Chairperson of this group spoke during public input tonight;
My name is Bruce Danielson, a resident of Sioux Falls.
On Thursday February 6, our new group, Citizens for Integrity, started a petition drive in the city of Sioux Falls. There seems to be a bit of official confusion as to why, we citizens of Sioux Falls are beginning this petition.
In response to the submission, an Argus Leader article quoted a city official’s “Jeffersonian†response to it. In light of the response, another Jefferson quote, from the year 1787, comes to mind: “I hold it . . . at a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physicalâ€.
This political season in Sioux Falls, we have 4 ballot issues to discuss among the voting citizens. We the people, do not need referees or appointed city educators, to frame the discussion and tell us what to think. We the people are registered adult voters, with the ability to discern the truth.
The Constitution of the State of South Dakota requires the city to step back from any advocacy positions for or against, or any electoral participation, except for the unbiased process necessary to accept petitions, print ballots and announce results. Once the issue is before the voter, no additional government participation is allowed.
We have already seen what city officials have done to limit the snowgate process. Also, we have city officials clearing schedules to advocate for a pool option NOT on the spring 2014 ballot.
And, there are rumblings of biased education for Shape Places and the Zoning issues.
It seems the city has stepped over the grey line of ‘education’ into ‘advocacy’ and the Supreme Court has clearly ruled ‘advocacy’ with the use of tax dollars is unconstitutional.
Once again, we voters should not be educated by biased city officials using their official city offices and budgets to campaign or educate against the very citizens who pay their salaries.
South Dakota has a long tradition of citizen participation in the Initiative and Referendum movement. As a person, who has participated several times in the collection of signatures, people sign petitions because they feel it is time to help elected officials move issues forward to resolution.
At the 1885 statehood constitutional convention held in Sioux Falls, attorney W.H. Lyon, formally suggested to fellow delegates “the referendum†to address “all appropriation bills for new permanent improvements to existing institutions . . . and all laws of general interest to the people.” We can conclude W.H. Lyon saw the need for the people’s direct oversight of government.
Also, from the our Secretary of State’s website:
“South Dakota has the distinction of being the first state in the Union to provide for popular initiative and referendum for enacting and rejecting legislation. This was accomplished by a constitutional amendment approved in 1898.
“These two forms of direct legislation, first used in 1908, rest on the theory . . . . since the legislature may not always adequately represent them, the people should be able to pass laws they desire and nullify laws they oppose.â€
It is for these reasons, we citizens of Sioux Falls are preparing to present another ballot measure, with the goal of closing loopholes in the current local city code which are apparently not in compliance with South Dakota State Law.
The sentiments of our group †Citizens for Integrity †were effectively summarized, in just two strong words published recently in Jonathon Ellis’ Argus Leader coverage: where election issue advocacy by government is concerned, South Dakota law
declares, city officials should “Butt Outâ€. Thank you.
In a word, bulls***. State law applies to official municipal actions or spending on ballot measures. For example, a city council cannot take a vote of support for a spending measure. It has no application to elected officials promoting or dissenting from such measures.
Officials have the responsibility to put ideas in front of the voters, period. I then further demand such officials take a public position on projects, one way or the other. Anything else is ducking an issue so as not to anger any one side. That’s just trying to stay in office and not governing as they were elected to do.
Don’t sign this, vote against it. We don’t need any more laws for elected officials to hide behind.
Uh! The state has censured the city. The courts will not hear their cases. By default, the city has become it’s own independent kleptocracy. There are no rules. Unofficially, you mustn’t speak up against Putin or you’ll get unfounded citation harassment and code enforcer bouncer coming around on weekends. Worse, you’ll be banned from indoor sporting events and escorted off from pickle ball places.
The argus usually runs a recap of Tuesday nites events in the Wednesday morning tree killer.
Nothing on this issue? Nothing to see here….so must be time to move along.
Last night was fun. We appreciate your concerns mhs.
I will try to explain this petition drive. Disinformation campaigns start from all levels. Our plan is a simple as it is Constitutional.
