2019

We need an Inspector General NOT an Internal Auditor (Guest Post, Bruce Danielson)

The Internal Audit department was established after it was discovered we had an out of control administration. The plan for establishing an Internal Audit department came about because laws were broken by city personnel with no process to make sure it could not happen again (The offenders were never charged with a crime because council chickened out, and the main offender got re-elected to a 2nd term). The framers of our government did not see a leader or employee, willing to destroy the government for the chance to make a personal buck no matter what, in the Home Rule plan they put together.

An Internal Audit department was developed to be a place to go, to verify projects were completed on the up and up. If the City Council wanted to check a contract or process, they were able to have it added to the audit schedule for the year. The Internal Audit staff was not to change the mission or the audit plan for the year. What we have learned over time is how the Internal Audit staff either changed the audit plan because the work was “too hard”, complicated or they didn’t want to do it.

What we have found since the Internal Audit office was set up, staff has never functioned as it was proposed. Internal Audit has become a place of semi-retirement with no expectation of getting any meaningful work done. Internal Audit should not be the go along, get along function as it has been for many years. The Internal Auditor staff or its function should not be feared. If the office or function being audited is on the up and up, an audit should be welcomed. If the department has no issues, they should be recognized for running a tight ship.

The Internal Auditor should never be transferred from a Sioux Falls city department staff. An Internal Auditor staff member should never be put into the position of auditing their prior office, co-workers, family or friends. To think anyone in the Internal Auditor office would be hired out of the finance or public works or city attorney office or any other office now or in the future is just plain wrongheaded and presents a huge conflict of interest.

The Internal Auditor office in Sioux Falls must be a true auditor office. It should not be led by a CPA with bookkeeper bees for staff. The Internal Auditor office could be led by an engineer with a bookkeeper and an investigator. It could be a mix of any number of people from many different types of backgrounds. Curiosity and the ability to think outside the box are probably more important than their ability to build a spreadsheet.

I firmly believe we need an Inspector General office more than a happy clappy Internal Auditor cheering on questionably legal city government actions many of us have seen over the years. The citizens need to have an office they can approach with questionably illegal issues and not have them buried in a bureaucracy, never to see the light of day.

Internal Audit should not be the resting spot of guilty consciences, it should be the blunt force that would come down on a wrong process or person because curiosity ruled the day and found a hidden issue. Finding problems and fixing them is a good thing, it shouldn’t be perceived as a ‘bad cop’. As citizens WE own the government, it’s our money. Anything we can do to save taxpayers money by fixing or streamlining processes should be the ultimate goal. If someone’s feelings are hurt in that process, maybe they need to find another job in the private sector.

Letter Writer misses Jefferson’s point about ‘God’ in schools

I often chuckle when people repeat quotes of our founding fathers in order to argue for their side while ignoring what the founding fathers were actually saying. This letter writer thinks Jefferson wasn’t supporting separation of church and state, but I guess it is how you read the quote and comprehend it;

Jefferson spoke directly against such an incursion of federal power, citing the First Amendment and Tenth Amendment restrictions on the federal government: “Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government.”

I guess, there is no other way to comprehend this statement, except a separation of church and state. But the quote also includes this little ending to try to confuse the reader;

“It must then rest with the States.”

While the States do have their own constitutions, they must follow the highest law of the land, the US Constitution which contains the 1st Amendment. States often try to skirt this very important amendment, and have often failed. There is currently a lawsuit pending on this when it comes to out of state campaign money. But even if states were granted supreme power to ignore the 1st Amendment when it comes to placing ‘In God We Trust’ in schools;

  • Why have they offered to defend school districts in lawsuits? If they think they are creating laws that are constitutional, why would they have to have this disclaimer?
  • Who in this state asked for this legislation? While we are a representational government, who asked our representatives to change the law? Clergy? School Districts? Voters? I have never heard of one single group asking our representational government to do this. Why? Because most people with common sense know this is unconstitutional, and even if it wasn’t, what difference does it make?

Are we so ignorant and naive to believe that by posting ‘God’ in the mess hall of a school somehow we will produce a born again revolution of school kids? Give me a break. If you want your children to have a religious foundation in their education you have the option and the right to send them to a private school.

Our public schools are designed to educate, whether that is math or literature, or working together on a sports team, or creativity in the arts. Our teachers are NOT clergy. Faith is something that needs to be taught by parents with the assistance of faith based organizations that are NOT publicly funded for a reason, it violates the separation clause, something I think Jefferson was VERY clear about. Separation of Church and State is there to PROTECT people of faith from government intruding into your personal beliefs. It’s a good thing. If legislators truly want to SAVE our children from the powers of evil, the first thing they need to do is fund public education and healthcare better, something the state has the power to do, but continues to fail. Once that happens then we can talk about posting signs that actually mean something.

