In a 3-1 decision (Sue Roust voted to say it was OK to circulate) the Board of Ethics told the RW3 (Brekke, Stehly & Starr) that they didn’t think it was ‘ethical’ to circulate petitions for Triple Check the Charter.
Their reason? They said that since the 3 of them are in a supervisory role with the city clerk, Tom Greco, that it would make it difficult for him to act fairly when checking the petitions if one of them turned in signatures. While that is all fine and dandy, Roust pointed out that it is no different then turning in petition signatures for running for re-election to the council.
I think that they could just sign an affidavit saying that they would not discuss the petition with Tom and vice versa and have the city attorney notarize it. I also think by telling them NOT to circulate petitions, it violates their 1st Amendment rights.
A lot of Hoo-Hah over nothing. The BOE did tell them that they could assist with the petition drive though, just NOT collect signatures.
In government and politics there is a direct line between votes and votes.
That’s not a typo.
It means that when you enter the arena of elected office every vote you take becomes potential fodder against you. That’s just part of the deal and most people know that going in.
Party caucus leaders in legislatures and Congress will perform all sorts of procedural gymnastics to either prevent their members from taking a “bad†vote or forcing the folks on the other side into the same.
For better or worse, that’s the game.
It’s fun to watch in the hands of the masters.
It’s pathetic in the hands of amateurs.
That’s what I was thinking on Tuesday night during City Council Bingo at Full Circle Book Co-op.
The issue: Whether to look into diverting some parking ticket money to the Banquet’s SOS program, which collects school supplies for low-income families.
NOTE: Before we go any further can we just say that we all love the good people at The Banquet? If you don’t, raise your hand. Good. That saves us some time.
NOTE 2: This one is for the City Council. We all love The Banquet, as evidenced by Note 1. You don’t have to tell us that you do as well.
NOTE 3: If you didn’t see the City Council meeting on Tuesday, based on the comments, I can only assume each of the members has donated thousands of dollars to The Banquet.
Back to the issue of the parking ticket money and the low-income students. Councilor Theresa Stehly forwarded a resolution to ask Mayor Paul TenHaken and his people to look into a Las Vegas deal under which ticket cash was diverted to a similar program.
Now, let’s just say for the record that any time you’re using Vegas as your example, maybe you’ve gone a little off the mark. That being said, we’re talking about a pretty harmless request, a resolution saying can you look into this.
Boom.
Done.
Move on.
Which would be all well and good if our current collection of city councilors weren’t so concerned about what Theresa is doing, or saying, or writing.
Instead of voting no and letting it go, which in truth is the correct vote for all kinds of reasons, Councilor Curt Soehl decided to up the game with an amendment to the resolution.
That’s where the wheels came off.
All of them.
Wheels hanging out of the trees.
Gone.
The details at this point get a little fuzzy, but basically the city attorney said the amendment to the resolution would require a public notice, etc. etc.
But the underlying issue here is that Councilor Soehl thought it was a good idea to poke Councilor Stehly in the eye with a procedural stick.
The best defense against a bad guy with a stick is a good guy with a stick.
Wait, that analogy took a turn. Oh well, weapons.
Let’s just say that it went bad and after a bit of wrangling and ridiculous positioning the entire council looked like blithering fools.
Political positioning in legislative bodies is an art.
This was not that.
I get that there’s a fissure on the council. It’s 5 to 3 in a lot of situations in which there is disagreement.
NOTE 4: But for a couple hundred public service sector union votes that put Soehl in that seat, it could very well be 4 to 4. Think about that for a second.
And if you don’t like Theresa Stehly, that’s fine, you probably have similar opinions in your echo chamber. And to be clear, she’s not a political strategist.
In fact, let’s get back to politics. Specifically, let’s talk about elections.
Former councilor and state legislator Kermit Staggers won a lot of elections and I would venture that about 6 percent of people actually agree with him on philosophy. But the man was an advocate.
He showed up.
He listened.
That’s what Theresa is, an advocate for people who don’t have a voice.
