[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4D5lI_7QZU[/youtube]
What good are open meeting laws? Why do we have them? Bruce Danielson recently filed an Open Meetings complaint because of the City Council’s special meeting called for the regular time, in the regular place with the regular agenda because of a “clerical” error did not follow Sioux Falls City ordinance.
We were promised an explanation but of course we never got one. It’s Sioux Falls city government blasting through another set of loopholes like usual.
Our video today is the volunteer Billboard Study Group looking into the billboard mess created by the hasty implementation of Shape Places. The meeting was actually quite informative. Rick Kiley did a good job moving the meeting through the posted agenda. His fellow board member citizens asked good questions and politely listened to the city staffers there to feed them data. Great.
What’s the point of this video and what does it have to do with Bruce’s affidavit? When Rick Kiley adjourned the meeting and the audience left, why did Shawna Goldammer start a second meeting? The second meeting was not just the members talking about golf or tennis or the Eagles concert. The members stayed in their seats and continued on with an open discussion period they should have had before adjournment.
So here we have testimony from remaining staff, public and lively discussion amongst members which will become a basis for their billboard decisions to come.
What good are open meeting laws? What good are City Clerk staff and City Attorneys when they cut and run without advising average citizens to shut down a questionably proper meeting? Shawna Goldammer has been support staff to many advisory groups, she should have known better or should she?
This is another example of why my cameraman is showing up at more city meetings and events. Our administration runs such a sloppy ship our cameras need to be there to document the carnage. So again, what groups, committees, task forces or boards, organized as official or unofficial, as advisory or administrative required to follow or not to follow state law or City Charter or city ordinance? Why? We citizens just want a level playing field so we know. Too many supposedly public meetings are actually conducted and decisions are made without public notice or input.
This is not abuse. It’s flagrant violation and disrespect for established legal procedures. The oath of office is ‘to protect and defend the constitution’. It’s the duty of all who took this oath to try and stop unofficial gatherings and leave.
Perception:
The first councilor to point out open meetings violation and walk out after adjournment will be our next mayor. The media that does this story will have more viewers and/or readers.
When the game’s supposed to be over, you can still draw the ‘Old Maid’ card.
I wonder what they decided in “The Meeting Before the Meeting” ?
#4 The Guy from Guernsey, hard to record those but a few times we have heard some interesting banter pre-meeting that skirts the rules because the whole group was not part of the discussion.
Thanks for posting this. I’ve never before seen anything like this disregard for the rules in a public meeting and I’ve attended a few more than the average citizen. There was a lot more to learn after the “adjournment” than before. Thanks, also, to Mr. Cameraman.
#5 Cameraman
LOL. In most normal situations, mine would have have been a rhetorical question.
Sadly, as you suggest in your post, with this crew in city government it is an ongoing and real concern.