SD law explicitly forbids the use of taxpayer money from being used by any government body to advocate or educate in a competitive ballot issue.
In other words, when an issue has been placed before the people through the Initiative of the people by way of a petition drive (or by the legislature through The Referendum), government directed interference must stop. We are not stopping the conversation, we are enhancing it.
When the unlimited budget and power of a government office is used to advocate a position, the people lose. When a substantial group of citizens propose legislation, the group of citizens should be responsible enough to present the proposal. With the presentation, there will likely be a group or groups of citizens opposed.
It is between these groups of citizens who should be debating the issue presented, not a biased government officeholder.
This ballot proposal does not stop the mayor, city council members or even city employees, acting on their own as citizens off the taxpayer’s clock, speaking to their point of view.
We do not wish to stifle debate. We are not proposing any limits on the citizen’s right to debate as equals.
We are only closing the loophole city officials have found and are using to control the debates. To be clear, SD law and the Constitution are clear, government position advocacy in the name of ‘education’ are illegal.
Bruce, thanks for the thoughtful response. I disagree on the constitutional interpretation, but, that’s a matter for legal scholars and the courts.
My opposition boils down to this: I want elected leaders to lead. Whether the candidate runs on a platform of massive spending requiring public votes, or massive tax cuts requiring public votes, I them out in front of the issue. That’s what defines public office.
Without the power to advocate for their platform they become powerless political taking heads. While that may work (or not) in Congress, local government needs to actually do things. Besides, from a practical standpoint, when is an elected official ever off the clock? I think even Huether and Staggers would agree on this one.
The result is to give the power of government over to the paid bureaucrats. Studies and staff recommendations take the place of leadership and with that, accountability of elected leaders to the voters goes out the window.
I believe in loud, raucous, vigorous public debate. I think this measures stifles that. Hence, my disagreement and opposition. Regardless of what meaning of the state constitution we decide to agree on, the First Amendment trumps it every time.
As stated last night, when the city leaders are unable to listen, unable to discuss, unable to lead, it is the right of SD citizens to step in to assist the process with the petition and Initiative.
Our Initiative levels the playing field. Our petition does not exclude any Sioux Falls citizen from partaking in the debate. It only stops the elected or appointed officials (city employees) from using their auspices / positions to control the debate.
Once the people have taken over the debate, city revenue spent to advocate or educate must end.
Once the people have worked to place an issue on the ballot, the laws state NO advocacy of any type paid for by the taxpayer’s money.
Real leaders build consensus through leadership. We do not have leadership in city hall, we have bullies. The equivalent of “You are going to listen to me or I will get even with you” is often intimated.
According to a city employee recently, some of the ‘leaders’ behind the city first movement aren’t even city residents. If so than why should they be allowed to express any city paid for public ‘voice’ in any matter? This is a city of Sioux Falls resident and voter debate. To be part of it the person must be an actual resident and potential voter, not a city hall “I’m not a resident but work for the city” debate.
I too believe in loud, raucous, vigorous public debate. All the more reason we taxpayers must not allow politicians and city employees to control our debates. They can participate as fellow citizens but cannot use their office or paid time to advocate / educate.
so you think it’s all right for the city to say, “a yes vote means a cement lined hole, and a no vote means the most awesome swim facility ever”?
But Bruce – YOUR initiative makes government officials unable to discuss – unable to lead.
I understand that deep down you believe that direct democracy is a superior form of government – but the reality is that form of government DIED as a viable one over 3,000 years ago.
mhs,
The problem I have in relying on city staff recommendations to “educate” the community is the fact that those same staffers serve at the pleasure of the mayor. When the mayor has an agenda he wants pushed, as is clearly the case now, the objectivity of these reports, studies, and education campaigns goes out the window.
carhart – I learned too many moons ago to count – there is NO SUCH THING as “objectivity” when it comes to human beings.
Maybe you meant open-mindedness?
ruf think about it statement again: “YOUR initiative makes government officials unable to discuss – unable to lead.”
No where in this petition / Initiative do we stop any citizen from being able to be part of the debate.
