Sioux Falls SD – Greg Jamison signed the Mayor Integrity Trust Pledge today at 1:00 pm. The signing of the Mayor Integrity Trust Pledge signify to all the people of Sioux Falls that Jamison will not make personal investments into land or any other business where his decisions as mayor could give him an unfair advantage to make money.
“As Mayor, I pledge to all the people of Sioux Falls, that while in office I or my spouse will not be an investor in any real estate development or make other business investments that require oversight and approval by the City Council and/or city employees who are under my direct control. I disclose any and all investments that are currently in violation of this pledge.â€Â said Jamison.
Jamison wants all the people of Sioux Falls to know that he does not personally have land investments as seen on his financial interest statement filed Monday. Recently, Mike Huether was quoted in the December 15, 2013 Argus Leader stating, “Come on, you’re telling me that Mayor Dave Munson, Mayor Gary Hanson, Mayor Rick Knobe or any of the mayors before me have never invested in real estate while in office?â€Â As Jonathan Ellis reported, none of the mayors mentioned had any land investments. Gary Hanson noted, “I turned down those simply because it would only appear to be an impropriety on my part. Right now I know that a couple of those folks have become millionaires in those investments that I chose not to be an investor.â€
Jamison had this to say about signing the pledge, “Nothing the mayor does should create any question as to the integrity of his office. The mayor should not have an unfair advantage to make money from his service to Sioux Falls. In the end it all comes down to trust. Having direct control over city employees and having land development deals violates the trust voters have instilled in you. That is why I’m signing this pledge to all the people of Sioux Falls. We need to restore integrity and trust to the mayor’s office.â€Â  Jamison invites Mike Huether to join him in signing the pledge to disclose any conflicted investment and not make investments that the office of mayor has direct influence over.
So, will Jamison Real Estate be returning commissions it earned on new home sales in developments approved by the City during his time on the Council?
That’s the problem with campaign pledges, huh?
is that u mike
Jamison has been a councilman since 2008, and his father before that. Why is this all a sudden an issue for him, now that he is a mayoral candidate?
I believe it is a legitimate issue, but what has he done to stop it over the last six years? He is a part of the establishment and the problematic incumbency and not an clean outsider with new ideas and solutions.
Councilman Jamison also has raised the issue of rising crime in Sioux Falls as one of his campaign issues. I think it is a legitimate concern too, but what has he done to deal with it over the last six years as a City Councilman?
Jamison is trying “to have his cake and eat it too” when it comes to these two crucial issues, but his sincerity and true commitment to these two issues is to be questioned.
This is a man and a candidate who comes from a family that is obsessed with the Mayor’s office and up to now an “fait accompli” which has evaded them. Such a reality should heed voters from blindly supporting his candidacy and the emotional issues that he is playing with and on.
Let us not forget that Jamison is also unabashedly the “Republican” pick for the 2014 Sioux Falls mayoral race. A political party in South Dakota that has attempted to turn the Sioux Falls non-partisan mayoral race into a partisan race, and a dominant political party that has shown no virtue over the years when it comes to the issues of government, special interest, transparency, and the influence of money in the execution of our public policies.
Jamison is a “johnny come lately” when it comes to the issues that matter , but where was he when we needed him?…. Probably at a Lincoln Day County Dinner…..
A real estate office is a service, not an investment. The ‘agency’ represents a client relative to closing and negotiations. There’s no ‘interest’ in the transaction other than a fee for services. Sorry, I can’t agree that Jamison’s real estate business is a conflict. I don’t agree with many of his votes on the council. However, he’s the only choice for me because it would be impossible for me to vote for Huether.
I think awarding contracts for the Events Center before citizen voter approval and before a location was decided is a major infraction. Awarding your wife a 6 figure TIF is not only an ethics conflict but a clear case of paternalism.
I bet the current mayor won’t do it.
Did any developments Jamison voted on get TIFs like MMM’s, uh, I mean his wife’s did?
Earnings from the work one does is not the same as earnings from investments. One is a product of the profession and the other from other side activities.
Good for Jamison.
An inappropriate relationship between the mayor, his wife, and city staff resulting in a TIF is a legitimate concern and this is a great way to address it. The fact that an ethics board, appointed by the mayor, absolved him of any wrong-doing carries little weight for this voter.
Earning a ROI from a real estate holding that earned a significant tax advantage is far different than earning a real estate commission on a new home sale in a development approved by the City, especially when countless other realtors have the same opportunity. Only Cindy Huether and a few other limited investors had the opportunity to profit when awarded the TIF, but keep dreaming and keep stretching there MHS.
Most citizens would agree that restoring integrity in politics is a good thing. What a breath of fresh air.
So will Jamison also not take any advertising revenue from anyone in Sioux Falls while mayor and also disclose any advantage he may have had to obtain such advertising with his knowledge he has had as a councilor.
