The Argus Leader hasn’t been able to sustain readership let alone be considered a local paper for a few years now! Pissing in the porridge of an actual newspaper with good writers signifies how bad they have become!
Its obvious that Dakota Scout should be the paper of choice...it's the only LOCAL paper! Doesn't the law say the records should be posted in a LOCAL paper? The Argus has not been a local paper for years. check it out: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/6-17-1
Do not take this out of context, I am a huge fan of the Dakota Scout, and I am proud that we rewarded the city contract to them, however, the Argus may actually have a real clear, and winning case here. I am not sure who gives the city government legal advice, but the "law" in question, that paved the way to grant the Dakota Scout the right to publish legal notices for cities and counties does NOT (did not) go into effect until July 1st. If true, by law, the State Government was not allowed to permit, nor license the Dakota Scout to do so. It was simply adopted by the legislature, and had to clear the Judicial Review Period, clearing any such challenges from the people. And that process does not end until June 30th, or 90 days after the Legislative Session which is January 15 to March 15, whereas Veto Days are March 27-30th. There was no legal challenge, nor petitions filed, so that part is fine, but, the Secretar of State could not clear the Dakota Scout until after July 1st .... that is a clear problem here...The City will almost for sure be punished for this, jumping of the gun, but lets pray a comrpomise can be found, that allows the Dakota Scout to officially become the paper of choice for all legal notices.
It certainly sounds like you are correct. In that case, pun intended, it's a waste of legal fees for both sides. A reasonable solution is to admit the snafu and either use the Argus for the required time period or use them both. Even paying both papers is likely cheaper than paying lawyers. Plus, it supports both publications.
Your Welcome, and I was one of the public commentators at the June 5th Meeting, regarding the contract, and I made this very point you brought up. I stated, use them both for they each can be a great asset to the community, for at least 1 year. I knew the new law would not go into effect until July 1st, so I, in the back of my mind, wondered what the city was thinking. But like most of us, I never said a word about it. I am sorry for this. But I assumed our city attorneys office knew this...
Thank You for your response. My only concern here was the State Govt here permitting a contract/license before the law went into effect. It would set dangerous precedent, as we move forward with other laws that may or may not be challenged. We both know laws get challenged, referred, legally challenged. IF we allow the State Government to permit, license, or grant institutions, cities, companies, or rights under newly adopted laws prior the effective date, 'we' further create other issues to deal with later on. I stand corrected, the city may not have done any thing wrong, but my question remains, how can the 'state' permit, license, or grant rights under the newly adopted law, whether by the voters or their legislature? IF we had licensed, permitted Marijuana Institutions in 2021 prior the 'law' going into effect (after November 2020), we would have had a mess to clean up. None of my opinions here effect how I feel about the Dakota Scout, I read it weekly, I support it, and I push others to read it as the preferred newspaper of choice. Strickly from a Public Affairs point of view, this just does not give us a good look from a statewide governance point of view. Obviously the local circuit court made their decision here, more power to you. I would like to see the Attorney General or Supreme Court now clearify the "Effective Date" rule on adopted laws.
Actually Joe, this whole subject related to the "effective date" of laws, makes for a good story for you to write in the future. Many people do not understand this rule, being put in place to protect those who may or may not consent to such 'laws' being adopted by the voters or their legislatures between November 1st through March 30th. I recommend you create a future story on this topic. Would be interesting to read for sure.
Go Dakota Scout!
The Argus Leader hasn’t been able to sustain readership let alone be considered a local paper for a few years now! Pissing in the porridge of an actual newspaper with good writers signifies how bad they have become!
Its obvious that Dakota Scout should be the paper of choice...it's the only LOCAL paper! Doesn't the law say the records should be posted in a LOCAL paper? The Argus has not been a local paper for years. check it out: https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/6-17-1
Do not take this out of context, I am a huge fan of the Dakota Scout, and I am proud that we rewarded the city contract to them, however, the Argus may actually have a real clear, and winning case here. I am not sure who gives the city government legal advice, but the "law" in question, that paved the way to grant the Dakota Scout the right to publish legal notices for cities and counties does NOT (did not) go into effect until July 1st. If true, by law, the State Government was not allowed to permit, nor license the Dakota Scout to do so. It was simply adopted by the legislature, and had to clear the Judicial Review Period, clearing any such challenges from the people. And that process does not end until June 30th, or 90 days after the Legislative Session which is January 15 to March 15, whereas Veto Days are March 27-30th. There was no legal challenge, nor petitions filed, so that part is fine, but, the Secretar of State could not clear the Dakota Scout until after July 1st .... that is a clear problem here...The City will almost for sure be punished for this, jumping of the gun, but lets pray a comrpomise can be found, that allows the Dakota Scout to officially become the paper of choice for all legal notices.
It certainly sounds like you are correct. In that case, pun intended, it's a waste of legal fees for both sides. A reasonable solution is to admit the snafu and either use the Argus for the required time period or use them both. Even paying both papers is likely cheaper than paying lawyers. Plus, it supports both publications.
Your Welcome, and I was one of the public commentators at the June 5th Meeting, regarding the contract, and I made this very point you brought up. I stated, use them both for they each can be a great asset to the community, for at least 1 year. I knew the new law would not go into effect until July 1st, so I, in the back of my mind, wondered what the city was thinking. But like most of us, I never said a word about it. I am sorry for this. But I assumed our city attorneys office knew this...
There was no snafu on the part of the city or The Scout. The lawsuit lacked any merit.
Thank You for your response. My only concern here was the State Govt here permitting a contract/license before the law went into effect. It would set dangerous precedent, as we move forward with other laws that may or may not be challenged. We both know laws get challenged, referred, legally challenged. IF we allow the State Government to permit, license, or grant institutions, cities, companies, or rights under newly adopted laws prior the effective date, 'we' further create other issues to deal with later on. I stand corrected, the city may not have done any thing wrong, but my question remains, how can the 'state' permit, license, or grant rights under the newly adopted law, whether by the voters or their legislature? IF we had licensed, permitted Marijuana Institutions in 2021 prior the 'law' going into effect (after November 2020), we would have had a mess to clean up. None of my opinions here effect how I feel about the Dakota Scout, I read it weekly, I support it, and I push others to read it as the preferred newspaper of choice. Strickly from a Public Affairs point of view, this just does not give us a good look from a statewide governance point of view. Obviously the local circuit court made their decision here, more power to you. I would like to see the Attorney General or Supreme Court now clearify the "Effective Date" rule on adopted laws.
Sincerely,
Mike Zitterich
Actually Joe, this whole subject related to the "effective date" of laws, makes for a good story for you to write in the future. Many people do not understand this rule, being put in place to protect those who may or may not consent to such 'laws' being adopted by the voters or their legislatures between November 1st through March 30th. I recommend you create a future story on this topic. Would be interesting to read for sure.
Prayers being said! God be with the Dakota Scout!!
I don't expect any God would choose a side on this. Maybe best to save a good prayer for something more important.