The liquor license dilemma

Our daily paper has an intriguing story about liquor licenses. Mostly a bunch of people whining about the process. If I was in the state legislature I would present what they do in most states and have a yearly licensing fee for selling liquor.  I think it is ok to separate beer and wine from selling full on liquor, but I would combine the those two licenses into one and double that fee.

So how would it work?

• First I would eliminate who could have them, no waiting lists, etc. As long as your establishment was of a certain size and you could prove you were opening a viable business you could have one. Obviously free market competition would stop us from having a liquor bar on every corner.

• I would charge a yearly licensing fee. In larger markets like SF it would be much higher and based on population (like it kind of is now). For example the fee in SF would be $10K a year while in Baltic it would be much lower.

• Grandfathering license holders. This wouldn’t be for eternity, but I would set a time limit for phasing them out. How would that work? First, once a yearly fee is determined you would assess the value of the license you currently own. Each town would be the same within that town. Right now a new license is worth around $190K in Sioux Falls. So if the new licensing fee was $10K a year and you owned one of these licenses in SF you wouldn’t have to pay the fee for 19 years. But I would cap it at 20 years. In other words in 20 years after the new law takes place all of the old style of licenses would be null and void.

• The old licenses would NOT be transferable to another location but could be to a new owner at the same location with the same business model.

• I would give the option of selling the old license back to the municipality at 50% of the value if you wanted to get out of the bar business. I think this change alone would eliminate a lot of the old licenses. The new licensing fees would easily cover these costs for the cities.

Everyone who owns a license now complains they would lose there investment, but I think a plan like I suggested would still give value to that license. I also think that a ‘license’ shouldn’t be considered an investment anyway. It’s a frickin’ license. I think the way the system is set up now, you have a lot of the big guys hoarding the licenses, and that’s not fair. This would even the playing field and would actually produce better establishments based on service instead of how much money you have or the value of your liquor license. Think about it, what other license in SD is forever? There isn’t one that I can think of. Even your driver’s license has to be renewed every couple of years.

Is our state legislature brave enough to take such steps? Nope. They are more worried about protecting a certain class of people instead of fostering entrepreneurship. Besides, they are more concerned about God, Guns and Abortion.

Sioux Falls City Council Agenda • April 16, 2019

City Council Informational • 4 PM

• 2020 Municipal Election Update by city clerk Tom Greco

• Congressional City Conference, National League of Cities, Councilor Brekke

• Executive Session (I believe the City Council is getting close to hiring a NEW internal auditor. As I understand it, no big surprises, no outsiders, just more of the same.)

City Council Regular Meeting • 7 PM

Item#2, Invocation, It’s been a long time since a NON-Christian has done the Invocation, this time a Hindu. I hope the X-Tians don’t melt.

Item#41, Ordinance, 2nd Reading, Cement Pad sponsorship at Levitt. Weird. Wondering how long before a sponsorship fence will be put up? It will look like a ballpark soon and all the DT baseball dreamers will have their way.

Items#42-43, 2nd Reading, Ordinance, City buying more Falls Park property. Can’t have enough parking at Falls Park 🙂

Item#44, 2nd Reading, Ordinance, Fiber Optic easement that may screw up the railroad redevelopment, redevelopment. Not sure why all the fiber optic needs to be laid, I thought we were going 5G?

Item#49, 1st Reading, Special Appropriation for flood prone homes. 2nd reading in special meeting next Tuesday. This will be an interesting discussion.

Quote of the week from Mayor Paul TenHaken when talking about cracking down on prostitution in Sioux Falls;

“We need the johns and sellers to see Sioux Falls is not screwing around with this,” TenHaken said.

Click to Enlarge Agenda Calendar

UPDATE: The Railroad Redevelopment deal was the worst negotiation in the history of our city

UPDATE: Listen to interview HERE.

Former Mayor Bucktooth & Bowlcut is at it again with his recent ‘media’ tour;

“The thing that I believe that was probably the biggest win for the city during the eight years I was so honored to serve, involved finally inking the deal with Burlington Northern (to move the railroad switchyard from 8th Street).

As I have stated in the past, this was a horribly negotiated deal. We didn’t get a majority of the trains to move out of downtown, we paid to much for the land (that the Feds probably owned to begin with) and we have yet to cut a deal with anyone. One deal fell through and another developer is offering HALF of appraised value.

This is a habit with Bowlcut that he just cannot seem to break. When something actually is a very bad deal, he says it’s the greatest thing ever. I always say, to say you are being TRUTHFUL is different than actually being TRUTHFUL.