 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
South Dakota Education Ass'n v. Barnett7/29/1998
" f they are so mutually connected with and dependent on each other, as conditions, considerations, or compensations for each other as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, and that, if all could not be carried into effect, the legislature would not pass the residue independently, and some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions which are thus, dependent, conditional, or connected must fall with them."
Wilder, 73 SD at 341, 42 NW2d at 897 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
[ ] Here the majority expressly acknowledges that the last clause of §31 was intended as a "condition or limitation on the expenditure of these funds." (supra) at § 32. Wilder requires that "all the provisions which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected must fall." 73 SD at 341, 42 NW2d at 897. Because §31 is a "condition or limitation on the expenditure of the funds," I believe we have no choice but to invalidate the conditional and mutually connected appropriation for the raises. Because both conditions of §31 are explicit, we certainly should not assume that the Legislature would have passed the same raise in the same amount without either condition. Therefore, I cannot join in an order which will require that the raises be distributed after collective bargaining when the Legislature expressly conditioned the appropriation to reach the opposite result.
[ ] The majority concludes that the Legislature would have passed this specific salary increase without the collective bargaining condition. It does so by relying on the burden of proof where a party fails to establish legislative intent. The majority also utilizes four underlying Conclusions. The four underlying Conclusions are:
Second, based upon their affidavits in the record, several legislative leaders have indicated they were aware of the Regents' problems with salary competitiveness and of the Regents' plan for addressing these problems long before the 1998 legislative session. Despite pre-session Discussions of the plan with these leaders, the Regents entered into the session with no proposal for altering or abrogating the existing collective bargaining rights of their employees. Thus, it is clear that, at the outset, collective bargaining was not the major concern of the Regents or of the legislative leadership in addressing salary competitiveness.
Third, according to the record, despite various committee hearings and subcommittee meetings on the salary competitiveness funding plan during the session, the unconstitutional clause on collective bargaining was only added to the appropriations bill on the eve of the last day of the regular session when the bill was passed. Thus, it is also clear collective bargaining was not the prevailing concern in addressing salary competitiveness during the duration of the legislative session
Fourth, while some legislators have indicated section 31 of the appropriations bill was a key component in passing the Regents' salary competitiveness funding plan, other legislators have stated they were unaware of section 31 and have recently been surprised to learn of its inclusion.
Fifth, even those legislators who have stated section 31 was a key component in passing the Regents' salary plan have also stated the provision was not intended to amend previous legislative enactments. This makes clear that the Legislature's primary concern in enacting section 31 was to preserve the Regents' ultimate discretion over the manner of distributing salary increases, not to alter or abrogate any collective bargaining rights under existing law.
Supra §§ 34-37 (emphasis added). In my judgment neither the majority's burden of p
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|