“Oh Bullsh*t”

Bruce got kicked out of the Board of Ethics meeting on December 22, 2017 he caused to happen. Why? This is what we always ask when secrecy is more important than the truth.

We all learned Sioux Falls city government based on secrecy enforced by the strong mayor form of rule.

There was a recusal problem leading up to the November 7, 2017 Sioux falls City Council meeting. Bruce asked several people that night why the recusal, then restudied the exhibits, talked with local media (to put it in context) and figured out a councilor did a boo-boo.

So what else could Bruce do but file an ethics complaint? Yup, another one was filed a couple of weeks after the fact on November 30, 2017 with the City Attorney’s office, for a review by the Board of Ethics. (there had been a deferral, later dropped by the developers)

This video is the result of the filing. The offending (in many other ways too) Councilor decided to keep she/he/it identity secret from the public. A “problem” now, before the filing, Bruce discussed the issue with many people, so it became an “open secret”. How can something publicly researched be made un-public? Like putting a genie back in the bottle, it can’t happen. Smart people can put two and two together and figure out what is happening if they want to know.

Add to the Friday board hearing fun, the accused in question decided to personally reveal to a local watchdog reporter who happen to be waiting patiently for the verdict. The Councilor’s “bullsh*t” comment was the confirmation.  Like other Sioux Falls executive sessions Bruce has helped to reveal over the past few years, it’s easy to figure out what is going on by paying attention, then watch who goes in and out of the room.

This same councilor has repeatedly made promises of ethics investigations when other members didn’t do as commanded. Let’s just say, Hmmm….

Interesting findings from this session:

1. Once the complaint paperwork gets filed, the filer can no longer present evidence or corrections, and

2. The filer is kicked out of the room, not able to defend the filing, and

3. When the issue involves a City Council member, the City Attorney must recuse. Does this hold true for a mayor, directors? (again, Hmmm…..) and

4. Most importantly, the ruling sets a precedent allowing illegal activities of a Sioux Falls official to not be unethical.

Catch the impact of number 4? Think about the myriad of questionable city activities our local reporters are bringing to light Christmas week 2017. Are these questionably legal maneuvers now ethical, not subject to ethics sanction?

Bruce has asked why a Home Rule Charter community cannot get help with open meeting violations. We now have a ruling from our Board of Ethics saying screw you for asking.