I spoke at the city council meeting Monday night about public input and the lack of transparency in our city (I do want to apologize and correct my comment about city contracts, they are posted on the city website now.)
It seems to me that since Debra was fired they are slowly chipping away at all of the things she worked hard on. This is disappointing. Heck, even her termination proceedings were questionable (discussing her termination in executive session but voting on it publicly – WTF?).
Not sure if you read this interview I did with Erpenbach, but I found this line interesting;
It’s interesting to me that you claim so many people know the contents of conversations that were held in legal executive sessions related to private person- nel issues. It is a violation of state law to reveal information disclosed in executive session.
Well, Michelle, let’s talk about violating state law, shall we? From a SouthDaCola foot soldier;
The only way to get government to clean up its act is to make it more transparent – whether contracts, salaries and bonuses, public meetings, and abiding by open meetings laws.
I found it ironic that council leadership walked in the two resolutions to split the former clerk position into two different jobs and did so by breaking the open meetings laws.
If you recall this ordinance along with many others in Chapter II came through Public Services Committee on June 13 and went on to be adopted by council on July 11.
In less than a year the council themselves took action on agenda items w/o giving notice of the vote (so the public could not comment on the action until AFTER the vote was over.) However, their wrong doing is all the more grievous because they purposely revised the ordinance last year so that 24 hour notice would have to be followed. This is why there is a reference to State law in the ordinance. That is why it states the council CAN take immediate action AS LONG AS public notice was provided — which is 24 hour notice in state law. Â (See the last sentence in the ordinance below.) Â They willfully/purposely violated state law and their newly revised ordinance.
The ordinances;
Sec. 2-15. Â Agenda.
(a) Â Â Â Â All reports, communications, ordinances, resolutions, or other matters to be submitted to the council for consideration shall be delivered to the city clerk’s office no later than 10:00 a.m. on the Monday one week prior to the council meeting. If the Monday one week prior to the city council meeting is a holiday, the deadline is 10:00 a.m. on the preceding Friday. All documentation requiring council action will be delivered to the city clerk’s office in its complete and final format. The city clerk’s office shall prepare the agenda in both paper and electronic format and will furnish each member of the council, the mayor, and the city attorney with access to the information after 1:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the city council meeting.(b) Â Â Â Â During consideration of new business, the mayor or any two city council members may bring before the city council any business that person feels should be deliberated upon by the city council. These matters can be added to the agenda by a vote of six city council members and will be considered under new business. Formal action on such matters shall be deferred until a subsequent city council meeting, unless consideration is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety of the municipal government. If the city council chooses to take immediate action on the newly calendared agenda item, and notice to the public is provided as set forth in SDCL 1-25-1.1, an affirmative vote of six members of the council is required for approval.
(Ord. No. 50-95, § 2, 3-20-95; Ord. No. 52-11, § 10, 7-11-11)
SO when the open meetings laws are broken – what can the public do as a repurcussion?
Let’s not forget who walked those two items in………….
City Clerk, Sue Roust, the very person who is supposed to be advising them about such matters!!!
To answer your question…yes.
One of the unfortunate results of a hostile audience continually speaking at CC meetings and a Mayor who doesn’t just sit there and take it but chooses to respond publicly to those speakers is a Council that desperately wants to move the conversation out of the way of weekly business. Thus the move to the end of the meetings.
Essentially the public comment has become a joke. The council has lost its patience for hearing from the same people again and again so they’re trying to make it harder for those people to speak and at the same time keep public comment as part of the meetings. Unfortunately they signed up for a democratic forum where anyone can speak and unfortunately some of them take these comments personally. I probably would too actually.
This document from the AG’s office does a great job of explaining Open Meeting Law and what steps to take to challenge a violation: http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WbHp8a7imi4%3d&tabid=324&mid=811
I’m happy to see you took your hat off. lol
AT – Funny they would be tired of the same people showing up everyweek and saying the same thing. Kind of reminds of Huether’s EC presentations. That’s why it irks Mike off, if you can’t get them on board with the facts, repetition works much better.
ST – Thanks for the link.
Scott – I actually thought about pulling my hoodie up while looking at Rolfing and walking away.
I see there is no video available on the city’s website.You must have struck a nerve! Great work!
I received this comment from an attorney today;
‘it does NOT violate state law to disclose what’s talked about in executive session. I always tell my clients that the privilege of going into exec session just shields the discussion from the public: it does not protect from disclosure by a member of the governing body.’
This does not surprise me that city councilors are ignorant to the law.