A very suspicious Executive Session

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;

Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. The term “employee” does not include any independent contractor; and Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal counsel about proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters per SDCL 1-25-2 (1) and (3), respectively.

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?