SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) -- Two top South Dakota lawmakers said Rick Weiland shouldn't act like he's getting advice from the state's Legislative Research Council on the specific language used for Initiated Measure 28. Republican Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, the Senate President Pro Tempore and Republican Rep. Hugh Bartels, the Speaker of the House, are both in their final months as lawmakers, but they took time for an Oct. 7 letter to Weiland. In the letter, the lawmakers asked Weiland to "refrain from stating that the LRC advised you to use the phrase 'anything sold for human consumption' is because the LRC did not recommend using that language." DPS, Secretary of State announce 273 ‘noncitizens’ removed from voter rolls Weiland, the main sponsor of Initiated Measure 28, disagrees with the letter signed by the two lawmakers. The letter shows that John McCullough, the LRC director, was copied in the letter but he did not sign it. McCullough was not the LRC director when IM28 ballot sponsors worked with the LRC in December of 2022. The then director Reed Holwegner, signed a Dec. 2, 2022, letter to Weiland that contained input from the LRC. IM28 would remove the sales tax from items sold from human consumption or specifically, as supporters say, the grocery tax. "If the core argument against us is that we're misrepresenting what we were told by the LRC, that's just not factual," Weiland said. Weiland cited language the LRC used in a Dec. 2, 2022, letter to him. That includes a LRC point that "the use of the phrase 'the sale of anything sold for eating or drinking by humans' may be overly vague, inviting various interpretations in determining its meaning." In the letter, lawmakers said the LRC is not in a position to advise a ballot initiative sponsor although it does provide comments and suggestions on ballot language. You can see the letter attached below. Letter-to-Weiland-re-IM-28Download The December 2022 LRC went on to say that state definition of food uses "ingestion, chewing and consumed." The letter said "those terms seem to be more precise than 'eating or drinking.'" "We thought that was a reasonable recommendation," Weiland said of the reference to ingestion, chewing and consumed. But the lawmakers said, the LRC did "not advise, recommend or suggest, using the term 'consumed' or a variation of that term." The December 2022 LRC letter did cite ingestion, chewing and consumption but it also said that "a rewrite of the language using terms consistent with the statutory definition of 'food and food ingredients' may better clarify the intent of the proposed language.'" The LRC letter said "perhaps" the IM28 sponsor "should consider a broader list of exclusions" of items to be exempt from tax. The lawmaker letter to Weiland has problems with Weiland saying at least twice in media reports including in an Oct. 6 episode of Inside KELOLAND that the "'human consumption' language came 'on advice from the South Dakota LRC." "What else would it be?" Weiland said of advice. The LRC makes recommendations and uses its expertise, Weiland said. One of the points of disagreement between opponents and supporters are the words human consumption. Opponents say human consumption would include toilet paper and similar items, which if a state sales tax is not applied, could cost the state even more revenue. Weiland said the intent of IM28 is key, and the intent does not include toilet paper or other such items presented by the opposition. Be informed on the seven 2024 ballot measures Amendment E Amendment F Amendment G Amendment H IM 28 IM 29 Referred Law 21 Weiland said the lawmaker letter suggests that IM28 supporters are implying that the LRC or state endorses IM28. "We've never said that," Weiland said. The lawmakers said the LRC requested in its December 2022 letter that Weiland "ensure that neither your statements nor any advertising contain suggestion of endorsement or approval by the (LRC)." Weiland is violating that request, the lawmaker letter said. Weiland said the lawmaker letter is similar to tactics used by the opposition to IM28. "There have been a lot of attempts by the opposition to scare voters," Weiland said. He said the group South Dakotans Against A State Income Tax, by virtue of its name, is using a scare tactic on IM28. Some opponents have said the because IM28 could cut at least $130 million from state revenue. The state Legislature would need to make cuts and possibly, a state income could be needed to make up the difference, opponents have said. The lawmaker letter does not state if the two lawmakers are in favor or support of IM28 or list any potential financial benefit or financial harm from IM28. In a Tuesday news release from South Dakotans Against A State Income Tax, Nathan Sanderson the Executive Director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, said, "One important lesson South Dakotans can take away from the discussion about IM-28 is that words matter. South Dakota laws are carefully crafted to avoid unintended consequences, but IM-28 clearly has drafting errors that will cause major problems for our state. It’s critical to vote no on this irresponsible measure.” Weiland has said the state will be able to handle IM28 as it already has nearly $1.4 billion in exempt taxes already.