I find the Sioux Falls ethics commission living in a ‘Bizarro World’ lately, they find nothing wrong with a sitting mayor plastering his name on a facility that receives a half-million in public funds, and a city councilor sitting on the Chamber Board (Chamber receives public money) But, Boy Oh Boy, don’t be one of those evil committee people from the opposing party;
Councilors Kermit Staggers and Christine Erickson serve as precinct committee officers for the Republican Party. Nothing stops them legally from holding the position, but at least two ethics board members thought it was too close to being considered a public office.
Most people in the public don’t care what committees or clubs council people belong to. I certainly don’t. But let’s look at the facts;
1) It is NOT illegal for Staggers or Erickson to serve on these committees.
2) The city council position is a NON-Partisan position, and NO party committee can appoint or designate a city council or mayoral candidate. So their position on the committee is irrelevant when it comes to city government.
3) If the commission considers councilors Erickson & Staggers’ membership unethical, what is their opinion on Huether being a Democratic delegate for Obama? Doesn’t seem it is any different, since neither position affects municipal government.
In other words, they have NOTHING to do with each other, so NO conflicts of interest.
So someone asked me, “Who filed the opinion?” Actually the city attorney asked the councilors if this wanted to be reviewed. Remember, Staggers has been through this before, and it was thrown out after he hired an attorney and fought it legally.
The irony is that Swanhorst was on the ethics commission when this was first addressed, so it was a conflict of interest for him to be voting on this again, especially when this was determined already that it is a trumped up charge. Hey, Swany? Where are your ‘Ethics’ in this matter?
Also, only three ethics members voted, Staggers asked if this was legal? I believe there is five commission members, so is three considered a quorum?
Lastly, who is really behind this? The city attorney has a boss who directs him. And it ain’t Santa Claus.
I have spoken to Kermit about this, but NOT Christine, I do know that Kermit has NO intention of resigning as a committee person, and he shouldn’t.
The ethics commission is proving more and more that they are a joke, might as well have wind up robots from Zandbroz Variety making these decisions, at least they don’t have tom foolery running through their veins.
ADDITION: As for Karsky ‘recusing’ himself from any votes that involve the Chamber of Commerce, that will be a little difficult to do. Many businesses who are Chamber members come before the council weekly, whether they are asking for a contract in the consent agenda or a malt beverage license or a rezoning on development. Will Karsky recuse himself when these Chamber members are asking for permission to do something from the city and city council? Technically, that is what Karsky is saying. If that is the case, and if he is willing to stick to his promise of recusal, they might as well just put his chair in the other room, because he won’t be able to vote on too many things. Dean, you need to resign either from the Chamber Board or the City Council (I’m rooting for the city council, the Chamber can have you.)
Really shows how dumb the ethics committee is.
A party precinct person has nothing to do with government.
The irony of all this is when Knudson was running against Staggers for council, the SD Democratic party was helping to raise money for Knudson (a Republican) and I think they helped gather petition signatures. I guess it isn’t unethical if you are raising money for someone in the opposing party. LOL.
I don’t see City Councilor Karsky’s name mentioned anywhere on the Chamber site as a Board member.
Was he just elected to this position?
It’s beginning to look a lot like Tornow. The city attorney is putting himself with Huether and developers as clients. Never mind he should be representing the whole city.
I’d say start looking for an assistant city attorney and bring him in now for when the city attorney is dismissed.
Huether should be scared there’s potential for a civil rights case (recent citizen false arrest). For a rights case, the FBI automatically comes in. Also, his and council bonds do not apply. They can be sued for their personal assets. Best recourse, fire the city attorney.
The thing that frosts me is that the Ethics Board thinks they can rule on whether a council member can serve on a church board. By what bizarre stretch of the imagination is that a “public office”??
Just because these people are on a committee named “ethics” doesn’t preclude them from being unethical. These are very flawed individuals trying to be part of something bigger dreaming thoughts of grander places in society. As in any dictatorship, the leaders find people to put their stamps of approval on their illegal activities to add an air of legitimacy / legality.
Anyone who has studied world history and comparative government would see right through Huether and his plans.
This has nothing to do with Erickson or Karsky, they were only brought into it to make it look like they were not singling out Staggers. I know that the mayor was furious with Kermit for pressing for answers about the EC siding. They are just trying to tarnish Kermit’s reputation, which is ironic, since he is one of the most transparent and honest councilors, he was the same way when he served on the state legislature. You may not always like the decisions Kermit makes, but he would never be deceptive and certainly wouldn’t base his decisions on his campaign donations.
Beautiful day to break ground on the new indoor public pool!
The City Ethics Commission is absolutely correct on this unethical behavior by Commissioners Staggers and Erickson. Staggers certainly should have known that his behavior was and is unethical.
I agree totally Mr. Scott.