October 7, 2008

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. -- YES on 10 campaign spokesperson Dena Espenscheid, Sioux Falls, Wednesday dismissed a memo by the University of South Dakota Board of Regents as "just the latest installment of the big money, big lie campaign being waged by politicians and political appointees who want to keep using our tax dollars for lobbying and political campaigns and keep giving government contracts to campaign donors."
 
"The one thing we know for sure," Espenscheid said, "is that Measure 10 will stop the Board of Regents' current practice of using our tax dollars to serve as a dues collection agent for SDEA union officials who engage in lobbying and partisan political campaigns," Espenscheid said.  "Measure 10 protects every taxpayer's free speech rights by ensuring public officials no longer use our tax dollars to subsidize lobbying and political groups with which individual taxpayers may politically disagree."
 
(See documentation of USD Board of Regents' collection of SDEA union dues below.)
 
Espenscheid said the Regents' claims about the proposal's effects on political activity by student groups "are so obviously false that we can only conclude they're intentionally not telling the truth.  Any middle school student knows that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights cannot be restricted by any state law or ballot measure." 
 
She presented a formal response by the YES on 10 campaign's legal counsel, attorney Stephen Wesolick of Rapid City, who participated in drafting Measure 10.  Wesolick wrote:
 
"Unless university or other public officials are working surreptitiously through student clubs and organizations to lobby or influence elections, this is a specious argument and a deception about the language and impact of Measure 10.  Further, student political clubs and organizations receive protections under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to use campus facilities, and any activities by College Republicans or College Democrats are ostensibly carried out by the students, not campus officials.
 
A student doesn't have to ask for permission to engage in free speech, and doesn't stop talking because he or she is on public property. If a student goes beyond the realm of individual speech and gets into officially state-sponsored and –financed speech, lobbying, or political activity under the direction of university officials, then that is exactly the kind of interference by government officials that is suspect and intended to be prohibited by this measure."
 
---------------
 
Section 1 of Measure 10 states: "No public body, public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, or candidate for public office may, directly or indirectly, direct, permit, receive, require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for campaign, lobbying, or partisan purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which, directly or indirectly, engages in lobbying, campaigns, or partisan activity."
 
----------------
 
The Board of Regents has a collective bargaining contract with the "Council of Higher Education," which according to the U.S. Department of Labor is an affiliate of the National Education Association, covering 1,150 university employees. http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms/regs/compliance/cba/Cbau_sasz.htm
 
The publication Inside Higher Ed identifies the Council of Higher Education as "the National Education Association union for professors at public colleges in the state." http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2006/02/09/dakota
 
From page 91 of that contract:
 
XXIV. DUES DEDUCTION

##