UPDATE: Notice in Trevor Mitchell’s story;
Asked for comment, TenHaken’s campaign responded with several links to the Federal Communication Commission’s rules on political campaign texts, as well as to the Sioux Falls Code of Ordinances. The city’s code states:
“No city employee shall, directly or indirectly, contribute money or anything of value to or render service in behalf of the candidacy of any candidate for nomination or election to any city office.”
Notice that either Mitchell or TenHaken conveniently left out the last two sentences of the complete ordinance, which gives city employees the right to privately support candidates, just NOT financially.
§ 39.038 POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
No officer or employee under the civil service or appointive officers shall, directly or indirectly, contribute money or anything of value to or render service in behalf of the candidacy of any candidate for nomination or election to any city office. The expression in private of personal views concerning candidates for political office is not prohibited hereby. Violation of this section shall be grounds for discharge or other disciplinary action.
This of course is no surprise how low they will go to try to make it look like they have the law on their sides. Ironically, it seems Poops is the one who may have violated city charter when it comes ethics and employee bonuses;
§ 39.041 UNLAWFUL INFLUENCE.
No person while holding any office in the government of the city or any nomination for or while seeking a nomination for appointment to any office shall corruptly use or promise to use, either directly or indirectly, any official authority or influence in the way of conferring upon any person, or in order to secure or aid any person in securing any office or public employment or any nomination, confirmation, promotion or increase in salary, upon the consideration or condition that the vote or political influence or action of the last named person or any other person shall be given or used in behalf of any candidate, officer or party, or upon any other corrupt condition or consideration.
It seems Paul is trying to deflect from his own ethical challenges trying to play the victim after he attacked a city councilor;
“These are baseless allegations and honestly, way beneath what we should expect from our leaders. Those who know me can see through them for what they are — false, misleading and a desperate attempt for headlines a week before an election. I look forward to continuing to discuss issues like housing, public safety and infrastructure rather than publicity stunts like this.”
Baseless? Who sent the private text with a made up controversy? You did. It is unfortunate that Brekke had to respond to your political stunt. You are such a small petty person. I know hungry toddlers with more grace. You played the same game with Jolene. These are the games of a political hack who has no basic understanding of ethics or running government.
It continued at the informational meeting where Chair Alex Jensen decided to dig on Councilor Starr who had to attend a personal matter so he was late to the meeting saying, “Where is Pat Starr, thought he wanted to ask questions? (about Forward Sioux Falls funding). Starr showed up shortly later and at the end of the meeting he tore into Jensen saying he wasn’t ‘Man enough to say it to his face.’ Jensen tried to deny it and Pat said, ‘We can replay the tape.’ As the gavel was flying the video producer shut the video off, essentially censoring the exchange. That’s open government folks.
This is what it has come to, a bunch of partisan hack rubber stampers who are angry about getting called out for their immense stupidity, arrogance and incompetence.
Previous Post
Unfortunately, Mayor Doxxing has decided to threaten a city councilor that is up for re-election with a made-up crisis. Councilor Brekke is contacting voters with her text messages and some of those voters are city employees. It is completely legal, as she explains. Janet is not offering any kind of compensation to the city employees for posting her signs, and further more, according to city charter, city councilors have NO direct influence over a majority of city employees, only council staff.
This of course is a response from the mayor because Brekke pointed out it being unethical to vote for city employee bonuses before an election, something that directly impacts their employment and compensation. She took the high road and Paul is taking the low road.
I could say more, but I will let Janet explain instead;
City employees aren’t allowed to place candidate signs in their yards. If she’s contacting them asking them to do so, she knows they cannot.
Wrong! They cannot contribute financially but as a private citizen they can show support to a candidate.
§ 39.038 POLITICAL ACTIVITY.
No officer or employee under the civil service or appointive officers shall, directly or indirectly, contribute money or anything of value to or render service in behalf of the candidacy of any candidate for nomination or election to any city office. The expression in private of personal views concerning candidates for political office is not prohibited hereby. Violation of this section shall be grounds for discharge or other disciplinary action.
And while we are at it, you could argue that the employee bonuses were a violation of charter;
§ 39.041 UNLAWFUL INFLUENCE.