That plays my friends. It always has and it always will.
Here’s my advice to Councilor Soehl and like-minded folks who want to try and use the legislative process as a political tool.
Be careful.
Back in my reporting days, in a land far, far away, we used to have a saying.
I guess one of the city councilor’s mother has been popping around on different social media platforms and defending their child over their NO vote on the SOS charity. It’s not the first time I have seen her (and this person’s spouse) come to her child’s defense. Heck, they don’t even live in this state. While my mother does comment on my site, she knows I have big kid pants and can defend myself. Maybe it was all the cabbage she fed me as a child?
Either way, what bugs me the most about the situation is that first off, I find it a bit hypocritical of the RS5 to say they don’t approve of giving away around $5K because of the Enterprise fund rules when they didn’t blink an eye and set a precedent after giving $1.5 million to a PRIVATE non-profit from the entertainment tax fund, something that had NEVER been done before. But you know how it goes, when Denny says ‘JUMP’ everyone says ‘HOW HIGH’? I was against the theatre giveaway and I was against the SOS giveaway for the same reasons RULES, which leads me to the second reason why this whole thing irritates me.
The school district has the funds to do this, especially after giving large raises to administrators. In fact, one administrator got a $20K raise from 2019-2020. Ironically, if the SFSD decided to do this, it may not cost them a penny. They could easily ask companies like BIC or MEAD for donations of product they can’t sell. The program could also be anonymous, so not to embarrass the children who are asking.
While I commend the Banquet for doing this, and all the people who generously give, I think that both the city and school district are very well funded and can provide these things without a big pissing match or elected official’s parents getting involved. A pretty petty fight over some notepads and backpacks. Everyone involved needs to grow up and make this a TEACHABLE moment in compromise and consensus.
Where: Old Council Chambers in City Hall. 224 West Ninth Street
Councilors Janet Brekke, Theresa Stehly and Pat Starr will be asking for an advisory opinion on their rights to participate in the ongoing “Triple Check the Charter” petition drive.
The RW3 (Right Way Three) will be bringing evidence that other elected officials have circulated petitions while in office. Mark Mickelson did while serving in the State Legislature, Christine Erickson did (school start date) while serving on the city council and Anne Hajek did while serving on the Minnehaha County Commission.
At the Sioux Falls city council meeting Tuesday night, there was another fight of sorts. It had to do with an attorney who represents several bar and casino owners in town who just can’t get over the fact they should have ONE employee per casino. In the rest of the state, where hillbillism is alive and well, towns are allowed to have an imaginary line in between licensed casinos, so basically they can have ONE employee run two casinos. The state only allows 10 machines per VL license. This is regulated by the state, and the state legislature has NO desire to increase that number, so munipalities like to bend the rules a bit and create weird boundaries between casinos, or should I say NO boundaries.
I think the state legislature should repeal video lottery. As we have seen in Sioux Falls, all they are, are magnets for trash, robberies and various other crimes. I laughed when the attorney who was representing the casinos said that they are ‘small business owners’. He said it like they were the corner grocery store in a small town just trying to get by. Most small businesses have a business model, you pay them for a service or product. Casinos simply take your money and you get nothing in return. I can almost guarantee the state takes in less taxes then are paid out for the problems caused by video lottery. But that is a discussion for another day. Item #15, which was a 1st reading passed for a 2nd reading hearing. It’s a reach around of sorts that would allow casino owners in Sioux Falls to have ONE employee for two casinos, like a lot of other towns in South Dakota. While it passed for a 2nd reading, I think Stehly and Starr made it clear they don’t support it and that it makes the casinos less safe.
But Item #15 isn’t where this ended. While a majority of the council seem to approve of this rule change, when it came to amending and adding to the legislative priorities list at the end of the meeting, they seemed to show their true colors of hypocrisy. Starr made a motion to add to the priorities list that basically state law should change so VL casino owners could have 25 machines per license. I literally laughed out loud, and laughed even harder when the council voted down his amendment, the exact same members who were for item #15.
l3wis 