Excerpts From Recent South Dakota Editorials

Editors: Please note that The Associated Press welcomes editorial contributions from members for the weekly Editorial Roundup. Three editorials are selected every week. Contributions can be made by email at [email protected].

___

Aberdeen American News, Aberdeen, June 10, 2015

State guidelines would protect firefighters

The death of Valley Springs Fire and Rescue volunteer Steven Ackerman at a Brandon house fire in April saddened the state. Hundreds of mourners attended his funeral, with many more watching the event on TV or online.

He was the 43rd firefighter killed in the state since 1924, according to the South Dakota Firefighters Association. South Dakotans rightly called Ackerman a hero.

Hearts sank when it was learned last week at his autopsy that Ackerman was legally drunk when he responded to the house fire call. His blood alcohol content level was 0.19, more than twice the legal limit for driving.

It was a horrible twist to an already sad story.

But this state can learn from the tragedy and act to protect firefighters and those they are sworn to protect.

According to a report this week by The Associated Press, South Dakota does not govern alcohol use in fire departments around the state. State Fire Marshal Paul Merriman told the AP that his office doesn’t have authority over daily operations at individual departments.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard, through a spokeswoman, said a statewide alcohol policy would be difficult to enforce.

That’s baloney.

It’s only as difficult to enforce as any other alcohol law. Any oversight could be a deterrent or stop a firefighter from making a deadly mistake.

Many departments likely have alcohol policies to govern their volunteers, who could be called into service at any time. But a statewide standard would set a bar that would get conversations happening at the local levels.

A concern some fire departments would have is the limited resources available. If guidelines were too strict, it would make already small departments even smaller at times when they need firefighters most.

With some regulation, those departments would have to have serious talks about how best to maintain a full volunteer crew at all hours, and under what conditions those volunteers could respond.

But if it spurs local policies to help keep departments fully staffed, it is a good thing.

Valley Springs Chief Don Johnson told the AP that the department has a policy against responding to a fire while drunk.

Johnson also said that Ackerman did not drive to the scene. Thank heavens; the incident could have been much more worse, and could have forced already limited emergency resources to have to cover two scenes.

Clearly, Ackerman did what we all expect him to do: jump into service.

However, it is still unclear what Ackerman’s impairment might have meant on the scene.

We know that when a driver is behind the wheel with a 0.19 blood alcohol concentration, that person is endangering themselves, their passengers and every other driver on the road.

What does that impairment do to a firefighter? What kind of danger does he put himself in? His colleagues? Those who might need his help?

The hard work, sacrifice and dedication of our volunteer firefighters should not go unmentioned. These people risk their lives to protect others because it’s the right thing to do.

It is also the right thing for this state to protect those firefighters by working with volunteer fire departments to craft overarching regulations for impaired firefighters.

___

Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan, Yankton, June 9, 2015

A little more light on a dark process

When it comes to the sometimes nebulous arena of open government, we admit we’re biased. We think government transparency, as far as is acceptably practical for all involved, is a good thing — or at least it isn’t a bad thing.

But that’s probably to be expected from the likes of us, just as it was no surprise Monday night when a discussion on possibly opening up Yankton’s governing process even more was met with the usual doubts and concerns.

City Commissioner Nathan Johnson proposed the possibility. As a former reporter at the Press & Dakotan, he spent a decade covering city and county government, and he waited out a lot of executive sessions that were convened by local officials to discuss matters deemed too sensitive for public airing.

This kind of closure is perfectly legal. In this state, governing bodies have the right to meet in executive sessions — or, as they could more accurately be called, closed meetings — to discuss personnel, contractual or legal matters, among other things.

At its heart, this kind of governmental time-out is really a leap of faith on the part of the public (and the press). We must embrace a faith that our governing officials are limiting their closed meetings specifically to these areas and aren’t going into other matters that might fall beyond that scope. And generally, that’s been the case here.

Johnson is suggesting that Yankton could adopt a policy similar to one undertaken in Iowa, in which the minutes of a closed session are kept and could be released once, for instance, a proposed real estate transaction is either completed or canceled. Such a move would help shed a little more light into the murky workings of closed meetings and would allow certain aspects of these discussions to be made available to the people, who are, after all, the ones who have elected — and are paying — commissioners to serve them.

There were good points made Monday by Commissioner Dave Knoff about what state law would allow to be released, and that must be explored. Overall, this state has earned consistently low marks through the years for its governmental transparency, so it would seem that anything that could be done to push those boundaries toward the light of day would be a benefit to the public.

