2008

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

When we bury the truth, we do not bury consequences. We only stand in the way of the American people. We keep this government of, by, and for the people from working as it should. And when we are complicit in burying the truth, we need to know well that we are also complicit in burying ourselves . . .                        Dan Rather

I want everyone to know that though this site may be rude, sarcastic, snarky, nasty, offensive and downright rotten sometimes, it is in the pursuit of the truth. Though there are many ways to pursue the truth, I choose satire, it is what I am most comfortable with. And for those of you that understand, I welcome you. For those of you who don’t, I encourage you to educate yourselves. Apathy, ignorance and denial will destroy this democratic nation. Dissent, knowledge, diplomacy and practicing our civil liberties will make us great.

Loany Bologna

Monday night (January 5th) the Sioux Falls city council will vote on an ordinance that would allow the city to borrow $38 million for needed infrastructure projects. Originally the money was budgeted and would not have had to be borrowed. Why the change? Munson and City Finance director Gene Rowenhorst claim that they need to borrow it now to make sure the projects get done next year. I’m all for the projects (levees and a bridge) I’m just suspicious of the timing and taking out a loan. Gene says we should not have ‘any worries’ because these projects were originally slated by the Corp of Engineers and since Obama is promising all kinds of infrastructure money we will ‘probably be paid back.’ I have a feeling that Obama will make good on his promise, but I also think that the money will go to communities who need it first (and those that are broke). Why give the city of Sioux Falls a check when they have paid for the project themselves? If I was the Federal Government I would be saying “You are doing fine on your own.”

What’s the solution then? Put off the projects until Washington’s check clears the bank. Yes, we need levees, but we have also been in a drought for the last four years, we ain’t flooding any time soon, we can wait another year.

I also think this is a diversion tactic by Munson to stop our initiative. State law is murky about borrowing money against an established municipal tax.

 5.   Irrepealable tax to repay debt of municipality or political subdivision.  Any city, county, town, school district or any other subdivision incurring indebtedness shall, at or before the time of so doing, provide for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest and also the principal thereof when due, and all laws or ordinances providing for the payment of the interest or principal of any debt shall be irrepealable until such debt be paid

Article 13

We hope to get a clear and on the record opinion before Monday, cross your fingers.

Below is the extended version of the ordinance.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD (THE “CITY”), AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF ITS SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF TO PAY THE COSTS OF IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING DIVERSION DAM, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DAM AT THE CONFLUENCE OF SKUNK CREEK AND THE BIG SIOUX RIVER, REBUILDING THE 41ST STREET BRIDGE AND RAISING THE LEVEES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FLOOD RISK REDUCTION ALONG THE BIG SIOUX RIVER, SKUNK CREEK, AND THE DIVERSION CHANNEL IN THE CITY, PLEDGING A PORTION OF THE SALES AND USE TAX PROCEEDS OF THE CITY TO THE PAYMENT OF SAID SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, FIXING THE TERMS OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR MORE

SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN SIOUX FALLS, AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE, EXECUTION, AND DELIVERY OF SUCH SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS.

WHEREAS, the City of Sioux Falls (the “City”) is authorized by Chapter 10-52 of the

South Dakota Codified Laws (the “Act”) to levy a non-ad valorem tax (as defined by the Act) on the sale, use, storage, and consumption of certain items taxed under Chapters 10-45 and 10-46 of the South Dakota Codified Laws, subject to certain exceptions, at a rate not to exceed 2.00 percent; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted and enacted Ordinance No. 78-87, codified as

Sections 39-16 and 39-47 of the Revised Ordinances of the City imposing a sales and use tax authorized by the Act with the City at the rate of 1.00 percent, and Ordinance

Nos. 70-03, 14-04, 26-06, and 116-08, codified as Sections 39-16.1 and 39-47.1 of the

Revised Ordinances of the City (the “Second Penny Tax Ordinance”) imposing an additional sales and use tax authorized by the Act with the City at the rate of 1.00 percent effective January 1, 2009, (the tax imposed pursuant to the Second Penny Tax Ordinance being referred to herein as the “Second Penny Tax”); and

WHEREAS, the City is authorized to issue sales tax revenue bonds in anticipation of the collection of sales and use taxes pursuant to Section 10-52-2.10 and Chapter 6-8B of the South Dakota Codified Laws and to pledge the revenues from such taxes to the payment of such bonds; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Second Penny Tax Ordinance, the City is authorized to expend revenues from the Second Penny Tax for certain designated improvements, including the Project (as defined hereinafter), and the retirement of debt incurred for such improvements; and

It’s not ‘Criminal’ it’s ‘Unethical’

 

ethâ‹…ics

–plural noun

1.

(used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

 

2.

the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

 

3.

moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

 

 

Did the Rounds administration do anything illegal in reference to the pay-to-play no-bid contract controversy? I don’t see that, and neither did anyone in the RCJ columns. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it ethical.

Do some of us do unethical things, whether it’s in our personal or professional lives? Sure we do. But I also think there are different levels of it.

Besides government other organizations provide a code ethics. Though subject to interpretation (as I found out when I asked for an ethics opinion about a couple Sioux Falls city councilors) for the most part they keep members on the up and up.

Last year the Washington Pavilion of Arts and Sciences (finally) changed their code of ethics barring board members from participating in exhibits or providing professional services to the Pavilion for payment. This didn’t happen overnight. It was a long drawn out process after years of complaints about a certain board member by not just me but several other artists and advocates in our community. In my opinion it took to damn long and I think the only reason it happened was this board member no longer serves (but I could be mistaken).

The irony of all this was that this person was one of the founders of the ad agency that got the lucrative no-bid tourism contracts from the state. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

In one attack on me in a letter to the editor he vehemently opposed openness at taxpayer funded institutions like the Pavilion. No surprise looking back now, huh?

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife in the White House. Over $40 million was spent trying to impeach him for lying about it. It was unethical (the cheating part) and probably cost Al Gore a lot of votes (even though he still won).

Last year we had to endure the Sutton hearings because the legislature thought it was unethical for an adult male to climb into bed with another adult male. Maybe it was, even though the DCI could not find proof a crime was committed. Sutton was censured.

Mike Rounds gives not just a handful of no-bid contracts to campaign contributors, but hundreds and hundreds of them and there isn’t an ethics investigation?

There should be.

Maybe Rounds will be cleared of any unethical practices, maybe an investigation will find something illegal was done. Who knows, but it’s worth the effort.

No one should defend cronyism, whether you are a Rep, Dem or Indy, even if it is being practiced legally.

Even if you don’t have a problem with the ethics of what Mike did, I would think fiscal conservatives would take issue with the irresponsibility of no-bid contracts. And if the State Legislature is truly made up of mostly conservatives the law would have been changed years ago.

I don’t think it is. We have become a Big Government state, and that is why most politicians just turn away from this issue.

So is Rounds a criminal? No way. Is he a sneak? I think so, but an ethics investigation would be the only true measure.

I hope some legislators have the guts to pursue one. It’s way past due.