primary residence, seek to foreclose on a home, or garnish wages. In his veto letter, Lombardo said if enacted the bill 'would increase healthcare costs and undermine fairness by discouraging responsible payment.' Assembly Bill 441 (Assemblymember Daniele Monroe-Moreno, D) would change how the state's publicly financed private school scholarship program is administered. In his veto letter, Lombardo's veto letter said the bill would 'obstruct' the program. Assembly Bill 597 (Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, D) would have established semi-open primary elections allowing nonpartisan voters to request a Republican or Democratic ballot. The bill passed on the Assembly on party lines, with all Republicans opposing. In his veto letter, Lombardo said the legislation 'would undermine the will of Nevada's voters,' who last year rejected an initiative to establish truly open primaries. The full list of bills Lombardo vetoed this year can be found here.
