The Legislature might consider a little vetting for their employees' sake

I've been so restless this early morning. Up at 3:30, haven't been able to sleep since.

It could be the boneless buffalo wings I ate last night, as my wife and I went out for a couple of hours. Or it could be the fact as I got up, I couldn't come up with a decent topic to blog on to put my mind at ease.

Got a couple of irons in the fire, but nothing that's ripe yet. GOP Chair has progress, but still isn't set in stone. Waiting on a few campaign finance reports to be filed before I can confirm whether or not someone fudged a report. There isn't anything in the papers that's worth an early morning effort. I need something that's good.

I tried to go back to sleep, as I tossed and turned. And then it hit me. Something I don't think I'd commented much before on. And it's somewhat timely, given the Sutton hearing coming up the second week of session.

Anyway... Here's a good one for you.

We've heard much ado about the Senate revisiting rules regarding employees because of the Sutton matter. And the fact that they may actually have to spell out what conduct and contact between legislators and employees is improper. It's being done for the protection of the employees.

And it came up that as far as the lodging of those employees, such as pages and interns, the LRC maintains a list of people in the Pierre area that agree to host these people if they care to use it. It's been that way for years. Some people will rent a private apartment, and others will rent a room in an occupied house, such as a basement.

I've known pages and interns who do it either way. Same goes for legislators. Some get a hotel room, others rent part of a house. Or they buy one if they're Stan Adelstein.

But for the sake of this discussion, let's focus on the lodging 'list' that's gathered by LRC. Why does this come up? Well, in this time of talk of changing rules and procedures to protect high school and college-aged employees, I question how well they're vetting those lists.

What brings this into question?

I think at one point or two in the past, I might have mentioned that it didn't break my heart that I was moving to Brookings, because I discovered that my next door neighbor in Pierre was listed on the sex offender registry. Regardless of the history of the offense, it's not something that gives the parent of 6 kids, much less 5 girls, a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Fast forward 6 or 7 months after my family relocated and I was still stuck in Pierre. It just so happened that literally on the last day of session, I noticed that one of the legislative interns was staying next door to me. In a house. In the same house as the person who has to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.

Whoa.

Now, other than it eliciting a big "Hmmmm.... " on my part, I didn't (and still don't) give it much thought. It could have been a relative of his. It could be a family friend. He might not have arranged the placement through the LRC list at all. The intern could have been there with the full knowledge of the situation, and not given it a second thought.

I mean, why stir up trouble when there probably wasn't any?

But now, we're 6 months past that. There is debate as to measures that the Legislature is going to take to protect it's young charges in light of allegations of the sexual abuse of a young employee.

And it makes one take stock. If it was an open offer and not something personally arranged, was the legislative intern lodging with one of Pierre's registered sex offenders possibly.. just possibly.. a bad idea? Especially in light of this past session's allegations of the problem with a page's temporary residence.

And if so, what is the incoming Legislature's Executive Board going to do about it? Are they actually going to start some nominal vetting of the offers of room and board, as to preclude offers of that nature? I don't think anyone would begrudge them from declining room and board listings from those on the sex offender registry.

Imagine the uproar if there had been a problem. Is such a risk worth taking in the future?

It might be something to consider for their employees sake.

---

Author's note:

For those who will ask, no I'm not going to publicly note the name of the intern, nor the name of the sex offender. They are private citizens, and I'm not sure publicizing a sex offender's name on my blogsite is entirely legal under state law.

So sorry, I'm not going to name names. Unless it's to someone who would maintain the information as private, and in such a position that they can make sure it doesn't happen again (i.e., a member of the exec board), it's going to remain confidential.

But trust me. It's the honest to god truth.