South Dakota Public Broadcasting (SDPB), a significant cultural and educational touchstone for the state, faces an existential threat due to a proposed budget cut by Governor Kristi Noem. Unveiled in her recent budget address, the proposed $3.6 million reduction would slashes SDPB’s state funding by approximately 65%. This proposal is creating waves across the state as it could potentially dismantle much of the local programming that South Dakotans have come to depend on and cherish.
The impact of the proposed budget cut is grave, as emphasized by SDPB’s Executive Director, Julie Overgaard. During a meeting with the Educational Telecommunications Board, Overgaard expressed deep concerns, stating, “At best, we have about a 24- to 36-month lifeline.” This reduction, if approved, could see the demise of South Dakota Public Broadcasting within just two years.
SDPB’s contributions to South Dakota are manifold. It serves around 90% of the state’s geographical area, reaching approximately 382,000 households. The broadcaster offers vital services such as emergency alerts, legislative coverage, and cherished local shows like Dakota Life and South Dakota Focus. Notably, it also showcases high school sports and activities, lending visibility to young athletes and performers across the state.
The impact of cutting SDPB’s funding extends beyond the potential end of beloved programming. Overgaard highlighted the network’s reliance on a mix of state funding and federal backing from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which would also be halved from $2 million to $1 million. This funding structure underscores the precarious financial position SDPB would be left in, should the proposed cuts proceed.
Kristi Noem
Governor Kristi Noem, who has a storied tenure as South Dakota’s first female governor, proposed these cuts as part of an $82.7 million reduction across state entities, citing decreased state revenues. Despite significant backlash, including increased fundraising support for SDPB, her administration maintains that these cuts are necessary.
Noem’s budget did outline $10.7 million in new spending, with $4 million allocated for education savings accounts to support nontraditional schooling, reflecting her commitment to expanding educational choices. However, this reallocation has stirred debate, particularly if it comes at the cost of local broadcasting services that enrich public life.
Julie Overgaard warns that if the cuts go through, SDPB’s capacity would be significantly reduced: “The shallow funding pool wouldn’t be enough to pay for much more than engineering and network maintenance. There would be no news coverage.” Nevertheless, vital alert services, such as Amber Alerts and emergency notifications, would persist.
Ryan Howlett, CEO of Friends of SDPB, noted a remarkable fundraising uptick following the budget announcement. He expressed appreciation, “We’ve been really buoyed by people, by their support with not only their dollars but their willingness to contact legislators.” Yet, he concedes that while this support is uplifting, it may not resolve the longer-term financial challenges SDPB could face.
The Educational Telecommunications Board, chaired by Kay Jorgensen, former legislator and dedicated South Dakota leader, serves as an advisory council for SDPB. The board recognizes the significance of SDPB’s work, particularly its extensive coverage of high school events and its vital role in preserving South Dakota’s stories.
Julie Overgaard
In the landscape of South Dakota, where vast stretches of rural communities rely on trustworthy, locally-focused broadcasting, the role of SDPB is paramount. Not only does it serve as a cultural lifeline but also a critical conduit for educational content and emergency communications.
Among the many debates surrounding this issue is the accuracy of per capita spending comparisons raised during budget discussions. Larry Rohrer, once a key figure at SDPB, challenged this notion: “The problem with using a per capita figure is that it leaves out the nuance.” Rohrer emphasized the unique structure of SDPB as both radio and television under a state-held license, unlike other states that operate through independent entities or universities.
As South Dakotans weigh the implications of this budgetary shift, the conversation about the future of public media in the state persists. The potential loss of SDPB poses questions about preserving South Dakota’s cultural narratives and ensuring critical services reach every corner of the state.
The forthcoming legislative session is expected to be dynamic, with constituents rallying behind SDPB. Whether this response will lead to a reversal similar to the 2006 funding restoration remains uncertain, but what is clear is the indispensable role SDPB plays in the tapestry of South Dakota life.