If only conflict of interest laws existed when Gant and Powers were in office

gant-gate-photo

Oh the irony of Pitty Patt Postting this story;

Prohibiting and criminalizing direct conflicts of interests and self-dealings resulting in personal financial benefit from taxpayer monies

Under current South Dakota law, it is only a misdemeanor to engage in self-dealings of taxpayer monies for personal benefit or gain.  See SDCL 5-18A-17.4.

“A public official, who misappropriates taxpayer monies that have been entrusted to them, violates the public trust and should be held responsible for such actions.   When   a public official uses taxpayer monies for personal benefit or gain, it should be treated  as any other criminal theft,” said  Jackley.

The Attorney General’s proposed legislation narrowly defines a direct criminal conflict of interest to occur when “any public official who knowingly misappropriates funds or property which has been entrusted to the public official in violation of the public trust and which results in a direct financial benefit to the public official, commits a criminal conflict of interest.” A public official who commits a criminal conflict of interest would be guilty of theft under existing law. Under current theft law it is a Class 6 felony carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment when the value of the theft is in excess of $1,000, a Class 5 felony, punishable up to five years, when the value is more than $2,500 but less than or equal to $5,000, and a Class 4 felony, punishable up to 10 years, if the value is more than $5,000. The bill also requests employee whistleblower protections.

Legislation being introduced by others will require notice to the Attorney General of conflict violations.

That was our main claim against Gant & Powers. Pat was still running a campaign consulting company while working as deputy SOS. A conflict of interest, especially if he was using information attained from the SOS to further his business. Not only did Jackley at the time not investigate him for that, they found them not guilty on stealing (something they were never accused of). But I guess, even if they were found to have a conflict of interest, not much could have been done until the law changes. PAThetic quit anyway claiming he had to get back to his litter of spawn.



5 comments ↓

#1 Voter on 01.05.17 at 4:09 pm

Gant and Powers.

EB-5.

Gear-up.

Jackley is DOA for an other elected office than what he currently holds.

#2 Michael Wyland on 01.05.17 at 5:46 pm

The devil is in the details. In this case, the detail is the legal definition of “public official” under SD law. Gant would have qualified as a public official, but not necessarily Powers.

#3 grudznick on 01.05.17 at 9:40 pm

Mr. E, this is a good blogging and I like your picture of Mr. Gant. What is Mr. Gant doing these days? We never hear updates about him.

#4 The D@ily Spin on 01.06.17 at 8:54 am

If you rob a casino, you’ll do 5 years in prison. If you’re a politician and rob the public, you’ll be praised and might become governor. Next thing you know you can take bankruptcy 3 times, grope women, then become president.

#5 moses on 01.06.17 at 10:12 am

Where is Gant willhe again be a power player in the election process.

Leave a Comment