No person while holding any office in the government of the city or any nomination for or while seeking a nomination for appointment to any office shall corruptly use or promise to use, either directly or indirectly, any official authority or influence in the way of conferring upon any person, or in order to secure or aid any person in securing any office or public employment or any nomination, confirmation, promotion or increase in salary, upon the consideration or condition that the vote or political influence or action of the last named person or any other person shall be given or used in behalf of any candidate, officer or party, or upon any other corrupt condition or consideration.
Are City Officials, Officers, Employees getting to soft, and trying to disrepect the First Amendment. Would it be time to conduct a First Amendment Audit at all Public City Offices, Buildings, and Other Venues?
What if we walked into City Hall with a Camera, giving a video tour of City Hall, showcasing City Services, giving people a video tour of the building, and conducting a news story?
Freedom of the Press belongs in the hands of the People, in order to provide news stories to the public. Would any city employee have an issue with this?
This attempted intimidation coming from the Mayor is quite laughable. Look at him, trying to be the poster child for good behavior backed by solid ethics and moral character. I thought he was also already playing mind games with her by endorsing her opponent. He continually proves he’s a total ask hole.
“… I obviously have these sorts of tools in my toolbox …”
Paul TenHaken in a recorded voicemail to previous mayoral opponent, April 2018.
Guy, if you’re going to quote the Mayor, you should use the whole thing. He was telling Bio-tech Jo how disappointed he was that she was stooping so low.
He used his toolbox to intimidate his opponent four years ago and it worked. This time he is threatening a candidate that will not be intimidated. What ac A$$ Clown! Oops he might show up at my door step with his 2 henchmen
What? A guy who had one of his friends donate thousands of dollars to his 2018 campaign by funneling them through the names of his friends underage children is now trying to skool someone on ethics? #HaveWeNoShame?
( and Woodstock adds: “Ya, I also wonder what Orwellian person at city hall decided to call police precincts: ‘remote-report-to-work places’?”… )
I got the same text on March 23 from “Ana with Janet Brekke’s city council campaign.” It was exactly as Brekke describes. I’m guessing they simply targeted active voters. Some recipients happen to be city employees. So what. They vote, right?
I get the same thing all the time from Noem and an assortment of PACs. Heck, I even got one on March 17 from Florida senator Rick Scott. That one seemed pretty random. Maybe PTH can look into these, too?
Fundamentally, a yard sign indicates the candidate choice of the private property owner. It’s discrimination if one faction is denied their voter preference.
What’s illegal is consideration (favor or money) for posting advertisement(s). An employee raise or promotion just before an election is or should be illegal.
seems like pauly-t is kind of a petty beeeotch. either that or he’s as paranoid as nixon. feels like something sneaky is going on in city hall and he needs to be surrounded by yes men and women. i’m a conservative, but won’t be voting for that turd…or any of the turds he endorsed.
“The expression in private of personal views concerning candidates for political office is not prohibited hereby.”
Is posting a political sign in your front yard considered an expression in private?
Yes. City employees do not lose their personal and private 1st Amendment rights. There is no language in the city charter that prohibits city employees putting signs in their yards. I couldn’t find it.
Would giving someone the finger, but then using your other hand to shield such a message from others to one side be an example of “…. The expression in private”?
AND, what constitutes “private”? Can it involve discourse between more than two people? For instance, would ten still be private? AND, can you allow more than one person to look at your yard sign at a time. AND, if only one is allowed to look at a time, is it not conceivable that a lot of people could eventually see it, which would then not make it private, and thus, would make this ordinance useless or unenforceable?…. But I bet some at city hall would wish for me to make this last contention private, would they not?
So….one or more current sitting Counselors lent their names to and/or hosted one or more fundraisers for City Council candidates seeking election on April 12. How does THAT square with the above listed Charter codes?
There is no money changing hands in the placement of a yard sign so no finance law violation. This is quite different from giving $25 & $50 gift cards to sway voters or $2000 bonuses to sway voters or paying for children’s admissions to theme parks to sway voters.
The eligible voter’s information just happens to be on an anonymous list, to be used to help them with exercising their legal rights is fully legal.
Now let’s talk about Paul Tenhaken taking a trips to communist China and Dallas without telling us who gave him the money to do so.
“‘…. communist China and Dallas’?” I didn’t know that China was known for its cheerleaders. (But I do know Lee Harvey preferred Russia back in the day.) #JR #Southfork
The real question is whether the City employee should be expected to know the rules and take responsibility for their own actions. Unless the city makes a available a list of off limits numbers there is no practical way to block the practice. City employees are granted so many exemptions from the consequences of their actions by the Courts and Legislature they are not used to taking responsibility for anything they do. I suspect they are scared of the risk they might be accountable for something.