NOWHERE.
Reread the petition and the supporting arguments. We encourage participation, just not the government interfering in the process.
carhart605 says it correctly “When the … has an agenda he wants pushed, as is clearly the case now, the objectivity of these reports, studies, and education campaigns goes out the window.”
Once the petition is circulated and then approved for the ballot, the government is not legally allowed to use employee paid time off, meetings during work hours, coercive pressure on fellow employees, City Link, any paid city mileage or vehicles to drive to meetings. The city government is not part of anything. Ever.
The city government had a chance to lead – participate before the petition drive was started. Once the citizens take over the debate and present it to the voters, bye-bye government interference.
I support this effort and the open debate of issues facing our city. If the voters have put a measure on the ballot then the residents of this community should debate and decide the matter, not City Hall. City resources should not be used for campaigns to “educate” us on their point of view. The mayor and members of the council have ample opportunity to discuss the issues without spending our tax dollars to push their agenda one way or the other.
Bruce, one last thought. Twice in the last decade now we have had well-funded out of state extremist groups use South Dakota as a laboratory for advancing their nutty causes. The good common sense folks of our state defeated both these measures overwhelmingly, not in small part, because nearly every local elected official in the state spoke out, passes resolutions, etc.
I know that in no way is your effort a part of that kind of effort, but, your law would prevent the City from actively opposing that kind of measure.
The Law of Unintended Consequences applies itself with gusto in situations where a current political issue prompts passage of a measure with far-reaching consequences. I think you’re trying to kill a fly with a very big hammer.
That said, good on you for standing up. My old boss George Mickelson said in just about every speech he every gave that “decisions are made by those that show up”.
Decisions are made by those that show up to the fair debate. I do not believe in the Citizen’s United decision or any government intervention to save us from our stupidity.
As I have stated, we are adult voters, qualified to have a debate among equals. The elected leaders are citizen equals to you and I. We do not need to be saved by someone who thinks they have special information or perspective. If we are to make proper decisions, we the people need and require the same information the ‘leaders’ possess.
Real leaders are not afraid to share the data with the people.
So the Law of Unintended Consequences happens when the people are restricted from the decision process. Groups and people with hidden agendas try to sneak something past the voters. I trust truly informed citizens not controlled by entrenched leaders looking for a way to preserve something they think they have.
This petition effort does not limit a government leader from speaking on an issue, on their own time and dime. Just like us.
Again Bruce – your initiative prohibits “leaders” from sharing information they have. So far, your rhetoric doesn’t align very well with the language of your proposed ordinance.
When are city officials officially “off the clock”?
Are they allowed, as private citizens to copy and distribute official documents? Are they as officials allowed to CREATE those official documents with tax-payer dollars?
Will they be required to spend their own private funds to create and copy those documents, while they will be required to provide them to you at taxpayer expense?
“Real leaders are not afraid to share the data with the people.” Real leader dont spread lies!
Oh and real leaders have integrity of which you Bruce have none. You are upset people are trying to hold you up to standards but yet you yourself are tyring to create own standards in your head for others to live up to.
Please stop wasting hard working tax payer dollars and let the city do things they should be instead of wasting time trying to babysit you and your made up rules!
Awaiting moderation…you apparently post only what you want others to view or is it that you don’t want to be exposed?
Current openings Bruce:
Sioux Falls municipal positions open are Mayor, At-Large Council Member “A,†At-Large Council Member “B,†Central District Council Member, and Southeast District Council Member
Do you plan on omitting this one as well in your moderation efforts?
Yet you provide better information apparently as the expert in public policy, ballot initiatives and uses of taxpayer dollars…. quite certain your rambling leaves room for annoying others
City to Host Eight Public Meetings to Provide Information on Ballot Questions
The City of Sioux Falls will host eight public meetings regarding the four ballot questions to be decided during the April 8, 2014, municipal election. The public meetings will include video presentations and time for questions and answers. The videos have been approved by the City Attorney’s Office to be strictly educational so that voters can be more informed when they go to the polls on April 8.