A solemn duty approaches.
From the Senate Journals:
Six legislators stood in opposition. But I'd ask them in reply, "why should the investigation not go forward to determine whether or not a legislator acted inappropriately with an employee?" Are they to ignore the calls for accountability from the family of the young man who alleges that he was touched inappropriately?
If this were a private employer, that call would be made privately. But it's not a private employer. It's the state legislature. And the determination of propriety should be made in the light of day.
There's lots of chatter out in the blogosphere as to whether Senator Dan Sutton is or is not guilty. But ultimately, it's all just speculation. Tomorrow, we'll start to find out the truth, or at least each witness' version of it.
Even though this started as a Democrat vs. Democrat matter, some people have tried to draw battle lines on the basis of political partisanship. But it's not based on partisan politics. It is an attempt to determine what is truth.
Are we ultimately going to find out what the truth is? Maybe. Maybe not.
Sen. Ed Olson moved that, pursuant to Senate Rule 8-1, a select committee on discipline and expulsion be established to investigate the conduct of Sen. Dan Sutton.Just as Greg Belfrage over at the Dakota Watercooler asks, I'd question why those who stood up and said "No" against Senate Rule 8-1 felt that the conduct of a fellow legislator was not to be reviewed in this instance?
The question being on Sen. Olson's motion that, pursuant to Senate Rule 8-1, a select committee on discipline and expulsion be established to investigate the conduct of Sen. Dan Sutton.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 27, Nays 6, Excused 2, Absent 0
Yeas:
Abdallah; Albers; Bartling; Dempster; Duenwald; Gant; Garnos; Gray; Greenfield; Hansen (Tom); Hanson (Gary); Hauge; Heidepriem; Hoerth; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Knudson; Lintz; Maher; McCracken; McNenny; Napoli; Olson (Ed); Peterson (Jim); Schmidt; Smidt; Turbak
Nays:
Jerstad; Katus; Kloucek; Koetzle; Nesselhuf; Two Bulls
Excused:
Apa; Sutton
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried.
The President announced as such committee Sens. Knudson, Chairman, Heidepriem, Vice Chairman, Abdallah, Gray, Hanson (Gary), McNenny, Nesselhuf, Olson (Ed), and Turbak.
Six legislators stood in opposition. But I'd ask them in reply, "why should the investigation not go forward to determine whether or not a legislator acted inappropriately with an employee?" Are they to ignore the calls for accountability from the family of the young man who alleges that he was touched inappropriately?
If this were a private employer, that call would be made privately. But it's not a private employer. It's the state legislature. And the determination of propriety should be made in the light of day.
There's lots of chatter out in the blogosphere as to whether Senator Dan Sutton is or is not guilty. But ultimately, it's all just speculation. Tomorrow, we'll start to find out the truth, or at least each witness' version of it.
Even though this started as a Democrat vs. Democrat matter, some people have tried to draw battle lines on the basis of political partisanship. But it's not based on partisan politics. It is an attempt to determine what is truth.
Are we ultimately going to find out what the truth is? Maybe. Maybe not.
Comments
I applaud those senators who voted against the senate becoming another big brother to oversee private conduct. If something untoward really occured in that private hotel room, it obviously was not criminal as the lack of any charges attest to that. So, let the alleged victim sue for battery and let the senate get back to doing the people's business.
For one thing, it's one person's word against the other unless there is some sort of proof of which we aren't aware.
Reason two - No charges have been filed.
Reason three - The senate has better things to do. They wasted enough time last year trying to be the morality police instead of dealing with the issues.
Sutton apparently has been doing a good job in his elected office since he was re-elected. If he is guilty, you can be certain he won't get that opportunity again.
I agree with anon 12:55, let the alleged victim sue for battery so it can be settled in the courts. This is not the job for which our senators were elected.
Maybe you or someone else can answer this for me. While we are all trying to figure out this Sutton thing there is one person's name I have not heard AT ALL.
Why hasn't the name been brought into question about the person who is in charge of the page program at our capitol?
I'm guessing it has to do with her husband having such a high up position (Sec. of Ed.). Do we have people trying to cover up for her? Isn't that her job to watch over the pages?
I want to know why her name has not been brought up yet.
If you or anyone else can figure it out please let all of us know.
Furthermore, neither party would have been where they were when the alleged incident occurred had they not been on business related directly to the Senate.
Therefore, I don't know how anyone could consider this not a matter for the Senate.
They're still investigating Hunt, and Nelson is working on reform to go with it. So your partisan arguement is out(read anon 2:18 Dem vs Dem matter). To go along with that, we're talking about possible sexual conduct vs. hiding the identity of a donor to a campaign(which we don't know if it's illegal or not yet, whereas sexual misconduct is). Please understand, I fully agree if Hunt is guilty and the loophole he says is there isn't, he should be dealt with as well. If not, he's the wiser.
anon 1:12
If Sutton is found guilty of misconduct by the Senate and that is as far as it goes (no legal charges), I'd say Sutton gets off easy. If you're a Dem, you should be looking out for Dan and hope the matter is dealt with internally. (read anon 1:37, internal not criminal)
On a small scale, it's like stealing candy from the candy store and the manager catches you and makes you clean floors for two days instead of calling the police.
I would never in a million years want you around me, my kids or anyone else I care about.
To say that the "Senate has better things to do" is scary!
The best thing the Senate can do is investigate qualified allegations of legislator conduct that is inappropriate.
Your talking points while thorough miss the mark by a million miles with plain sponen honest South Dakotans who want to be treated the way they treat people.
That means investigating a man, regardless of status, when he is alleged to have done something wrong.
Also, our elected representatives were elected to do this "sort of thing." The AG agrees that the Senate has the authority, the Governor does, the Senate itself does and so does the Supreme Court. All three branches of Government disagree with you and your misguided attempts to deflect criticism from Sutton to other "important work."
On a second note, I am looking forward to the testimony.
Anon.
I'll drink to that.
I would expect a "NO" vote from those anti-family democrats and I wouldn't think a Republican would step that low to vote "NO".
Now we have one situation which may indicate an improper relationship between an 18 year old page and a legislator, and the highest duty most important thing the legislature can do is hold a star chamber proceeding?
Without regard to any guilt or innocence, this does seem to be a remarkably upside down set of priorities in a state that is mostly on the bottom end of the rankings of state virtues.
This is a personnel matter, not unlike school boards or city councils going into executive session to discuss this sort of impropriety.
But no, this is sex, and man on man no less. Let's drag it all out and see what happens. A Blue Star Commission doing a big ol circle jerk about what happened between two adults in a hotel room in central South Dakota.
Now, its is off my chest. You guys are going to have your posturing, chest puffing and drooling over where someone's hands were last year. The people's business now doesn't matter. Actually, it never did before.
In other news, the over/under on when the President will say "human-animal hybrids" tonight is 14 minutes.