January 2014

So will Channel 16 be filming/airing this?

loophole

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MAYOR’S OFFICE:

Mayor Huether to Announce Sioux Falls’ Top 10 Wins of 2013

Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Mayor Mike Huether will hold a news conference on Thursday, January 30, 2014, at 1 p.m. to present what he considers to be the top 10 wins that Sioux Falls City government captured in 2013. The news conference will take place in the Commission Room in City Hall, 224 West Ninth Street.

Wonder if Channel 16 will be recording or replaying this Press Conference?

According to City policy (Executive Order 12-24), candidates for any elective public office are not eligible to appear on CityLink for 90 days prior to the next municipal election (April 8, 2014). This City policy ensures candidates do not use public funds for their own personal promotion. The policy states that candidates may appear on CityLink “if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to presentation of the subject matter or in coverage of official City meetings such as City Council or Council Informational Meetings.” These types of incidental appearances also may include events like news conferences and ribbon cuttings.

Wonder how MMM will walk this tight rope? He’ll probably have City Attorney Fiddle-Faddle dig up some loophole in the ordinance about ‘educating’ the public instead of ‘campaigning’.

Holsen’s views on TIF’s and Public Transportation in relationship to Affordable Housing

BusStop4

Holsen made some interesting observations recently on her blog.

First about TIF’s and the mayor’s conflicts of interest;

35.028  CONFLICTS OF INTEREST; ACTING IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY ON MATTERS IN WHICH AN OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE HAS A PRIVATE FINANCIAL INTEREST CLEARLY SEPARATE FROM THAT OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

   (a)   No officer or employee of the city shall knowingly have a financial interest clearly separate from that of the general public in any contract, transaction, zoning decision or other matter which is subject to an official act or services from the city. This provision shall not apply if the interested officer or employee discloses by written communication to his or her immediate supervisor, director and the appropriate elected official(s) and they reply with unanimous consent to the financial interest or if the person serves on a lay board and discloses to the city council the full nature and extent of that interest and disqualifies and/or removes himself or herself from consideration or future participation in the matter in any respect.
   (b)   The foregoing conflict of interest prohibition shall not apply if an interested officer or employee does not or will not act in the regular course of his or her duties and responsibilities, directly or indirectly, for the city as to inspection, any related performance issues or any operational oversight or work with the matter in question. Also, this prohibition may not apply if the interested officer or employee is an employee of a business involved in the matter in question and the officer or employee has no ownership interest in the matter and will not receive a fee or compensation related thereto.
Clearly, current TIF ordinance language does not speak to criteria or investors. Ordinance language in Chapter 37 should address criteria.  However, the conflict of interest ordinance (Chapter 35.028)  does speak to acting in an official capacity on matters where the official might have a financial interest. It is mindboggling to read the councilors responses to the disclosure about the mayor’s wife’s involvement in an approved TIF.  Do they not comprehend ethics or conflict of interest when they are elected officials?
Uh, not really. In fact, I think most of them are in cruise control, don’t ask any controversial questions, and just move right along. Just look at councilor Enteman, ever since he said he wasn’t running for re-election, you haven’t seen much of him. ‘Caring’ about what is ‘ethical’ and ‘right’ doesn’t seem to cross their minds much.
Holsen also brings up the gorilla in the room when it comes to public transit and affordable housing, and how they don’t match up;
The city says its nearly impossible to expand transit services to keep up with the growth rate of the city and federal funding just doesn’t keep pace with increased costs associated with transit fixed route costs. The city is growing outward from the core and many of the outlying areas don’t even have transit service. So, it’s kind of a head scratcher to learn that city is awarding funds to private developers to build affordable housing in an outlying area that doesn’t even have transit services and probably won’t get transit services.
More like banging your head against the wall, especially when a committee (of supposed experts) approved this loan and gave the loan to a developer who is the Planning Commission’s Chair. Besides the obvious conflicts of interest, shouldn’t he have known better? Doesn’t leave a lot of confidence in the man running our Planning Commission. But according to the Planning Department, they do no wrong, EVER!