Pretty lame pledge…
From what I have seen of Jamison’s actions as councilor and his flip/flops I would not trust him if he did gain the office of mayor.
DL – Do you believe him? Will he follow through?
Wish I could remember the response MMM gave on the news about this pledge. I think it was something to the effect of this is just to stir things up.
Over the last few months I have been following the Chris Christie fiasco, and MMM’s ways of shutting people up and degrading them echo’s Christies….at least to me.
It don’t say nothing about children, cousins, brothers or sisters, nephews & nieces or whatever, etc. So if you got any of them in the game, you’re still good. It’d probably be impossible to honor a pledge like this one anyway, as most of the families with any money in town are already all interwed and co-invested.
SF is a big Hoot colony with money and pressed shirts. Tuuurkey?!
So teatime…. If I happen to own a business earning income from my work that could be in conflict to something I may have to vote on, is that not an issue? If I am a councilor selling insurance or any other service to the city of SF or an entity they are involved in, is that a conflict or not? Heck, we had a councilman that owned a very small lot within 1/2 mile of the “proposed” events center and it was a major point of contention with the citizenry and local news. But I guess if I was a councilmen trying to sell somebody a property in that same area, I am just doing business?
So carhart605 – Jamison is that breath of fresh air that will restore integrity? I may need some proof besides a pledge and a signature. These are politicians for God’s sake. I hear Jamison is printing up “Hope and Change” posters.
OldSlewFoot: If there truly is a conflict such as you describe, then a mayor with integrity would abstain from the vote. A mayor with integrity would also not have to seek advice from a taxpayer paid city attorney, because there would be no gray area. If any situation even seems to be slightly conflicting, then a mayor with integrity would err on the side of caution and abstain from a vote.
No one expects a mayor to give up their “civilian” means of making a living. There has to be something to go back to when the mayor is no longer mayor. A mayor of integrity is honest with his disclosure and keeps his promise to be trustworthy.
Just a house broker, right? Take a gander at the Jamison Company webpage, ads for lot sales in the Prairie Hill development all over it. Looks like Van Buskirk hired Jamison as the lead broker for the project.
Also, if I’m not mistaken, isn’t this the adjoining development to the controversial project recently converted from mixed use to high-density apartments?
Yeah, no conflict, none at all. Nothing to see here. Move along.
So Slew – I do think Jamison will be a breath of fresh air compared to his predecessor. A lot of people are starting to feel that way from what I am hearing.
MHS, you are still grasping at straws.
How is RMB’s development at 85th & Western related to Jamison when Huether is one of their investors?
Re-read post #9. If you can’t grasp the difference between your “argument”, you will never understand this issue.
While MHS may be a lost cause, it appears from the Argus poll that the rest of Sioux Falls isn’t. Last I looked over 400 people had voted and 76% agreed that the mayor should not be involved in local business projects.
Well Carhart, making money is making money, regardless of whether it’s on a w-2 or a 1099. Trust, me, I’m a tax lawyer.
Further, Jamison real estate is selling lots for a developer in a city-approved development. Did Jamison vote to approve the development for the good of the city or to have inventory for his firm to sell? Even further still, the objections to the 85th & Western development come from the landowners, some or all of whom bought their lots through Jamison real estate.
He’s carefully drafted the “pledge” to refer to investments only. Why not “I will not vote or take part in city actions that may enrich me or help my business”?
At the end of the day, pledges are just stupid and always come back to bite the candidate who proposed them. That’s the point of my post, which you chose to ignore, it is the appearance of impropriety, not money actually changing hands, should be the standard for ethical behavior for all elected officials.
Finally,
In light of 36 years of Republican rule in Pierre, the EB-5 scandal, and the lack of transparency in Republican governance in the state of South Dakota, do you really think that Republican Jamison would bring any real change to City Hall as its mayor?
How do you like these apples?
mhs: Words “trust” & “lawyer” in the same sentence? You gotta be kidding.
You’ve heard the joke: “What you have is a shortage of sand.”
“Nothing to see here. Move along.” Hmmm. Perhaps more apropos to your sentiments: “Nothing to BELIEVE here. Move along.”
Methinks your credibility is resolutely cratered.
And the ramifications of signing such a pledge and then ignoring it once elected are what exactly?
Sorry to say it, but this is nothing more than a clever attempt by Jamison to garner some media attention. If he was sincere in wanting to prevent sitting Mayors or Councilors from profitting from such city projects then why isn’t he proposing a city law that would make it illegal?
Unless your name is Grover Norquist, pledges are meaningless and hold no value. I’m sure most would agree with the pretext and that a Mayor shouldn’t be investing in such projects, but a pledge isn’t law and isn’t binding in any way.
I was thinking Jamison might have a chance, but if he is resorting to this it makes me wonder if he has seen some numbers that suggest a 25 point gap.