City employees are not allowed to post signs. That guidance has been given multiple times. If that is the correct guidance is questionable, but they can not post signs.
What that has to do with Brekke, I’m not sure. Offering a sign and actually posting it are very different things. PTH should probably worry about himself and his own campaign.
What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander. He can endorse candidates, but his employees can’t say anything or even post yard signs.
No Sign For You, you are incorrect; city employees ARE allowed to have political signs posted in their private yards.
Just for the sake of discussion:
City Ordinance 39.041 – No person while holding any office in the government of the city or any nomination for or while seeking a nomination for appointment to any office shallcorruptly use or promise to use, either directly or indirectly, any official authority or influence in the way of conferring upon any person, or in order tosecure or aid any person in securing any office or public employment or any nomination, confirmation, promotion or increase in salary, upon theconsideration or condition that the vote or political influence or action of the last named person or any other person shall be given or used in behalf ofany candidate, officer or party, or upon any other corrupt condition or consideration.
INFLUENCE – the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways, Sway someone’s intellectual mind
Conferring – have discussions; exchange opinions
I am just thinking out loud – would a “Campaign Sign” be an example of “INFLUENCE” which was conferred upon between a Candidate and a City Employee?
Traditional signage such as yard signs have been a traditional means to influence the voters and since 1984 the use of yard signs has quadrupled. If 40% of the electorate could be potentially swayed by increasing name recognition there is no doubt campaigns far and wide should be using political signage in every way they can!
https://www.signs.com/blog/impact-of-political-signs-in-an-election/
Can a Campaign “Sign” be a form of “influence” in order to convince a voter to vote in a specific manner?
MZ is correct. A sign is influence. Posted in your front yard is in public view. Post a picture of any of PTH’s director’s house with a sign in their front yard. There will not be any or at least shouldn’t be any. All though this limits free speech, it also protects employees from being pressured to have an existing or potential candidates sign in their yard.
City employees have a constitutional 1st Amendment right to support any candidate they want to, and our piss poor city charter cannot usurp it. You also have to take into account, Janet’s text to voters doesn’t force them to take a sign, it is an ask, and in that same text message they can op out. Nobody is forcing them to do anything, and Janet, as a city councilor, has zero authority to terminate them. Paul did the right thing by responding to a city employees complaint, but he did it the wrong way. He could have had a constructive conversation with Janet about it, but he took the chickenshit road with a text message and a threat. You can call it whatever you want, but it was intimidation. It often amaze me how little citizens know about our 1st Amendment, especially people who earn a paycheck from taxpayers. Besides ethics training, maybe city employees need a course on the constitution?
He should have left a message on her phone and told her about his toolbox… Wait a minute, that sounds very familiar (?).
I agree with Scott, just you become a “Public Worker” upon taking City Employment, you do not lose your First Amendment protected rights. However, where I may disagree with Scott slightly, is a “Sovereign People” outside of D.C still have the protected right to manage, rule over, and make any such rules they wish as to govern their “territory”.
IF, if we placed a rule such as 39.041 – that says NO CITY EMPLOYEE can express any such support for a “Candidate” by means of their Official Authority or by means of Influence, that is a rule “WE” agreed to as a RESIDENT” of our collective territory.
Now you have to define legally what the words “Authority” and “Influence” truly represent.
We all can agree, Janet did not break any such campaign finance laws, nor any such laws in general. She had every right to reach out and send post cards (texts) to all registered voters.
“The Employees” and yes they are registered voters – had to caution themselves against participating in that activity, due to City Ordinance 39.041 – it would NOT be Janet that gets in trouble, it would be the “Employee”.
Paul Ten Haken as the Mayor whos job it is to maintain, supervise, and control, and to protect City Officials, Officers, and Employees – has the right to ask Janet to say “Janet, please stop, you may be placing my employees in violation of city ordinance”
Whether or not by citing “ethic violations” went to far, I do not know if he meant that to happen or not. Sometimes ‘we’ say things in a manner we dont always mean. So the accusation that the Mayor “intimidated” Janet cannot be proven, let alone you cant accuse the mayor of doing such.
Really all this down to is two people with totally opposite viewpoints.