Legislators get a taste of reporters’ frustration with Noem administration

Sen. Casey Crabtree, R-Madison (left), and Sen. David Wheeler, R-Huron, listen to Rep. Tony Venhuizen, R-Sioux Falls, testify in a legislative committee on Jan. 24, 2024. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

An October legislative meeting proved to be frustrating for lawmakers. For reporters, it offered the sweet taste of vindication.

At issue during the meeting of the Legislature's Government Operations and Audit Committee was the refusal of Department of Revenue Secretary Michael Houdyshell to discuss—in public or behind closed doors—changes made in his department after two former employees were indicted in a fake vehicle-titling scheme. Houdyshell's appearance was also sparked by the revelation that another former employee—since deceased—created 13 fake vehicle titles to secure bank loans that she did not repay.

Houdyshell cited ongoing criminal cases and the prospect of civil lawsuits from defrauded banks as reasons for his refusal to give lawmakers the information they sought. Lawmakers were so frustrated that they voted to subpoena Houdyshell and Rosa Yeager, director of the Revenue Department's Motor Vehicle Division, to compel them to testify before the committee.

Sen. David Wheeler, a Republican from Huron, characterized Houdyshell's refusal to discuss his department's new internal control measures as part of a pattern displayed by the executive branch.

"We need some sort of resolution to this because this is the answer we always get," Wheeler said in a South Dakota Searchlight story. "It's occurred in the past when we've had controversial matters before this committee. Officials say 'there's pending litigation, there's a threat of litigation,' therefore there's no response."

It's hard to read Wheeler's statement and not feel a certain amount of vindication for every reporter in the state who has been stonewalled by the Noem administration. Now lawmakers are getting a taste of what it's like to deal with an administration that values secrecy over transparency and prefers no comment or silence to offering citizens a full accounting for their actions.

This space has been used often to chronicle the Noem administration's shortcomings when it comes to transparency. Some are familiar: her directive that reporters must bypass longtime government sources and submit their questions in writing to department information officers; her refusal to explain how the winning bidder in the Freedom Works Here workforce development commercials ended up using the ideas submitted by another bidder; her refusal to release transcripts of calls to the "whistleblower hotline" designed to collect complaints about the state's universities; and her decision to skip the traditional weekly governor's news conference during the legislative session.

It's no wonder she avoids the legislative news conferences. During the only one she held this year, answering a question from a South Dakota Searchlight reporter, she admitted that Texas was not going to reimburse the state for it's million-dollar National Guard deployments to the southern border. Certainly that's something that the state's taxpayers would prefer to know prior to a deployment rather than after it's completed.

While those transparency transgressions read like a greatest hits compilation, there's a new one climbing the charts. To this point, Noem has no response to a petition drive designed to get her to reconsider turning down $69 million in federal funds for home energy-efficiency rebates. There has to be a reason why she won't let South Dakotans use the funds they paid for with their own tax dollars.

In response to recent indictments, Attorney General Marty Jackley has pledged to offer anti-corruption legislation. Here's hoping he manages to slip in a few features that will increase transparency in state government.

If he doesn't, or he can't, journalists in this state, lacking subpoena power, will just have to hold on for two more years and hope that the next governor has a better understanding of the need for openness and transparency in state government.

More commentary from Dana Hess