I hereby return Senate Bill 95 and VETO the same. Senate Bill 95 creates a State Board of Technical Institutes and transfers oversight authority for postsecondary technical education from the Department of Education to the newly-created State Board of Technical Institutes. Senate Bill 95 suffers from several infirmities and places the future of our technical schools in serious jeopardy.

My first objection to Senate Bill 95 is that it creates a new and unnecessary layer of government. Senate Bill 95 irreversibly alters a governance system that currently operates well and the way it was intended, with local control. Adding a new bureaucracy simply drains additional state resources and provides no benefit to the technical institutes. I do not support creation of this unneeded layer of government.

My second objection is that Senate Bill 95 violates Article XIV, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution. That provision charges the South Dakota Board of Regents with governance of all postsecondary educational institutions in South Dakota. Although certain court cases recognize that the legislature may exercise control over operations of the Regents through budget and oversight, it may not change by statute the constitutional delegation of authority to the Regents to serve as the governing body for postsecondary education. Senate Bill 95 thus violates Article XIV, §3 of the South Dakota Constitution by charging an entity other than the Board of Regents with governance of these postsecondary educational institutions. While proponents of Senate Bill 95 have attempted to present complicated arguments that it does not violate the South Dakota Constitution, I think that this question simply requires us to read the words of this section which state that "...all other educational institutions that may be sustained either wholly or in part by the state shall be under the control of the Board of Regents".

The Board of Regents has repeatedly and publicly stated that if Senate Bill 95 is passed they will immediately challenge it in court based on this constitutional violation. I will support that effort and believe the Regents will prevail.

Finally, Senate Bill 95 contains an internal inconsistency that temporarily leaves technical institutes without authority to award degrees. Section 48 repeals SDCL §13-39-72 which allows technical institutes to award associate and applied science degrees. That provision would take effect on July 1st. However, Section 31 of Senate Bill 95, which authorizes technical institutes to award associate and applied science degrees does not take effect until the date of the first annual meeting of the State Board of Technical Institutes as provided in Section 49 of the bill. There would, therefore, be a

period of time from July 1, 2007, until the date of the first annual meeting of the newly created board during which technical institutes could not award degrees. This is a fatal flaw in Senate Bill 95 which cripples the technical institutes during the interim period.

For these reasons, I have vetoed Senate Bill 95. I respectfully request that you concur with my action.

Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
Governor