Another, more familiar argument, put forth by Commissioner Charlie Gross, declared that the city commissioners don’t need a new policy because they have not had a problem with closed sessions before. That may be true, but it’s a little like saying, because you’ve never been sick, you don’t need to see a doctor regularly or take other proactive steps to keep yourself healthy. Johnson’s proposal is merely a proactive effort to help facilitate greater governmental transparency and a healthier public trust.

However, the oddest criticisms came from former City Commissioner Pauline Akland, who showed up Monday apparently not to debate the merits of government transparency but rather to challenge Johnson’s worthiness to put forth such an idea at all. Claiming the newly elected Johnson may still be wearing his “journalist’s hat” in making the proposal (thus, he may be biased, like us), Akland suggested that he should experience some executive sessions for six months or so to get an idea of what’s going on behind those closed doors. In other words, he should first get the viewpoint of an insider before he tries to open things up to more outside inspection.

That’s a curious point to make. Since most of the public will not have such insider knowledge either, does that mean we have no real standing to wonder about what’s going on in closed meetings or to ask for some details of such sessions?

Akland (clearly still wearing her “commissioner’s hat”) basically chided Johnson as being naive. In so doing, she perhaps made an unintended observation about the views of those in power versus those on the outside looking in and wanting to know more. (We must also wonder if she considers former longtime County Commissioner Brian Hunhoff naive. He was — and still is — a dynamic advocate for opening up the closed affairs of government business.)

Let’s acknowledge the validity of one point thrown at Johnson Monday: A lot of people aren’t complaining about this issue. But from our experience, they never do until something blatantly egregious has already taken place. It’s hard to complain about something that may be kept under wraps and out of sight; it’s easier to raise concerns about what you see rather then what you can’t see. Again, this reflects the faith that is part of this system.

Yankton could be an innovator in South Dakota when it comes to opening up its governing processes even more. The bar in this state often feels so low that any new ray of sunshine would be of great service to the public. Johnson’s proposal in some form would be a good start. The quest for open government should be everyone’s business, after all, no matter whose hat we’re wearing.

___

The Daily Republic, Mitchell, June 9, 2015

Alcohol at ‘Downtown Thirstday’ OK if people are responsible

Last week, a crowd of what-seemed-to-be mostly locals gathered outside the building we’ve all seen hundreds of times.

On Thursday evening, the first-ever “Downtown Thirstday” event was held at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, garnering mainly positive reviews. While the majority of the people who were at the event are Mitchell residents, we saw vehicle license plates from around the country parked near the Palace. Many event-goers were enjoying their drinks, mingling and dancing, and children were nearby enjoying kids’ activities.

Downtown Thirstday is continuing throughout much of the summer, too. On Monday, the next four acts were announced: Mike Catalano (this week), Sid Stemper (June 18), and Weston Frank Live (June 25), along with the first performer, Billy Lurken (July 2).

And although it sure feels like Downtown Thirstday is gaining momentum, there are some people in the community who are completely against the event simply because alcohol is served. Our newspaper has received letters to the editor and comments from our readers questioning why we support Downtown Thirstday when beer and wine is involved, particularly when we’ve also been so actively opposed to drinking and driving. Some members of the City Council have also openly wondered if allowing alcohol is a good idea at the event.

We understand the complaints, but also remind those who are opposed to alcohol at the event that it’s up to people who attend Downtown Thirstday to make responsible choices. While the title “Downtown Thirstday” could be perceived by some as promoting drinking alcohol, there’s nothing wrong with someone legally having a beer or glass of wine. And why not enjoy an adult beverage with friends on a nice South Dakota summer evening while supporting the community? It also should be noted there’s nothing forcing anyone who attends to drink alcohol, as pop or water are just fine, too.

But just because someone decides to have a beer or glass of wine at Downtown Thirstday does not mean they will be driving drunk, and we applaud the Mitchell Police Division and Mitchell Chief of Public Safety Lyndon Overweg for being at the event last week.

We presume local law enforcement officers will be available each Thursday night for Downtown Thirstday, and we believe their presence will make attendees more aware of how much alcohol they’ve consumed.

So we stand by our decision to endorse Downtown Thirstday and allowing alcohol at its events. We cannot presume terrible situations, such as a drunken driving crash, will occur because alcohol is served at a downtown event. Could it happen? Yes.

But it’s up to each of us to make responsible choices while drinking so crashes do not happen, and we can further enjoy events like Downtown Thirstday.