Mayor Huether recused himself from the discussion and vote on the Indoor Tennis facility last night, to avoid a conflict of interest. He also will not be signing the contract.

The fact is that it doesn’t really matter. We will get to that in a moment.

Councilor Staggers was the lone ‘NO’ vote on the contract last night;

. . . but Kermit Staggers cast the lone no vote on the tennis contract. He questioned whether there are enough tennis players in the area to support such a facility.

Even if the council would not have approved the contract last night, they have already approved the expenditure in the CIP budget earlier in the year. This was just a contract approval, not an ‘allocation’ approval.

And that is the gist of Huether’s conflict. Who prepares the CIP budget and presents it to the city council for approval? THE MAYOR! By budgeting the money for the tennis facility in the CIP budget, the mayor performed his conflict already. His ‘non’ performance last night was just smoke and mirrors.

16 Thoughts on “Even with Mayor Huether’s recusal last night, he still had a conflict of interest

  1. pathloss on December 11, 2013 at 1:09 pm said:

    Amazing how the council can’t see into Huether. With Home Rule (strong mayor), Huether can overrule the council. He’ll not but, had the vote gone the other way, he could and reason money had already been appropriated. Now we’ll need janitors and security for another empty facility.

  2. pathloss on December 11, 2013 at 1:11 pm said:

    There goes my $2K donation for Jamison’s campaign.

  3. I see he brings up TIF 11 in this document;

    http://dakotawarcollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/huether_ethics_review.jpg

    I like how somehow spouses try to separate themselves. Your married! I am assuming you ‘share’ finances. Sheriff Milstead’s wife tried to claim also that her husband was not involved with the Falls Overlook Cafe. Well, sure, not day to day operations, but you and Mike share finances, he is involved whether you want him to be or not.

    Also no surprise that the ethics committee (that the mayor appointed) who is advised by the city attorney (also a mayoral appointee) would say there was no conflict by the mayor.

  4. Taxpayer-Voter on December 11, 2013 at 5:40 pm said:

    APRIL 2014

    Time for a change.

  5. Isn’t the Sherriff an elected official?

  6. Lamb Chislic on December 11, 2013 at 9:35 pm said:

    DL – Did I miss something? Why was this memo directed only to Councilor Jamison and not the Council as a whole?

  7. scott, yes. I was just saying how the mayor and the sheriff’s wife claim there are no conflicts because they are only ‘married’ as if they don’t share bank accounts.

  8. LC – I wondered that also, but I also wonder if each councilor got this memo with individual headers. Hmmm.

  9. You know, if we would just combine the indoor tennis facility with the new hockey arena…wait! New sport idea – ice tennis! Gimme 8 years and 2022 Winter Olympiad!!!

  10. Testor15 on December 12, 2013 at 7:52 am said:

    Once again the specials are picking the winners and losers. The FAUX Libertarians and big moneyed players seem to think they should preach the gospel of free enterprise while making the public pay their bills.

  11. I’m not sure I’d agree that the Mayor has a conflict of interest here whether actual or merely percieved.

    A true conflict would exist if his role as Mayor suggests once course of action, while his role as husband suggests another. That is to say, if the Mayor supported this facility only because that is what his wife wanted while knowing it wasn’t in the best interests of the city or knowing it would be financially harmful to the city then yes there would be a conflict.

    However, the Mayor has shown throughout his entire term that he supports these types of community investment projects whether it is connected to his wife or not. Therefore, based upon his actions in support of pickleball courts and enhancements to golf courses and support of sports facilities of all sizes and shapes as well as the Events Center it seems clear with or without his wife involved he likely would have supported this facility. Thus we aren’t likely talking about a true conflict but merely an appearance of one.

    In this case the Mayor did the right thing to recuse himself. It wasn’t that he had to – it was that he wanted to go out of his way to ensure he didn’t put himself in a position where he had to cast a tie-breaking vote which would have created controversy. In the end it didn’t matter at all, because even Councilor Jamison supported the contract and the mayor’s involvement wouldn’t have made a difference either way.

    Truthfully if you look hard enough, you can find an appearance of a conflict of interest in almost every single vote. Our Mayor and our Councilors are all well connected individuals with family members, friends, and former co-workers who are also well connected and heavily involved in our community. This is exactly why they are in those positions – because they enjoy being involved and serving. Do some of their votes seem to be self-serving? Sure. Are there times when they may use their positions for personal gain and/or to benefit their friends, business associates, or family members? Probably. However I really don’t think that is the case as often as many would think, and we have a fantastic way of eliminating those who abuse the privledge of holding city office – we simply vote them out of office.

    I’d also like to point out that the tennis facility as well as the hockey facility were both included in long-term city plans for years. The fact the city is providing less than 20% of the cost for each facility should be a prime example of a win-win for all involved, and is exactly the type of agreement we should seek for other groups that decide they want specialized facilities *cough* swim teams and their desire for an indoor pool *cough*.

    Now think of the flip side – someone approaches the city and says they will pay for over 80% of a new indoor sports facility that will benefit thousands of citizens, and all the city has to do in order to make it a reality is offer the remaining 20%…. do we really think this is something the city would turn down regardless of who might be part of the organization spearheading the effort? This is hoenstly a no-brainer… and I don’t even like tennis. If Swim Fox raises 80% of the cost of a new indoor pool I’m saying the same thing… it is a no-brainer for the city to support them. It is just simply the right thing to do.

  12. Well, I still am of the opinion that Cindy Huether’s investments are a conflict. Where did Cindy get her money? She doesn’t have a job, even in the memo MMM says she doesn’t get paid for her role on the tennis association. Hmmmm, who would have put money in her bank account to invest in these projects. Boy that’s a head scratcher. Like I have often said, “You don’t think Janklow was corrupt and used his position as governor to make money? How else do you become a multi-millionaire working in public service most of your life?”

    The problem is there are no ethics laws in SD. And the ethics board is appointed by the person who they are supposed to watch. What is that saying about Foxes and Hen houses?

  13. As for the pool, I would be totally down with a private donation from the swim team. I commend the Ice Hockey people for working hard at this for years, fundraising, getting a major sponsor and ultimately getting it done. I don’t really have a high opinion about their leader, and think he is kind of an uppity snob, but hey, he got it done. I also think the hockey center will have many uses for the public, heck, even the freaking curlers where showing up to ask for the money.

    Tennis, that is another ball of wax. Tom Clayton is a life-time tennis player in SF, of course he is going to come to the podium and ask for this crap. The fees are too high for a regular person to even consider using the facility. And unlike pickleball or racquet ball, I have often considered tennis and outdoor sport. Duh.

  14. And am I the only one that finds it ironic that a guy who owns a greasy burger franchise is partnering in fitness centers because he thinks ‘families need to become more active.’ Gawd, I laughed yesterday after his announcement.

    Tom, you are doing this for the same reason you own a burger franchise, to make money.

  15. pathloss on December 12, 2013 at 9:57 am said:

    I agree, tennis is an outdoor seasonal sport like baseball. I’d support indoor volleyball because the court is for many players, there’s a support audience, and the season is fall between baseball & football. Tennis is a sport for the upper class that lower income taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for.

  16. pathloss on December 12, 2013 at 10:36 am said:

    Rather than tear down the Arena for EC parking, couldn’t it become indoor tennis & volleyball? Topless Tennis, then charge admission and expect bleachers full of fans.

Post Navigation