Just another Sioux Falls city council executive session
Every Friday afternoon I peruse the upcoming council agenda and meetings for Tuesday. Next Tuesday’s informational meeting has a ‘very curious’ executive session;
As stated this could be about an elected official (mayor or city councilor) or a about a city employee (specifically a city council employee since they are being asked to be a part of this). I have no idea which it is, but have my guesses. So I will says this.
If it is a city public employee, it should be held in executive session. They have special rights when it comes to reprimands and termination. I didn’t write the rules, but they are what they are.
If it is a city councilor (considered a part-time public employee) or the mayor (a salaried full-time employee) there is absolutely NO reason to put this in executive session. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard, and the public has the right to know if they are acting unethically, and equally the elected official should have the right to face their accusers in a public forum and tell their side of the story to the public, the ones who hired them.
If, and that’s a big If, it is an elected official, I encourage them to request the bloodletting in a public forum.
What do I think? I find it very peculiar that a sitting city councilor can sit on the executive board of the Chamber and not have a conflict of interest, or a sitting mayor plastering his name on a building that received $500K of tax payer money being AOK, but if a city councilor may be involved with promoting citizen led initiatives they are considered ‘unethical’.
What’s that saying about throwing the first stone?
I don’t know a lot, but I do know that elected officials are afforded the same 1st amendment constitutional rights as regular citizens. I also know that the oath they take is to uphold the US Constitution above the state constitution and city charter.
Tuesday is either going to be very interesting if this is an elected official, or very boring if an assistant city clerk is taken to task behind closed doors for taking too long of a break (next time they need to hide in the back alley of the old Ming Wah with the parking meter attendants).
What do you think? If it is an elected official, do you agree that it should be a public hearing?
Disturbing. No doubt it’s coming from the mayor. Everything he does is undemocratic. I suspect it’s a move to reprimand 2 Councilors who weren’t with him on funding for the Admin Building. Ordinances do not allow appeals into court. They’re done in and their only appeal is constitutional grounds. It’s a four year process ending in state court. In cities with a constitutional charter, a public recall vote is required for elected officials. This mayor has learned how to circumvent the law.
I would look at an ethics violation or reprimand as a badge of honor, especially if it comes from practicing their 1st amendment rights. Elected officials have a right to talk to the media as long as it is NOT about confidential items like contract negotiations or public employees. They are treading into very, very, very dangerous waters if they think they can get an ethics violation to stick on 1st amendment rights. We know our charter violates many constitutional statutes, limiting free speech would be a new one.
The six Councilors are afraid of the mayor. They’ll sacrifice citizen voting privilege to save themselves. They’re cowards.
So the insiders want to quash the outsiders in the name of team play and getting along. By identifying a recognizable leader for all the folks who have any kind of concern or complaint about city government they legitimize that opposition. How did marginalizing Stagger’s work out for them?
You soon forget that they filed an ethics complaint against Staggers, in the midst of the election against Huether. Clever move, they are trying it again this time, except this time it’s going to explode in their faces.
I also find it funny that one of the only citizens to speak in favor of the building got a central air unit donated to him from some public employees. Ironically, since he has a health condition that warrants AC, he could have gotten a low interest or no interest loan from community development to pay for the unit, if he is in such dire straits financially.