Is it time for a city ordinance to eliminate spending tax dollars on ‘educating’ the public on ballot measures?

government-waste

The following Argus Leader article from today’s paper highlights the problem all the citizen efforts will face. What’s to stop City Hall employees from discussing openly who/what the people should vote for? With our lack of ethics law, what’s to stop decisions being made affecting who can vote.

Is the city wrong in this attempt to sway a citizen effort’s defeat? What do the city ‘leaders’ have to gain? Why do the efforts of city bureaucrats mean more, than the citizen efforts? We will see the same thing happening on the other three issues.  The pool issue is but a small part of the larger picture of what is happening in Sioux Falls and South Dakota.

We will be seeing city hall led efforts to take charge of the non-ballot discussion to sway the pool vote. Our salesman mayor only knows how to sell something. The only way a salesman gets gratification by closing another sale, damn the costs that’s someone else’s job to worry about.

Maybe it is time for a city ordinance banning the use of taxdollars being spent on ‘educating’ the public on citizen initiated ballot issues.

Should elected officials be able to speak freely to the public about their opinions on certain ballot issues? Most definitely, in fact the First Amendment protects that right. But should an elected official or a city director/employee be able to use taxpayer resources to educate the public about a ballot issue they want defeated or even approved? State Law says it cannot, but the city seems to be using a ‘loophole’ claiming they are ‘educating’ the public. Baloney.

When you present the public (leak it to all the major news media) 75% more drawings of an indoor pool, then an outdoor pool, and clearly make the indoor pool look more favorable, while spending $46,000 on these drawings, you are clearly trying to sway the public to vote against an outdoor pool.

I have no issue with Walmart, SON, Community Swim, Veterans for the VA or even the snowgaters organizing and paying for an education campaign. As private enities, they have that right. But they should not be expending tax dollars to sway a vote.

Since the city seems to want to ignore state law, or use loop holes to continue to ignore it, what can we do as citizens to stop the taxpayer funded ‘education’ program?

Ironically is probably another ballot issue to close the state law loophole. Who is willing to come forward? Soon?

Who will chair the council meetings after the municipal election?

Gavel

 

There has been many discussions about who should be running the council meetings. Should it be the council chair? The mayor?

Not sure of the city ordinance or Roberts Rules on the issue, but logically the council chair should be running all council related meetings, and if the council chair cannot, the co-chair should be. For some reason, after Munson took office the mayor started running the gig. It only makes sense for the legislative body to run their own meetings. The President doesn’t preside over the Senate and the Governor doesn’t preside over the legislature.

The mayor presents an agenda to the council, and they vote on it. Obviously the mayor should be present for the meetings in case of a tie vote  he has to break or if he would like to comment on his agenda, but he should not be seated with the council, and he should certainly not be running the meeting.

Of course, this would force the mayor to have to sit with the rest of us poor schlumps and city directors without the protection of the terrier dog fence, but if he feels his safety is compromised, they can always give him a chair in the corner directly behind the city clerk.

Hopefully the new council will consider removing the mayor from running the meetings, I would suggest it to be their first action at their first meeting.

I guess everyone who lives in District 15 is a Catholic

stjoe3

VOTE FOR ME! St. Joe for State Legislature in District 15, “The voice for Catholics in Pierre!”

Been awhile since I have seen some idiotic reasoning on Dakotawarcollege, (well, not really) but today’s takes the cake;

At least if we can’t elect a Republican in that District, there will be a pair of solid pro-life candidates who don’t mock Catholics representing the Cathedral District well.

I thought legislators were supposed to represent all citizens? Which means it doesn’t matter what religion or sect they may be critical of or support? Would DWC be defending Muslims if Buhl was bashing them? Or how about Native Americans (yeah right). District 15, which I live very close to and have many friends that live in the district, is a very diverse district of young professionals and working class folks, some of which are NOT Catholic, dare I even venture to say are Atheists. I would probably even venture that a majority of the residents in that district are NOT Catholic.

It seems DWC is running out issues to bash Buhl over so they had to dig another one up. But what would you expect from a political blog more concerned about guns, religion and abortion then they are about citizen’s rights.