Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan, Dec. 20
Regents take aim at student drinking
Members of the South Dakota Board of Regents are thinking a lot about students and potential drinking problems
That could be seen as a bad sign - the fact that such problems do exist - but it’s also a good sign that the issue, which is a very old and universal one, is being addressed.
A discussion on the matter took place recently when the regents convened in Vermillion. They discussed student drinking issues against a curious backdrop, as the Legislature has approved a bill that allows limited alcohol sales on state campuses. This move was done to create new revenue streams for the schools. But again, this action is being taken while addressing student drinking issues on those same campuses.
Student drinking in college has always been an issue, if for no other reason because of the extraordinary alignment of circumstances involved. College campuses are mostly filled with young adults who are really away from home and on their own for the first time. These kids are surrounded by peers in the same situation, and drinking - even though it is technically illegal in most cases - often results. According to a recent study from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, nearly 60 percent of college students had a drink in the month prior to answering the survey, and two out of three of those had engaged in binge drinking.
Such issues can lead to more than drunkenness and hangovers. This can also produce behaviors such as drunken driving, assault and sexual assault.
But colleges generally are part of a so-called “drinking culture,” where the consumption of alcohol is part of the ritual of life. (It doesn’t have to be, of course, but curiosity and peer pressure are prevalent in such an atmosphere.) That’s why it’s important for colleges and their governing boards to take student drinking seriously and carefully: They need to address the issue while understanding that this is something kids are prone to do - just like some adults.
Schools like the University of South Dakota and South Dakota State University have taken a head-on approach with students’ drinking issues, and that engagement seems to be producing results. This includes working with students who incur drinking offenses and instilling the importance of drinking responsibly - which, again, is something that could be useful once they leave the college life and have to function in the real world.
Are schools sending the wrong message when they try to address student drinking issues while allowing limited sales on campus (even if those sales aren’t to students)? Not really. Alcohol is legal and therefore a fact of life. It can generate new revenue in a time when every penny for education counts. But it also has to be managed, just as those who consume alcohol need to know their own limits and manage it accordingly. So, yes, the two can co-exist.
The regents’ discussion is an acknowledgement that kids will be kids - which has always been true in every generation - and that problems can arise and can be addressed. It’s a learning experience for these young adults, and the regents and schools need to be there to offer guidance.
___
Capital Journal, Dec. 16
The legislature needs make government transparency a bigger priority next year
When voters approved Initiated Measure 22 last month, their attitude was quite clear. They want a more accountable, more transparent government.
The pair of scandals that have unfolded in the last five years or so - EB-5 and GEAR UP - were just too big to sweep under the rug. As much as South Dakotans trust their Republican-led government, they just couldn’t ignore the fact that four children were apparently murdered in September of 2015 by their father after he stole millions of taxpayer dollars. The theft was made possible, at least in part, by lax oversight of the money on behalf of state officials.
A few years before that tragic incident, a former economic development official, Richard Benda, took his own life after investigators say he improperly used money generated by the EB-5 foreign investor program to secure himself a job in the private sector. Benda was going to be indicted before he died.
Long before either of these scandals came to light, the South Dakota government had been rated as one of the least transparent state governments in the union. Government transparency groups have long decried the state’s poor open records laws and lack of institutionalized accountability, such as an ethics commission.
Last year, for example, South Dakota was given an “F’’ by the Center for Public Integrity in its 2015 State Integrity Investigation. The state was ranked 47th when it comes to government accountability.
We don’t believe that low rankings and poor grades in studies that look at the existence or non-existence of laws mean that South Dakota is rife with corruption. The vast majority of our civil servants and elected leaders are good people who want to do good work on our behalf.
We do, however, believe in the old maxim “Trust but Verify.” And until IM-22 was approved, South Dakotans have had little ability to verify that their elected officials are in fact working in the best interests of the state or are instead working for special interests.
Legislators have repeatedly refused to update and strengthen the laws regarding public disclosure of government activities and the benefits legislators receive from lobbyists as well as just about anything else that threatens to give regular people more access to government. That’s why voters were forced to make the changes themselves.
But direct democracy isn’t the best way to get anything done. It often leads to poorly written legislation that can create more problems than it solves. Such is the case with IM-22.
All the good stuff in IM-22 such as an ethics commission and forcing legislators to report who gives them free stuff, has been overshadowed by the law’s failings. Public financing of elections is a bad idea, for example, so is restricting a person’s first amendment right to speak through their wallets.
The problems with the law are what led to the lawsuit that caused Circuit Judge Mark Barnett to issue an injunction against the law late last week. It now seems unlikely that IM-22 will survive the courts intact.
Hopefully, the good portions of the bill will survive. If not, the Legislature needs to learn from this episode and start making real progress toward giving South Dakotans a more transparent and accountable government. The people have spoken.
We say no matter the outcome of the IM-22 lawsuit, legislators need to improve government transparency during the next legislative session.
___
Rapid City Journal, Dec. 19
Nation’s gain would be college’s loss
Heather Wilson brought some impressive credentials with her when in 2013 she took the job as the president of South Dakota School of Mines & Technology in Rapid City.
A U.S. congresswoman for 10 years, a member of President George H. Bush’s National Security Council staff, senior adviser to Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories, Rhodes Scholar and an Air Force Academy graduate who served in Europe make up just part of an impressive resume.
Now, the 56-year-old New Hampshire native and former New Mexico congresswoman has been summoned to the new mountain top of American politics - Trump Tower - to interview for a job that would be difficult for anyone to turn down if offered.
President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team contacted Wilson last week and invited her to New York City to be interviewed for the position of Director of National Intelligence, a key position in the administration.
The position was created in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. The person who holds that job is considered the president’s top intelligence adviser, a challenging position moving forward as America and the world wrestles with the seemingly intractable forces of terrorism.
In an email sent last week to her staff and others at the School of Mines, Wilson said she did not pursue a job with the Trump Administration and is happy as the college’s president. She went on to say, however, that “the security of our country is important to all of us, and when a President or President-elect asks you to consider whether your gifts could be used in the service of this nation, you have to be willing to consider it.”
If Wilson is offered and accepts the job as the Director of National Intelligence, it will be a significant loss for the school and community. In her short time here, she has overseen a building boom of sorts on the campus. Earlier this year, the Journal reported the school was working on as many as 60 different construction projects, including a $6.4 million expansion of the chemistry building and the new $8 million Placer Hall, a six-story building that houses 200 students.
More recently, Wilson unveiled a plan to build a $20 million research center in east downtown Rapid City. She also is a tireless promoter of the school and belongs to a number of important organizations in the community.
Wilson has been an asset to the School of Mines and the community at large, but nonetheless we wish her the best moving ahead regardless of her decision. She has the credentials, character and experience to be an asset to the incoming Trump administration.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.